Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

No introduction at present. Why not write one?

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Introduction, definitions, and plan

We, the international community, acknowledge that every country has a right to have an army: it must be able to protect its sovereignty. However, we oppose certain kinds of warfare, especially weapons of mass destruction such as the nuclear bomb. This horrible invention is a true threat to the future of humanity because its use has devastating consequences and causes death of many innocent people (Hiroshima). We think that the number of nuclear weapons in the world should decrease, and we welcome such policies as Nuclear Arms Reduction Pact[[]] initiated by countries that have accumulated large arsenals of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the idea of nuclear disarming on a global scale was approved by the UN Security Council, which proposed to reach the zero level of nuclear arming by 2030[[]].

However, some developing countries (e.g. India and Pakistan) have been actively investing in their nuclear weapons programs[[]]. At the same time, India and Pakistan receive significant volumes of development aid from abroad (2.4 and 2.8 billion USD in 2009, respectively[[]]). We define development aid as financial support given to emerging states to develop their economic, social, and political sphere. Several other development aid recipients, e.g. Syria or Iran, pursue nuclear research but fail to prove its peaceful nature.

We think it is wrong to give development aid to countries with nuclear weapons programs, and our plan is to suspend it to any country which has a nuclear research program and fails to prove its peaceful intents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Development aid should be renewed after the recipient country abandons the program or proves its peaceful nature to the IAEA. If a country is secretive about its research, it is reasonable to assume development of weapons.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 1 - It is against the values of the international community

We give development aid as a sign of solidarity and support to other nations. We have empathy to people similar to us, who share similar beliefs, fears and aspirations to better future, and we care if they are in worse conditions exactly because they are like us and they could be us.

One of the core common beliefs of today's international community is that the existence of nuclear weapons is a threat to the whole humanity. We do everything we can to make the world as nuclear-free as possible, and numerous initiatives have been launched for that[[]]. Even acknowledging that nuclear weapons may have a deterrence effect, as it was during the Cold War, both the US and the USSR/Russia sought to limit and reduce the number of nukes because it would remove the constant threat of war and benefit both of them. Many treaties were concluded, either limiting testing of nuclear weapons (1963 Partial test ban treaty) or initiating nuclear disarmament (1991 START I and recent 2010 New START). The vast majority of countries support these developments, regarding them as crucial for world peace.

Thus, it would be against our values to give development aid to countries with nuclear weapons programs. Supporting regimes with such programs would only revert actions taken by the international community. These states don't share our goal of a nuclear-free world; grave experience of past superpowers hasn't taught them anything, and they increasingly threaten our planet's future. We think that not giving aid is a legitimate standpoint consistent with the common goals of humanity, which will make these countries reconsider their actions. South Africa provides an invaluable example of a developing country that listened to the international community and decided to fully disarm its nuclear arsenal [[]]. To sum up, it would be immoral for us to support such countries in their pursuit of the worst weapon ever made.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 2 - Our plan will prevent future spread of nuclear weapons in the world

First, under the plan the countries developing nuclear weapons will lose a lot of funding; since nuclear industry, with its enormous R&D costs and expensive testing facilities, is very capital-intensive, its development will necessarily halt. Despite the fact that in theory development aid can only be used for special purposes (e.g. building roads or improving telecommunications), it is widely known that very often the money received gets embezzled and misspent on other projects[[]], with nuclear weapons a feasible alternative for militarized regimes. Even if we assume that corruption is not an issue, and aid is spent efficiently, developing infrastructure still has positive externalities on the nuclear programs: roads can be used for delivering nuclear supplies, while erected factories can be redesigned for production of nuclear warhead components. Deprived of crucial infrastructure elements, the countries will have to invest in them in the first place if they want to continue with the nuclear program, and expensive nuclear projects will be forsaken because of monetary constraints. This will decrease the number of nuclear weapons produced, which is exactly what we strive for.

