On balance, it is benificial to place political conditions on humanitarian aid.

Thanks to Liz for this long awaited debate. I hope it will be a good one. I also want to provide one definition that is probably needles, but couldn't hurt anything.Beneficial: producing good or helpful results or effects : producing benefits I add this only because I believe that the word benefial is key in this debate. INTRODUCTION This question has been debated over and over again throughout modern history and still has no definite answer today. This is partially because it pulls morals and “ends justifying means” into question and partially because it has a great deal of real-world importance. In this debate I will demonstrate that placing political conditions on humanitarian aid is beneficial to the party sending aid, the party receiving aid, and the world at large. Let’s examine the purpose of humanitarian aid. Aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies. The kind of humanitarian aid I will be mostly dealing with in this debate is aid given in the aftermath of emergencies caused by the government or other political organizations within a nation. This would entail any emergencies caused by political actions (non-natural disasters) such as genocide, famine crises, clean water crises, or housing crises, just to name a few. Placing political conditions on aid given in the aftermath of natural emergencies such as hurricanes or earthquakes is more of a political tool, rather than an assurance that the aid does its job and further disasters are avoided. Another important aspect of this debate to consider is that this is not a debate over justice or human rights. This is a debate over the benefit of political conditions on humanitarian aid, and this benefit must extend to both parties in regards to the aid. It must benefit the party receiving aid as well as the party sending aid. POLITICAL CONDITIONS ENSURE THAT THE DISASTER WILL NOT BE REPEATED Just as important as solving a problem is making sure the problem never occurs again. Quickly and recklessly sending humanitarian aid to corrupt regimes benefits no one but the corrupt. The disaster of that country will be averted and the current government will remain in power, prone to cause similar disasters. Political conditions can prevent this cycle. By changing the government and policies of a nation, political conditions can help make the nation receiving aid stronger; benefitting that nation, the nation or nations sending humanitarian aid, and the world at large. AID THEFT Another major problem of this aid is that it is commonly commandeered by the military groups within a nation. By dropping off aid to an unprotected settlement, the humanitarian organization could be making that settlement a target for military groups seeking goods to sell for weaponry or use to sustain their armies. This would actually have a negative effect on the party receiving aid, as they would not receive the initial aid they were entitled to and be exposed to violence and theft. It would also have a negative effect on the party sending aid, as this would only harm the foreign nation and prolong whatever disaster is going on, decreasing global stability. According to a U.N. study in the New York Times(1), “as much as half the food aid sent to Somalia is diverted from needy people to a web of corrupt contractors, radical Islamist militants and local United Nations staff members.” Anothe study found a direct correlation between food aid and civil conflict.(2)This is clear evidence that humanitarian aid must be subjected to conditions lest it fall into the hands of the kind of people that cause harm to needy citizens. BOTH PARTIES MUST BENEFIT It is very important to carefully consider the resolution in this debate. On balance, it is beneficial to place political conditions on humanitarian aid. The key word in the title is beneficial. The sending of humanitarian aid, or the transaction, must benefit both parties. This is why political conditions are so important. They provide a clear outline of what the party sending aid requires of the party receiving aid in order for the transaction to occur. Just like in a free market, a transaction will only occur if both parties feel that they benefit sufficiently from it. I want my opponent and the audience to remember this: even to prove that political conditions don’t benefit the party receiving the aid is not enough. Both parties must benefit. The protection of human rights or justice is not paramount in this debate. Political conditions ensure that aid has the desired effect on the receiving country. CONCLUSION I have demonstrated three reasons as to why political conditions must be placed on humanitarian aid to make if sufficiently beneficial for both parties involved. First, political conditions ensure that no man-made disaster is repeated by changing the policies of a country to better protect and serve its citizens. Second, the fact that aid theft benefits no one but oppressors and must be protected against by political conditions. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the truth that at least it this debate, both parties must benefit from the transaction of sending humanitarian aid. The resolution is affirmed. Off to Con SOURCES (1) http://www.nytimes.com...(2) http://www.foreignpolicy.com...(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...