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

“These are human beings that need the food. It's not the political system. This shouldn't be argued in a political way." - Lynn Pascoe (U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs) IntroductionThough this round is meant mainly for my constructive, but I’m going to go ahead and address a couple of the things pro brought up in his introduction. Pro explains that the humanitarian aid he will be talking about throughout the debate is aid pertaining to the actions of a government or other political organizations within a nation, rather than aid pertaining to the aftermath of natural disasters. The problem with this is that both types of disaster relief are covered by the accepted definition of humanitarian aid. Thus, this debate should cover all types of humanitarian aid. Pro is right in noting that this debate should cover both the wellbeing of the donor country and the recipient country during the exchange of humanitarian aid. Of course, NGO’s can also be taken into account since they often provide humanitarian aid. Pro should be expected to show that political conditions benifit both the donor and the recipient in most cases in order to win this debate. One last thing to remember is that conditionality and political conditionality are two very different things. Political conditions are policy changes, whereas conditional aid pertains to what ought to be done with the aid. I shall now present my case. C1) Inneffective ConditionsA: Conditions that are not accepted.Countries in need of humanitarian aid generally have a substantial ammount of corruption. This means that there is a high chance political conditions attempting to promote good governance within a corrupt regime will not be accepted. For example, during a food crisis taking place in 2010, North Korea declared they would not abandon their nuclear weapons program. This caused many countries to start denying aid and pushing for political conditions. This caused more harm than good to the poorer individuals in North Korea; of course, as with most corrupt areas, the citizens had no say in the actions of their government, meaning that in places like North Korea (where aid is denied), people are punished for the actions of their government. (1) B: Conditions that are not followed.This is the most common problem, and it’s consequences are fairly obvious. African Online Journals states, “Despite conditions not having been met in the past, Western aid to Africa has been kept running, which renders conditionality ineffective.” (1) In this case the countries were fortunate to not have their aid completely cut off. Gordon Crawford emphasizes that 18 out of every 29 country cases (62 percent) are unable to actually meet political conditions donors place on aid. In many of these cases, aid is either reduced, or suspended. In Haiti’s devastating earthquake of 2010, Haiti suffered from aid suspensions and reductions because conditions were not met. (3) The National Academy of Public Administration notes, “Aid suspensions or deep reductions to force accountability were highly problematic in Haiti.” (4) Afghanistan also dealt with this issue. Aid was denied to Afghanistan due to the choices of the Taliban. Curtis said, “The net impact has been the restriction of the right to humanitarian assistance and the inability of the international assistance community to adequately address short-term life saving needs (5).”Through these points, it is clear that more often than not, conditions are either not accepted or not followed due to corruption. Pro’s impacts pertaining to the promotion of good governance in countries with corrupt regimes can only stand if he first shows examples where political conditions are accepted and followed. C2) Wellbeing of the DonorPro seems to agree that the wellbeing of both parties should be taken into account when looking at humanitarian aid. I would agree with this, and I will show why such conditions actually hurt the donor country. Smith of Beyond Intractability states, “Conditionality is often resented as an invasion of sovereignty, and can backfire on the sender.” (6) Even if the political conditions are set with good intentions, they can seriously cause problems for the donor. In the case of North Korea mentioned earlier, tensions between North Korea and the United States became significantly worse once the aid was refused because North Korea believed that the political conditions were infringing on their autonomy. Oxfam notes that “work that has primarily political or military objectives should not be designated as ‘humanitarian’, because of the risk that one side of a conflict will see it, and potentially all other relief, as part of a military strategy, and take action against it.” (7) When humanitarian aid is combined with political objectives, conflict arises which negatively impacts not just the recipient, but also the donor. Mold states “Donors insisting on policy conditions may soon find themselves sidelined - many developing countries are finding alternative official and private sources of finance that come with fewer strings attached.” (8) Here it is obvious that political conditions will result in loss of credibility for the donor. Also, look to the wellbeing of NGO’s (non government organizations). Daniel Chong explains, “NGO’s generally have less leverage, are insufficiently co-ordinated, and take more responsibility for protecting the most vunerable populations in a conflict. Therefore, attaching conditions to their aid is more problematic.” (9)Here we see that three negative things that can happen to the donor through the promotion of political conditions. Firstly, the donor has to deal with conflict due to the percieved invasion of soverignty. Secondly, the donor loses credibility which ultimately negatively impacts diplomatic relations. Thirdly, NGO’s will be less equipped to protect the more vunerable populations during a crisis, as well as being impacted by the harms pertaining to humanitarian aid from a government. Since pro has the burden of proof, he must provide evidence that shows (on balance) that the donor country actually benifits from attatching political conditions. C3) Quality of the AidThe last thing that shows political conditions are not benificial is the lower quality aid caused directly by political conditions. OECD Secretary Gerald Donald Johnston states, “Untying aid, by restoring the choice to impoverished recipient countries would increase the value of the aid, remove a distortion to world commerce and enhance the dignity of the aid process that has been sullied by the mercantilist attitudes of some in the developed world.” (10) Even if the recipient country successfully follows the political conditions, it must be taken into account that the quality of the aid is being put in jeopardy through the political conditions. Several political conditions force the recipient country to only buy products from the donor country. The recipient country is now required to purchase pricey imports from the donor country instead of using cheaper options to obtain products; as IPS states, the value of the aid can be cut by 25 to 40 percent (11). In addition to this issue, Alastair states, “The amount of aid given and to whom it is given are both consistent with the decisions expected from political leaders who are motivated to enhance their political survival.” (12) Essentially, with political conditions, the aid is based on political survival and not what would actually be successful. ConclusionI have shown that both the donor and the recipient are ultimately harmed by political conditions. Donors will suffer from conflict, loss of credibility, and inability to give quality aid. The recipient will ultimately recieve lower quality aid (or no aid at all). Since conditions are not always accepted, how can pro’s ideas of the promotion of good governance stand? If conditions are mostly not accepted / not followed, it is pointess to try alleviate corruption through the form of short term aid, given the negative impacts it has on both the donor and the recipient. The resolution has been negated.Good luck Malacoda; I am looking forward to your arguments. Sources (1)http://www.cnn.com...(2)http://www.ajol.info...(3)Crawford, Gordon, “Foreign Aid and Political Conditionality: Issues of Effectiveness and Consistency.”(4)http://www.napawash.org...(5)Curtis, Devon. “Politics and Humanitarian Aid: Debates, Dilemmas, and Dissension: Humanitarian Policy Group”(6)http://www.beyondintractability.org...(7)http://www.regjeringen.no...(8)http://www.oecd.org...(9)Chong, Daniel “UNTAC in Cambodia: A new Model for Humanitarian Aid in Failed States?”(10)http://www.oecd.org...(11)Shah, Anup. “Foreign Aid for Various Forms of Assistance”(12)Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. Smith, Alastair. “A Political Economy of Aid.”