Second, by ceasing investments in countries' development, we will shift this burden to the incumbents' shoulders. This will increase their pool of responsibilities and make their political career more dependent on improving the well-being of the people (which was previously ensured by foreign aid). Political competition will increase because citizens will continue demanding improvement in such sectors as health care and manufacturing and will not be content with excessive investments in any military technology, let alone nuclear weapons with their controversial reputation. People are likely to protest, and reformist movements from within must become more active. This all will further deter the state from producing nuclear weapons.

Introduction Part I

As members of an international community, we second that every single nation should have an inalienable right to an army and everything it entails to protect its sovereignty. In order to do so, the use of state-of-the-art weaponry is inevitable, unfortunately. It was like this with the Panzer tanks in WWII, the scud missiles in Iraq, the atomic bombs in Japan, the pilotless planes in Afghanistan. During any war, nations make use of what is most efficient in terms of weapons, which is inevitable if we take into account the true nature of wars.

Different experiences (Hiroshima, Chernobyl) do not seem to have taught mankind yet the destructive power of nuclear energy. In this respect, we also believe that the number of nuclear weapons should decrease. As a matter of fact, nuclear weaponry should be avoided at all costs. But unfortunately nations still develop them. And how can we speak of a global community if only a handful of “privileged” nations are entitled to nuclear weapons programmes? If nations like the USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea have the right to produce nuclear weapons, wouldn’t this “right” be entitled to any nation willing to do so? Or should it not be forbidden worldwide?

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 3 - Nuclear weapons programs directly contradict the objective of development aid: a sustainable economic development

The development aid is given "..with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective.."[[]] In particular, it is aimed at medium- and long-term solutions, which is how it differs from humanitarian aid designated for dealing with acute problems, e.g. famine. The focus of development aid is alleviation of poverty and diminishing the disparities in welfare between countries through support of the economic, environmental, social, and political development. For example, building transportation infrastructure and telecommunications in the long term make countries more attractive to invest in, which in turn yields jobs, thereby increasing the welfare of the country.

A nuclear weapons industry, however, cannot contribute to welfare of a country's citizens in a sustainable way. Although it provides employment for some people, huge capital requirements and inability to export the products (for legal and national security reasons) means that the industry can never be profitable and is bound to depend on the amount of governmental spending. This means either money is taken away from other development programs that are of higher value to people (e.g. health care), or it is obtained via bonds and debt instruments, which also has a deteriorating effect on economy's sustainability. Analogously, development aid should not be given to countries that heavily invest in marijuana farming (although it is technically an industry) because it does not provide a sustainable base for future economic growth - the market is predominantly illegal, and basing one's economy on this production will inevitably lead to problems and conflicts on the international arena.

To sum up, giving aid to countries that, among other things, use it for nuclear weapons development is in contradiction with the purpose of development aid, and further allocating it to these countries is not acceptable.

Introduction Part II

We understand development aid [[]] as “the international transfer of public funds in the form of loans or grants, either directly from one government to another (bilateral aid), or indirectly through nongovernmental organizations or a multilateral agency (multilateral aid) such as the World Bank or WHO”. Such foreign aid is of the utmost importance for many areas, especially for the health budget of poor countries. Using a criterion like nuclear weapon programmes to prevent this aid from reaching its destination is tantamount to using other criteria like religion, race, form of government and others to cease grants. In this respect, the true essence of offering aids is lost for mere political reasons. What’s worse, a nation in need will be punished.

We therefore do not believe that countries should cease giving development aid to some on the grounds that these countries have nuclear weapons programmes.

It is crucial that one should make a clear distinction between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, for the former has been increasingly proving its importance [[]] [[]]as an alternative and clean source of energy.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

There is no justified motivation for pursuing nuclear weapons

Given the terrible destruction such a weapon bears the question why would anyone try to possess one is in place. We beleive that there are three reasons why a developing country would want to have one.

Firstly, it is a weapon of attack and acquired with the intent to use it in a proactive military attack. Use of these weapons must be avoided at all cost. Moreover, it can prompt the neighbouring countries to seek such weapons as means of defence and that would lead to a dangerous regional arms race. A huge step back from nuclear arms free world.

