Thousands Injured in Afghani Earthquake

September 1st, 2025
Santiago Jimenez

Minutes before midnight, a magnitude six earthquake shook the streets of Afghanistan, stealing the lives of eight-hundred and injuring three-thousand citizens.

The earthquake struck Afghanistan 27km away from its fifth largest city, Jalalabad; yet the damage went further, as it destroyed homes, roads and lives in the cities of Asabad, Mazar Dara and Kunar. The majority of damage, however, was done to the latter location, the Kunar province. BBC News reported, “Entire villages are flattened, roads to deep mountainous areas are still closed. So now, for us, the priority is not finding dead under the rubble, but rather reaching out to those injured.”

The direct aftermath was devastating. The Jalalabad main hospital, being on the border with Pakistan, was already overloaded because of local deportation efforts, but increased necessity caused by the onslaught of patients brought from the earthquake pushed the hospital beyond carrying capacity.

How Has the World Responded?

In short, international responses have been a mixed-bag. The United States, having massively cut funds to USAID, has been unable to play its acclaimed role as international-protectorate. In fact, Reuters reports that what we’re seeing is a good example of lasting USAID-cut impacts.

From the gap the United States has left other actors have stepped in. For example, the United Nations, under Secretary-General Antonio Guetteres, has sent aid and helicopters to aid in Afghanistan. Additionally, Iran has offered assistance in Afghanistan’s pursuit to recover from its damages after the earthquake.

Extemp Analysis by Santiago Jimenez

Question: What does the recent earthquake in Afghanistan tell us about the lasting impacts of USAID cuts

AGD: Joke about Trump-ian policies and their harm, or victim example (present their story and struggles)

Background/Structure Justification: It’s important to note that in this topic, Afghanistan acts as a bridge between talking about USAID, and the consequences of its cuts. The entire speech doesn’t need to revolve around the earthquake, rather, it needs to use this event as a medium to discuss a much more broad notion of harms and benefits internationally. For this reason, the Political, Economic, Military, point outline would work well, with two subpoints each, one focusing on the earthquake, and one looking at the international repercussions.

Answer: The Afghani earthquake and its destructive fallout tell us that across the board, USAID is harming nations abroad.

Body (In round, each subpoint should use evidence):

Political Harms
1. Afghani failures to respond to the earthquake without US Interference signals to the Afghanistan isn’t politically sound enough to maintain order after disaster
2. Similar political rhetoric will be spread with other nations in similar conditions, the consequence could be a rise in racism, or political abuse from the USA to trade aid for political subservience
Economic Harms
1. Without aid from the United States, spending gets funneled into fulfilling the necessities of life, rather than fueling the economy (or at least it should be), we saw this in Afghanistan when the government needed to rush more resources on site at hospitals to lower fatalities
2. Ultimately, other states face the same end consequence, because they no longer have safety nets in the form of foreign aid, they lose a majority of development power.
Military Harms
1. When, in Afghanistan, military forces like the Taliban and the central afghani government have to mobilize resources and attention to disasters rather than military prowess, their military takes a scaled consequence
2. The world, as throughout the majority of this speech, follows a very similar pattern to Afghanistan. When a state is unable to front its finances into the military because of extraneous circumstances, the military will fail.

(With proper evidence, broad arguments on subpoint a of each point would be very specific and narrow to an example in Afghanistan, while subpoint b would be the systematic, international commentary)