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

Thanks for the arguments Con. I'll stick mostly with rebuttals this round and reinforce my argument somewhat as well. INTRODUCTION While it is true that humanitarian aid can also be aid given after natural disasters, political conditions are not usually necessary for that kind of aid because the disaster had little to do with the nation's government, therefore policy conditions would not improve the situation. However, if the government of a nation caused its citizens to have poor living conditions and that is what amplified the natural disaster, then that would fit into what I am debating for. I would also like to point out that, as this most closely resembles a PF debate, the burden of proof is shared equally. As stated in this guide to PF debating, "there is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate. The pro side wishes to convince the audience that the topic should be adopted; the con side wishes to convince the audience that the proposition should be rejected."(1)So my opponent must also work to convince the voters that political conditions are not beneficial. REBUTTALS Conditions that are not accepted While it may be true that in some cases citizens suffer due to their corrupt regimes not accepting conditions, providing aid to foreign countries without political conditions can sustain and strengthen them. Take the example my opponent used. It is well known now that North Korea is very hostile to the U.S. and even made several, albeit weak, attempts to bomb the U.S. So, it was in the best interest of the world at large and especially the U.S. to do everything possible to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. Is it really beneficial for the U.S. to aid a country that would in the future threaten to attack the U.S. with a nuclear bomb? Of course not. Conditions that are not followed This may be a problem, but it is a problem that must be allowed to persist. It certain conditions are not fulfilled, then the party sending humanitarian aid is not benefited properly, therefore aid should not necessarily be sent. Just because some countries are too stubborn and short-sighted to accept political conditions on humanitarian aid doesn't mean that the system should be forsaken. Also, it is quite possible that some political conditions are unreasonable or impossible to quickly accomplish. Again, just because the political conditions are flawed doesn't mean that the system is. Reasonable and achievable political goals must be set. Also, regarding my opponents example of disastrous aid in Haiti, I would like to point out that humanitarian aid to Haiti was not actually suspended. "The Bush Administration (1989-1993), and other nations at Aristides insistence, embargoed,then blockaded Haiti, suspending all but humanitarian aid."(2)The political conditions were placed on developmental aid, not humanitarian aid, which is a completely different debate. Well being of the Donor Once again, my opponent's many sources may appear impressive, but most of them lack substance or even lean in my favor. My opponents first source in this section speaks if referring mainly to political conditions that do not properly take into account local politics. Of course if the political conditions are flawed then the outcome will be flawed. Source two in this section refers to "work that has primarily political or military objectives" (3)As I have already shown, the political conditions placed on humanitarian aid have more to do with the well being of the recipient than the donor. They can be used to prevent aid going to military organizations or corrupt officials and prevent supporting corrupt regimes. One could hardly consider that work to have a primarily political objective. Source three in this section has several problems."For a start, donors have not been consistent in applying conditions." (4)That is obviously a failure of properly applying conditions not of political conditions themselves."They have often been criticized for ignoring local contexts when negotiating policy priorities." (4)Again, a failure of properly applying political conditions. Reasonable and achievable political conditions are the only valid ones. "Donors are right to insist on transparency and good fiduciary practices to guard against the embezzlement of aid monies.Similarly, they should expect aid recipient countries to adhere to international human rights standards. Finally,they are entitled to a degree of quality assurance:without development results to show for their aid, OECD-based taxpayers will withdraw their support for aid programs." (4) These sure sound like political conditions to me. Adhering to human rights standards, insisting on transparency, and being entitled to quality assurance. How could all of these objectives be accomplished by the recipient country without policy changes? If anything, the sources in this round benefit me and provide more validity to my case. Quality of the Aid Again, my opponents sources continue to be about developmental aid rather than humanitarian aid. "What is official development aid and how much is untied?"(5)That is literally the heading to one of my opponents sources. This is not relevant to the debate at hand. And even if it was, it still isn't hard to rebut this contention. If the political conditions on developmental aid involve trade agreements, then so be it. The recipient country is being given short term money to stimulate their economy and the country sending aid is receiving a reliable, long-term trading partner. I see no problem with this type of transaction. This might apply in Con's favor in a debate over justice, but this debate is over benefit. Even so, these arguments are all pretty much irrelevant because this debate is over humanitarian aid, not developmental aid. Conclusion: Although I did not provide an actual section of text this round strengthening my argument, my rebuttals and many of my opponent's sources have done this for me. I have negated Con's claims and bolstered my own. And I do not have the sole BOP in this debate, so keep that in mind during further rounds. Thanks for the arguments Liz, and I'm sorry, but there is only room for one Kevin G on this site. And I must insist that I am him. http://www.youtube.com... Sources: (1) http://www.cciu.org... (2) http://www.napawash.org... (3) http://www.regjeringen.no... (4) http://www.oecd.org... (5) http://www.oecd.org...