Secondly, it is a mean of quickly acquiring more power in the global arena where it can be used to blackmail the global community. Mere possession and not even active use is enough to put forward ultimatums. For example North Korea successfully has been demanding and receiving aid [[]] because the global community fears the prospect of nuclear weapon use against them. Acquiring better conditions of a country by means of blackmailing others is wrong in its core because it is no better than stealing. The Somali pirates are a good example of the same mechanism at work on a smaller scale, but we believe possession of nuclear weapons for such reasons is as bad. Seeking a quick fix for their problems via blackmail s against the goals of development aid as well.

Thirdly, possession of nuclear weapons may be a deterrent for other countries to invade. While every country has a right to defend itself, nuclear weapons is not the right way to do it because of the bad consequences to internal development. Having nuclear weapons at disposal increases the perceived power of the leader of the country. It can become problematic when the leader resists stepping down at the demands of the society. It is very easy to instil fear in citizens with threats to wipe them out in case of resistance if such weapons actually are known to exist. Thus political developments in the country would suffer greatly.

There is no justified reason for not helping

Nations choose to pursue nuclear weapons for different reasons, which have been well outlined by the proposition: military power, political power, defense. And as we stated in our introduction, we believe nuclear weapons should not be used at all. Given that, we agree there is no convincing or justified reason for the development of nuclear weapons. What we believe in and support is the good, justified and controlled use of nuclear energy in different areas [[]]. Take medicine, for instance. How many lives are saved and suffering spared with the use of nuclear-energy-based treatments like radiotherapy? In agriculture the use of isotopes and radiation techniques can improve food availability and quality, not to mention pollution reduction. And in a world which is fossil-fuel-dependant, it offers a clean and safe way of producing energy.

But when it comes to producing nuclear weapons, we cannot agree with that. Because of reasons that go far beyond this debate, it is unfair to impose economic sanctions on countries that are in the process of developing such weapons. Two wrongs do not make a right, so they say. Ceasing development aid is wrong. If the donour countries believe a country needs to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, they have the right to act on it, but it is not with economic sanctions that their goal will be achieved. Much on the contrary, this will most likely heighten tension between the recipient country and their neighbours and international community and, what's worse, submit the ordinary citizen to a life of deprivation and sub-human existence. Are they to pay for the wrong doings of their rulers? And if it were not enough, as the proposition wisely mentioned blackmailing, wouldn't a sanction like this be a form of blackmailing as well?

In short, we agree that nuclear weapons are undesirable, yet we do not think you can threaten a country with economic sanctions.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Uncertainty about possession and/or developmen of nuclear weapons cause local and international harms

Countries like Syria and Iran that do not provide required information to the IAEA create international tension. Their secretive actions incite suspicion and anxiety because none of the agents involved likes uncertainty when the existence of a weapon of mass destruction is under question. High uncertainty in the case of nuclear weapons is harmful because the global community cannot anticipate the actions and reactions of one of its members. This contributes to decreased drive to collaborate with the secretive country and it may have long-run harms for the society. For example companies may choose not to invest in such countries due to lack of transparency. Such status also initiates concerns of investors, partners over the political stability in the case of possible sanctions as a mean of global community to extract the truth or in the case if the country is indeed acquiring nuclear weapons. This hinders primarily any local business that exports or imports goods as high because the aforementioned uncertainty complicates business partnerships internationally.

Moreover, since the stakes are high, even a disputable, unproven threat can lead to undesirable outcomes such as military conflicts, as it was with Iraq when the US justified its intervention on grounds of mere fear that Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction [[]]. This would expose the citizens of that country to war or other severe interruptions, which is nowhere near a global peace we strive for.

In either case the outcome is that both the society of the country is worse off and it turns out the global community is at fault. They enable the situation with their funding which is either used directly for nuclear weapons hidden under nuclear research label or implicitly by freeing up monetary resources of the country which then go to creation of nuclear weapons.

