The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue stated, “conditionality should not be applied to humanitarian action; that it is both ethically and practically inappropriate. Ethically it runs counter to the very nature of humanitarianism” It is for this unethicality that I stand in firm affirmation of the resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust. For clarification, I define Humanitarian Aid as “aid and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies” (Humanitarian Innovative Fund).
My value for this debate will be Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, in which he wrote “Always act according to a moral principle that you would desire to be a universal law. ” This value will be supported with my criterion of Upholding International Law, particularly Human Rights Laws, described by The Legal Information Institute as “Inalienable rights of all members of the human family. ” (Right to fair opportunity; to food etc. )I will utilize the following contentions; conditional aid is unethical, conditional aid does not achieve the intended outcomes, and the removal of conditional aid improves aid quality.
Aid burdened by conditions is unethical. This is my first contention. When aid is provided hand-in-hand with political conditions, the public begins to associate this aid with political viewpoints. On this point Thorsten Volberg, who has obtained a Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Assistance wrote, “This puts Non-Government Organizations at risk of being intimately associated with the powers and forces that many in the recipient state might see as the actual cause of their rather humiliating position; making for rather difficult circumstances for agencies to work in.
” These receivers may be unhappy accepting aid from organizations that, contrary to their belief, don’t have a political affiliation in their country whatsoever. A massive majority of conditional aid only serves the self-interests of the donor state, for example, The Humanitarian Aid Regime in the Republic states, “Food aid actually benefits the donor’s economy by allowing prices to remain elevated while simultaneously disposing of surpluses, regardless of their externalities for the recipients of food aid.
” This can easily cause distrust between countries, in fact, The Center for Critical studies found that Conditional aid also puts strains on relations between the provider and receiver, they wrote, “It is also likely that the conditionality of relationships may actually thwart rather than facilitate the survival of human communities and in the long run undo rather than achieve individual well-being. ” The majority of Conditionalized Aid ignores the ethical purpose of Humanitarian Aid to begin with.
My second contention pertains to the original purpose of Conditional Aid and the results received. Rather than making Humanitarian Aid easier to distribute, the addition of conditions only made it more difficult, this is apparent The Humanitarian Policy Group’s report in which they wrote, “Aid disbursement, or its withholding in the form of conditionality… has become the prime intervention in precisely those places where political action is needed most.
Precisely where humanitarianism is least likely to be accepted, in places where the belligerents have no need of it, it is most exposed. It seems that… humanitarian action cannot substitute for political action and has ended up legitimising the politicisation of aid rather than, as intended, spurring greater investment in political machinery. It has resulted in what can only be described as a catastrophic failure of international responsibility.
” Rather than conditionalizing aid it seems far more efficient to distribute political aid and humanitarian aid in the separate areas in which they are need. The Humanitarian Policy Group also found that infant mortality has gone up with the conditionalization of humanitarian aid, as well as life expectancy dropping. This seems far from the original intent of Political Conditions on Humanitarian Aid. My third contention is that the removal of Political Conditions increases the quality of Humanitarian Aid.
It is likely that relationships based on conditionality are less beneficial and sturdy than those built otherwise. Edward Sampson of The Center for Critical Studies demonstrates this by writing, “Support given conditionally may contribute more to the stressful aspects of human relations than to their healthful possibilities. On the other hand, support that is given unconditionally, that clearly says, ‘I will be there for you no matter what,’ may very well be the key to the frequently found positive correlation between social support and health.
” As was explained in my first contention, negative correlation with Humanitarian Aid makes said Aid more difficult to distribute. Edward Sampson also wrote, “Contractual relationships tend to be built around issues of power and fear (e. g. benefits given by the powerful to the less powerful may be withdrawn at any time) more than trust, and so provide a flimsy basis for building human communities and achieving individual well-being. ” Not only is trust undermined, but aid is difficult to administer with such conditions.
A study by The Guardian found that 18 of 20 countries do not qualify for standard humanitarian aid. Individual well-being is one of the main goals of Humanitarian aid and should be placed as top priority, adding political conditions only undermines this goal. Placing political conditions on Humanitarian Aid clearly undermines International Law through it’s blatant harms and unethicality. It is for these reasons that I urge a vote in the Affirmative for today’s debate. Thank you.