Humanatarian Aid

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