You are on page 1of 2

PFD-Affirmative St. Thomas H.S. M. Dowdall & K.

Lozano Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan In order to maintain clarity in this round my partner and I offer the following definitions from the authority of Professor Isabel Maddock of Oberlin College. Suspend all assistance to Pakistan- Temporary cessation of aid to Pakistan except in cases of dire emergency or a point in which reintegration of aid is deemed fit.

Framework: Given the serious potential and probable divestitures and negative actions against the United States and her citizens presented by the immediate continuity of assistance to Pakistan and the inherently destructive procedures and results therein, my partner and I urge an affirmation of todays resolution. Furthermore, upon examination of our precedented international and domestics systems and spheres we find the framework and paradigms of this debate thusly, that it is the primary duty of the United States to preserve her ideals of equality and rights, while maintaining the safety and interests of her people and all people everywhere. Contention I: Sending aid to Pakistan marginalizes regional legitimacy and ultimately undermines and hurts both the United States and Pakistan. The allocation of aid to Pakistan is not only at this time an imprudent expenditure given our debt situation but also harmful act against the global community. Current United States aid policies towards Pakistan reflect the classic and recurring imperialist assumption that the west knows best which has in other nations and will again in Pakistan lead to detriments that not only pose inherently bad ends and means but also pose several inherently dangerous scenarios. Sub-Point A: This aid is detrimental to the U.S. and Pakistan. The creation of second class global citizens as a result of our aid leads to Pakistani resentment towards the U.S. and the creation of deeper rooted, more action oriented, anti American sentiments. Attorney Ingrid Hansen notes (interview: Lawton Constitution, march 2008) A trend we see with the so called beneficiaries of our aid is one of hate. Because our policy is designed to incentivize what we perceive to be good and disincentivize what we perceive to be bad cultures feel as if their validity is lost in our bureaucracy which is augmented by the difficulty of changing this inter systemically. Because of this these cultures will move on to act more and more radically, more and more often. This threat of extremism is one which shows the counter intuitive nature of U.S. action and the dangers of this aid with the necessitation of their suspension until a point in time when they can be less adversely distributed.

Sub-Point B: U.S. assistance for Pakistan intrinsically destabilizes the region and continually harms the U.S. not only security wise but also fiscally. The problematic aspect of our policy towards Pakistan is that we bind ourselves into a proverbial catch 22, the cultural destabilization of Pakistan as discussed in our first sub-point means that the U.S. must expend more and more money into the region to seemingly stabilize it while in actuality further destabilizing Pakistan. This leads to a paradox wherein the U.S. further and further weakens herself, while perpetually strengthening extremist behaviors towards her in her time of need. Contention II: Our Pakistani aid is misallocated toward government organizations that our antagonistic to U.S. ideals. As of last year 10 billion dollars of American assistance went towards military and martial related expenditures, the same military that for years harbored Osama Bin Laden from American justice. As James Wallace (UST 2009) notes The government of Pakistan may be moving towards a semblance of democracy, but Pakistani military forces still resemble a corrupted , terror sympathizing, pseudo-tribal-esque force that strongly opposes change. The very idea of giving money to this oppressive force should strike fear into the heart of any person concerned with national security, especially considering that contemporarily we would further be strengthening the previously discussed detrimental paradox that not only weakens freedom but abates change. Contention III: U.S. Pakistani aid threatens the solvency of U.S. India relations. The economically essential international relationship of U.S. and India is gravely threatened by our assistance to Pakistan. Recent stress between India and Pakistan has lead to severance of Indian connections with other less developed nations in an attempt to weaken Pakistan and unfortunately the U.S. could be next, this is exemplified by Roger Ferguson (Fluor middle eastern fiscal report and strategy 2008) The progressive Indian cutting of ties is not only limited to minor allies, if we doesnt tread carefully, we could invariably be next. Therefore, it is because of the noticeable congenital threat to not only Pakistani but American prosperity and immutability that we urge an affirmation of the resolution in favor of national and fiscal security.