Ceasing help does local and international harm

Development and possession of nuclear weapons are unacceptable practices. In fact, no country should be allowed to do so. The proposition outlined well the problems nuclear programmes entail. What we do not agree with is to accept it as a criterion to cease aid as it brings grave problems to nations. Gambia in 1994, among many others illustrates that. With the coup d'état that overthrew the democratic government, development aid was suspended as a means to force the country to restore the old regime. The country was thrown in a dire financial collapse. At the time 80% of Gambia's national budget was funded by the donor countries. So it is not difficult to imagine what the withdrawal of this aid caused to the country. So, for any reason that clashes with the interests of the big nations is an excuse for them to condemn the people of recipient countries to a life of poverty and this is not different when it comes to nuclear weapons.

The Millennium development goals [[]] offer substantial evidence that there are many parts of the globe that need help and it's everyone's duty to help. Therefore, we deem it wrong to cease development aid based on the fact or suspicion that there's something wrong like nuclear programmes in a nation. What about corruption, drug trafficking, child labour, human rights violation? Aren't they equally wrong? So why aren’t economic sanctions imposed or aid ceased based on those as well?

In a nutshell, we believe any sort of aid, development or humanitarian should be above everything and cannot be affected by political decisions. We're talking about lives, people in need, who may not even have had the chance to choose those responsible for nuclear programmes. These people may even be unaware of nuclear weapons being developed in their country. But the proposition’s plan will affect them, directly and mercilessly. Some might not even survive to stand up for their rig

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...


In this debate both proposition and opposition agreed that the world must do everything possible to stop spread of nuclear weapons. Since our goal is clear, the question is whether the proposition's plan is a) effective; b) justified.

a) We proved that our plan works in economic (less funding to spend on nukes) and political (internal pressure not to spend on nukes) terms. Side opposition has never refuted these points, i.e. provided no analysis of why the mechanism may not work. Instead, they focused on "hegemony" of some countries over others, and on benefits of nuclear energy. The latter is irrelevant because from the start we have supported nuclear energy, provided that peaceful intents are proven. The former doesn't prove ineffectiveness of our plan; we have explained that the problem consists of two parts – the current and prospective nuclear weapons countries. Each of these parts requires a different approach and our plan tackles the emerging nuclear arms countries while is not mutually exclusive to dismantling the current ones. We provided evidence on our successes in global nuclear disarming, developed countries included. Eventually the opponents said that aid donors "have the right to act on [nuclear weapons], but it is not with economic sanctions that their goal will be achieved." Since they failed to prove the latter part by explaining why the plan will fail to tame the spread of nuclear weapons or providing a better alternative which would work, this remains just a claim.

b) Here the team Opposition arguments may be summarized in one sentence - our plan will make the poor suffer, not the guilty ones (incumbents). This is a fallacy that clashes with 3 arguments of ours: the general aim of development aid, the perverse motivations for producing nuclear weapons, and unavoidable future tensions. Applying material to their point, we show that the poor will in fact suffer even more if aid is preserved. Respectively, instead of sustainable sectors, money will be invested in unstable nuclear warfare production, which undermines long-term prosperity; the warfare will give a country's incumbents too much power over its population, leading to abuse; and international tensions and uncertainty will escalate, which at best will decrease FDI and at worst incite a military conflict, perpetuating suffering and starvation. Overall, ceasing aid is justified as its costs, both to local population and international community, by far outweigh its benefits.

Funding countries with nuclear weapons programs is also a breach of the role of donor country's government towards its own citizens as well as the other countries of the world. When the issue is weapons of mass destruction with potential to disrupt the world as we know it, we should commit to reducing the number of them, not supporting their spread in any way. The development aid is a leverage targeted at those who make decisions for the population and should be used to achieve our common goal.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 1 - Not helping = omission: this is against the values of the international community

First of all, apparently the opposition agrees with us by saying things like "we also believe that the number of nuclear weapons should decrease". Our plan helps to achieve exactly this goal, and their main argument against its effectiveness was about "hegemony" of countries that already have nuclear weapons over those that don't have (the "contradiction" mentioned in their Argument 1 is also about that). But on this side of the house we stand for a completely nuclear-weapons-free world, including both developed and developing countries, which makes their idea void (more on that in rebuttal to the 2nd argument).

