You are on page 1of 3


I Affirm Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust. I value Human Dignity, According to:

Kateb, Professor of Politics, Princeton, THE INNER OCEAN, 1992, p. 9

In sum, there seems to be no generally credible foundation for a critique of rights. Rights

emerge as the only or best way of protecting human dignity, and human dignity remains the highest standard. This is not to deny that there will be strenuous differences of interpretation of various rights and quarrels over the comparative importance of various rights. But by now even some antiindividualists, whether secular or religious, accept the idea of rights as useful or even as an indispensable ingredient in their own thinking about politics and society.
My Criterion: Limiting Imperialism via Conditional Humanitarian Aid Contention 1: Conditional Aid Creates Dependence Young, late Professor of Political Science for the University of Chicago, 2004 (Iris Marion, Modest Reflections on Hegemony and Global Democracy, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, April 2004, pgs. 8-9, AP).
An explosion of recent philosophical writing debates the question :

do obligations of justice extend beyond the

boundaries of a single nation state? While some philosophers continue to maintain that they do not,19 this
positions plausibility is waning.20 Arguments that there are transnational obligations of justice cannot appeal simply to th e facts of need. The

neediness of masses of people and vulnerabilities into which this puts them can at best back moral responsibilities of beneficence. Under this view, agents who can relieve the neediness of distant others ought to do so, other things being equal, but they do not strictly have obligations to do so. On this charity view of the moral claims of needy others on those with more resources, it is up to the donor to decide the level of gift and under what conditions it shall be given. To the extent that there exists transnational aid in the world today, it largely takes this form of beneficence, whether given by governments, private associations, or individuals. Because this structure puts recipients in the position of supplicants who must gratefully abide by whatever conditions donors put on their gifts, it may reinforce relations of global domination more than undermine them.
The best argument for a global scope to obligations of justice appeals to connection as well as need. People in different parts of the

Processes of transnational exchange have produced globalized schemes of social cooperation, and the existing basic structures of this social cooperation are unjust to the extent that they greatly benefit a few while rendering many others poor and vulnerable to domination and exploitation.21 If the basic structures of transnational social cooperation produce and reproduce injustice between peoples, then these structures should be changed. Reflections on methods of
world are connected to one another in diverse and overlapping networks of social cooperation. trade, investment, migration, communication and cultural

producing structural change, however, go beyond my capacity for this paper. Ill mention two proposals for global redistribut ion that could, if acted on, have structural effects: demand for debt cancellation and the establishment of global tax.

Subpoint B: Aid Dependence Leads to Imperialism

Fiona Fox [Catholic Aid for Overseas Development], New Humanitarianism: Does It Provide a Moral Banner for the 21st Century? Disasters, 2001, 25(4): 275289

It is not possible to analyze the changing nature of humanitarian aid without at least asking whether new humanitarianism is a new form of colonialism. The spectre of multi-million-pound NGOs ignoring national sovereignty to march into nation-states, supported by Western armies and declaring the correct way to resolve a hitherto local conflict is surely suspect. In her article on MSF winning
the Nobel Peace Prize, Kirstin Sellars describes an unpleasant but rather familiar image of operational NGOs: Heeding the impulse to take up the latter-day White Mans Burden, battalions of NGOs marched into Mogadishu, Sarajevo and Goma armed with land-cruisers, satellite phones and the latest liberal imperialist orthodoxies. Local governments retreated in their path, and soon many areas in these countries became de facto zones of occupation under the control of the humanitarian armies (1999).

While the old colonialists invoked a civilizing mission, the new humanitarians speak about human rights and ethics. Those groups that comply with the Western version of human rights and conflict resolution will receive aid. Those that reject Western values will be left to their fate. In this way conditional humanitarian aid is becoming yet another tool available to Western governments to control developing countries. In a world in which many of the old institutions, including nation-states, have lost their legitimacy, Western NGOs and governments find themselves defining a new universal set of moral values. Developmental relief and the new human rights humanitarianism are all based on Western moral values which are necessarily posited in opposition to the barbarism of conflicts in the Third World. Several commentators
have pointed out that this may have as much to do with the Wests search for legitimacy in the post-cold war world as it has with resolving Third World conflicts. Certainly the language of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton during the Kosovo crisis reflected their belief that this was about more than helping one group of refugees. Michael Ignatieff points to this: Moreover when policy was driven by moral motives it was often driven by narcissism. We intervened not only to save others, but to save ourselves, or rather an image of ourselves as defenders of universal decencies (1998).

Subpoint C: Africa Proves Conditional Dependence Leads to Imperialism.


Nyatoro. (2008) The History of Foreign Aid Dependency: Challenges for Africa.

Foreign aid has done more damage to African countries. It has led to a situation where African countries have failed to set their own pace and direction of development, free of external interference, since development plans for developing countries are drawn thousands of miles away in the corridors of the IMF and World Bank. This article further noted that developed countries view aid as something to be bartered with. Thus, the West exchanges aid for political or ideological support or uses aid to influence strategic decisions and strengthening allies. The African state has no autonomy to control and direct national capital and even increase its bargaining position with respect to foreign capital. In the light of this, postcolonial African development has been thwarted by external pressure acting against internal values and traditions. In short, aid has led to the re-colonisation of Africa through the strings attached to it. Foreign aid is a tool of statecraft used by the government providing it to encourage or reward politically desirable behaviour on the part of the government receiving it. It is an instrument of coercion and a tool for the exercise of
power with little relevance to the lives of the recipients. More so, the pattern of bilateral aid distribution is explained by donor interests rather than the recipient interests. Realising the failure of aid to African countries, this article recommends the following: There is need to repudiate all forms of foreign aid, excluding disaster relief assistance. The postcolonial state is designed to serve foreign interests thus the state should be recaptured and restructured to serve African interests. For the above two recommendations to take place, there is the need for an exit strategy from aid dependence that requires a drastic move both in the mindset and in the development strategy of countries dependent on aid. There is a need for a deeper and direct involvement of people in their own development. This requires a radical and fundamental restructuring of the institutional aid architecture at the global level.

Basically Judge, We see that Politically Motivated Humanitarian aid leads to dependent third world countries thus enabling the first world to control and manipulate them at their own will. Resulting in Imperialism. Contention 2: Imperialism leads to dehumanization. Foster 03
[John, Professor of Sociology at University of Oregon, The New Age of Imperialism Volume 55, Issue 03 (July-August)]

This new age of U.S. imperialism will generate its own contradictions, amongst them attempts by other major powers to assert their influence, resorting to similar belligerent means, and all sorts of strategies by weaker states and non-state actors to engage in asymmetric forms of warfare. Given the unprecedented destructiveness of contemporary weapons, which are diffused ever more widely, the consequences for the population of the world could well be devastating beyond anything ever before witnessed. Rather than generating a new Pax Americana the United States may be paving the way to new global holocausts.

Contention 3: And Dehumanization impacts outweigh

Berube 07 (Ph.D. U Rutgers) Dehumanization of humanity already has a greater impact than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. Dehumanization is worse than any nuclear war, economic collapse, and genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity is justified. Once justified they seem to be inevitable for evil and dehumanization is evils most powerful weapon.

As we can see judge, The Politically conditioned Humanitarian aid leads to a dependence of third world countries in which they are then coerced by the political conditions resulting in first world imperialism. Imperialism leads to dehumanization which is the only impact that outweighs because once people are dispensable, any atrocity is justified. Thus I urge an affirmative ballot.