Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust. 

Argument 1: PRINCIPALLY NECESSARY
Why humanitarian aid should be unconditional, because it should be something that guarantees inalienable, universal human rights It is because we say that certain rights are universal, and should be guaranteed for all people, as is stipulated by the United Nations Human Rights Declaration. Humanitarian crises are situations in which people suffer gross harms to such basic rights as their right to life (e.g. genocide), and that such suffering goes on, even with the knowledge of the world, and is ignored, undermines the universality of such basic human rights and values. Therefore, to uphold the universality and inalienability of human rights, the world has a responsibility to aid people in such stark situations, and do everything it can to alleviate suffering. Political conditions limit humanitarian aid for only states with good governance or policies that are in accordance with the interest of the aid-giving, predominantly Western nations. To place political conditions is to say “only people of countries that listen to our orders deserve to have their human rights be protected,” and this would undermine the universality of human rights. For example, we say just because North Koreans live in a country that is ruled by a crazy, despotic leader, it does not mean that the people should have to endure their suffering because their government is insane. Therefore, humanitarian aid to guarantee fundamental human values, should be given out unconditionally to every people around the world, without political conditions/interventions.

  Argument 2: APOLITICALITY IS PRACTICALLY NECESSARY Why humanitarian aid should be apolitical because otherwise, it cannot be given at all. Currently, the method of any type of intervention in humanitarian crises is through the UN Security Council. In order for any resolution to pass through the Security Council, its five Permanent Member Countries (China, Russia, the UK, the USA, and France) must pass it, without vetoing it. The problem is that both China and Russia are infamously against any type of international intervention in countries’ domestic affairs. Any type of political conditions would therefore be opposed by Russia and China, which would prevent that resolution from being passed at all. This is why aid should be given unconditionally, because any type of conditionality would be opposed, and made impossible. This was what happened in the case of the Darfur Crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people were dying, and millions of people were displaced from their homes, and yet the international society could do little more than watch people die, because China was against any type of intervention. Likewise, conditional humanitarian aid would be opposed by veto nations of the UNSC, and not happen at all.

  Argument 3: Political conditions do not help the people on the ground who need aid the most Political conditions are simply just a waste of time. The urgency of humanitarian aid calls for swift action, without delay. In Rwanda, it did not take more than two months before 800,000 Tutsis were massacred in cold blood. In Syria, the number of casualties is already approaching 300,000 (men, women and children) people?. Every second wasted is precious lives lost, and bureaucratic discussions about political conditions waste time. Political conditions are misdirected, and cause the most harm to those it should help the most, without affecting the kind of needed change. Humanitarian aid is mostly in the form of food and medical supplies, for those people who are the most hungry and sick. Political conditions are designed to change the elite of a country, and these people are usually the richest, especially in the nations that most often need assistance. Withholding food or medicine is barely going to hurt these powerful, rich, and well-fed people. Rather, it’s going to hurt those who are starving to death. What this means is that political conditions would do little to suade the rulers, and therefore be ineffective, while it manages to starve the hungry even more. Therefore, political conditions would not bring about the kind of change that is needed, while harming the victims who need saving.