Turning to the present argument, it is based on one false assumption we have already dismantled in our Argument 2 (with reference) - "the aid is only spent on social programs". There is a lot of wishful thinking here; in reality, there is very much place for corruption. First, the process of delivering development aid is long and complicated, and embezzlement of funds can occur at any stage, e.g. overstating needs at the project design stage, making illicit contract amendments during the implementation, and so on[[]]. Second, developing countries often face considerable institutional constraints and poor policy environment[[]], which means that even if a fraud is discovered, one is likely to never find out who has been ultimately responsible for it and how to prevent such things in the future.

Of course, emerging countries can't be ideal, and we still give them aid, despite knowing that much of it may end up in incumbents' pockets. This is bad, and we should do whatever needed to reduce it, but we have to cope with that. What makes countries with nuclear weapons programs different is the risk that aid will be stolen exactly for nuclear weapons, and we refuse to co-create this horrible weapon and a new threat to the world by funding it.

The first reason why we should keep helping them is the fact that most of the aid given by the international community has a social, not bellicose, purpose. NGOs such as UNICEF are interested in helping people develop as human beings so they can pursue a better life and ascend economically and intellectually. Aid wouldn’t be given to the military, just to social programs which produce proof of their positive impact on their local community. If for any reason - being part of a nuclear weapon programme, for instance - help is ceased, it means that we are turning a blind eye to nations in need simply because the international community does not deem their actions correct. The contradiction lies in the fact that those nations which frown upon nuclear weapon programmes have theirs. Acting in retaliation cannot be a value for the international community. Helping should, no matter what.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 2 – Sanctions will not prevent future spread of nuclear weapons in the world

We would like to restate the ideas listed in our introduction. Our goal is to achieve total nuclear disarmament, including developed countries such as the US, the UK, France, etc. and the developing ones that have started their nuclear weapons program relatively recently. This is why we promote international treaties and agreements on gradual nuclear disarmament, and we have already succeeded a lot with Nuclear Arms Reduction Pact [[]] and the bilateral agreements (STARTs) between the US and Russia.

Furthermore, while we are making slow progress with the complexity of disarming existing nuclear states, adding to it by enabling more countries to become nuclear weapon holders is not sensible by any logic. And this motion is exactly about how to stop emergence of nuclear armament in developing countries. Therefore, the opposition's whole line of argument about our plan being "elitist" and favouring some developed countries over developing is not correct. There is no "retaliation". We are against nuclear weapons everywhere, but there's nothing wrong with using different approaches for those which have accumulated nuclear warheads and those which are trying to do it now.

On top of that, many of developing countries have unstable governments and there are 2 extra threats with this. Firstly the weapons can get in the wrong hands, e.g., terrorist groups who want to make "dirty bombs". Although we do not like US having these weapons, at least they are relatively safe. Secondly, developing countries are weak democracies or are autocracies and it can be the case that government actions regarding nuclear weapons are not backed by citizen support. This poses a problem of donor countries helping governments which do not care about their citizens if they provide funding for countries pursuing nuclear arms.

The plan to enforce economic sanctions against countries which develop nuclear weapon programmes is unrealistic because the vast majority of nuclear warheads in the world nowadays is not in the hands of developing countries, but developed ones [[]]. The USA, Russia, The UK, France and China are believed to possess over 20,000 warheads whereas countries like Pakistan, India and North Korea about 200 altogether. As we have already mentioned, we believe that nuclear weapons should not be used at all, by any nation. In order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world we need, first and foremost, strict regulations applicable to any country, regardless of how developed, powerful or wealthy they are. Ceasing development aid to developing countries is far from being enough to solve a problem which is a lot more complex and which is definitely not restricted to these countries.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 2 continued...

Moreover, contrary to the intuition of side Opposition, there are also opinions that giving aid to nuclear weapon countries does not lead to favourable conclusion with abolishment of such nuclear arms programmes. If it were true, North Korea would have dismantled their arsenal long ago when aid was generously provided.

Provision of food aid is the way donor countries acknowledge that the citizens may disagree with policy of the government. We believe people should not starve over the poor choices of their government, but we have good reasons for not providing development aid.

Even if it was not the case with funds suffering from corruption issues and 100% of the development aid money reached its goal, it would still implicitly support nuclear development program. By funding necessary and worthy projects donor countries free up the internal resources from the country which would otherwise be spent on these projects. While the extra money is spent on other necessities of the country, this situation is desirable. Pursuing nuclear weapons, however, is not a necessity and should not be an interest of any society in the world.

Furthermore, by implicitly funding nuclear weapon creation the donor countries are potentially endangering its own citizens. One of the primary goals of the establishment of a country is to ensure protection to its citizens. Enabling more weapons of mass destruction is clearly contradicting with this goal since in case of use of nuclear bomb by the funded country might hurt the people of donating country. Moreover, for reasons discussed in our argument 6 it also endangers citizens of the country with nuclear weapon development programmes.

Take the US, for example, while they cast suspicion on uranium enrichment - accusing countries of developing nuclear weapons under the guise of producing energy -, they keep testing their weapons in the Nevada Test Site so as to make sure that they must ensure the reliability of their weapons. So, after all, are only a select few entitled to defend the hegemony of their countries and threaten other with sanctions if they develop their own? This policy, added to the threats of withdrawing of denying a lifeline, contributes to build up tension between nuclear-weapon states and the others. According to Adler (2011), commenting on North Korea’s nuclear weapons issue, “security guarantees and development assistance are always more effective than punitive measures that inevitably escalate the tension” [[]] . A view with which we could not agree more.

In short, if the ultimate goal is to ban nuclear weaponry for good on a global scale, the first step cannot be retaliation against developing nations, especially economic sanctions. Not only will this be inefficient in terms of solving the matter but also unfair to ordinary people in need who may even be against their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. More often than not, the ordinary citizens do not even have the right to vote, therefore, they cannot respond for the decisions taken by their representatives and much less suffer the consequences of their actions.

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 3 - Nuclear energy programmes can be an aid to sustainable economic development

Again we have a feeling that the opposition haven't paid enough attention to our definition of the motion. Nowhere have we stated that nuclear energy projects are wrong and should be abandoned. We acknowledge every country's sovereignty in exploring its opportunities in energy production, including nuclear energy. What we have a problem with are countries which a) openly have stated they are after nuclear weapons; b) which fail to prove their peaceful intentions to the IAEA. The IAEA is an impartial agent acting on behalf of the world community, with its main responsibilities being "nuclear verification and security, safety and technology transfer"[[]]. Therefore, the plan is not about prohibiting nuclear research; it's about deterring emerging countries from producing the weapons we try so hard to get rid of.

The fact that several countries do not have enough renewable resources such as water to provide the population with power, renders the development of nuclear science in these countries essential [[]].
Not only that, but the use of nuclear power reduces the emissions of CO2, so countries which have a nuclear program might contribute to a cleaner world. If the international community entrenches financial aid to regulatory policies on nuclear development research, things might be positively profitable for those countries. Thus, sustainability could be guaranteed.
Some may argue that having a nuclear program is a liability when it comes to safety and people could even use Japan as an example in 2 different moments in history: 1945 and 2011. Let’s consider the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing of 1945: before the 2 bombs were dropped in Japan, the world had never really known what a nuclear bomb was capable of in terms of devastation. It is really sad that the world had to witness the loss of thousands of lives to see that nuclear weapons were nothing like the other weapons humankind had ever dealt with and developed. However, had it never really happened, we could never have had the chance to learn from it and we could have had a far worse use of the nuclear weapons during the Cold War, for instance. The price we had to pay for such a valuable lesson was quite high, but it was a learning opportunity for humanity and, from that moment on, we were able to try to better make use of such technology. Considering the post Tsunami events of 2011 in Japan, we are aware of the fact that power plants pose great risk of contamination to the local community; however, without those power plants the local community would not be able to fend for themselves because they do not have enough natural resources to produce energy. Thus, nuclear power is a necessary evil.
So it is up to the international community to c

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Argument 4 - Help, do not punish

On the one hand claiming that it necessary to do “whatever it takes” by an agent to make peaceful use of nuclear energy, but on the other saying that ends do not justify means is somewhat odd. NEA is not valid agent since it is binding only to 30 mostly developed countries. [[]] IAEA is a UN agency and in itself is powerless against countries which don’t cooperate like Iran [[]]. IAEA’s effectiveness depends on physical access to relevant locations of the inspectors and the will of the international community to take action against non-complying states. [[]] We see that an economic instrument would be preferable to a military intervention in the country which is the other alternative to enable the work of nuclear agencies. Being idle as the opposition suggests will not improve the work of nuclear safeguards because there’s no reason for these countries to change their practice with nuclear weapons.

Regarding punishment of the people, we are certain that there is a difference between taking away a carrot (development aid) and beating with a stick (military intervention or denying all aid). Under our plan humanitarian aid is not limited and therefore access to food, medication, and other such essentials is not likely to be interrupted or denied. Moreover, by economic incentive we target the part of society which benefits from these projects in short term. Their companies build roads, handle tenders, etc. under these projects thus making a profit. Under grimmer outlook, there are also layers of government which pocket some of the aid in corruptive manner. They will suffer the first and the most in monetary terms and thus will react first and even exert pressure on the leaders. Thus it is effective. If they still go for making nuclear arms, we proved before it is also justified to not fund it,

Differently from what the proposition stated, the debate motion is crystal clear as well as their condemning of nuclear weapons and their plan to cease aid to countries with nuclear weapons programme.
What does not seem to have been made clear to them so far is that we are talking about two entirely different and independent things: helping and punishing. We, like most people in the world, are also for a nuclear-weapons-free world and we should make every effort to guarantee one. IAEA has been playing an important role since 1957 and needs to keep doing whatever it takes to make peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent its use in nuclear weaponry.

We also think emerging countries (and any other) should stop producing the weapons, but we completely disagree with the end-justify-the-means action to cease grants. First, because by doing so you punish a nation, especially its people. Second because by punishing you will not achieve your desired goal, which is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. To do that we have agencies like IAEA and NEA [[]] that have the power to act. Third, if development aid is institutionalised, it is because there must be an evident need for it and it can’t simply be ceased. Finally, casting an eye on the statistics of nuclear warheads in the world nowadays we can clearly notice that there is a lot to be dismantled, the minority of which in emerging countries.

So what does the proposition plan do? Deliberately stop helping few countries in need? And by punishing them? Not only will it fail to save the world as they wish but it will also irresponsibly kill innocent people who need to eat and receive health care. Let's act sensibly and help, not punish. Meanwhile, nuclear agencies will be doing their job to guarantee the safer world we all dream of.

Dalai Lama once said “our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't harm them.”

Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.

Yes because... No because...

Brazil’s summary

The issue of countries ceasing giving development aid to countries with nuclear weapons programmes is a complex one and should be treated as such. On the one hand the proposition puts forward a plan to prevent development aid from being offered on the grounds that developing nuclear weapons is an unacceptable and unjustified practice: a local and global threat, whose extinction via economic sanctions will lead to a nuclear-free and safer world. Besides that, they claim nuclear developments go against the principles of sustainable economic development and the values of the international community.

The opposition, on the other hand, despite agreeing wholeheartedly with the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free world, does not second the idea of ceasing giving development aid for any reason, including a nation having nuclear weapons development programmes. Their main arguments are that punishing a nation with economic sanctions is not enough to guarantee a safe world because, statistically speaking, these emerging countries pose little threat compared to wealthier and more powerful nations. Moreover, retaliating against a nation for the aforementioned reason will make this nation’s people suffer the consequences grievously. And ordinary people in developing countries are in dire need of help. While condemning any refusal to offer help, the opposition proposes the maintenance of development aid while leaving the responsibility for coping with nuclear issues for agencies like IAEA. Finally, they argue for the benefits of nuclear energy – as opposed to weapons - being a possible aid to sustainable economic development.

Although the proposition is absolutely right about their concern at a safer future for humanity and the dangers of nuclear weapons, their plan to achieve this by means of ceasing development aid to a few countries is oversimplified, inconsiderate, one-sided and unrealistic.

Debates > Countries Should Cease Giving Development Aid To Countries With Nuclear Weapons Programmes.