A country always acts in it's own self interests
Debate Rounds (3)
I assume due to the question at hand, the burden of proof is on the Pro's side. Admittedly, it sounds from the question you posed that you subscribe to realpolitik. Here is the definition.
Realpolitik:a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong
I will point to several examples of countries acting on the interests of others rather than their own.
1. The best example of a group of countries acting on the interests of others would be the 1994 United Nations intervention in Rwanda. It was not in the interest of the participating countries interest to stop the genocide. Canada, Belgium, and others would not receive anything for the amount they risked.
2. I would argue many of America's Cold War policies was not in her self interest. After all, the United States was picking up where France and the United Kingdom left their former colonies in disarray when they were rushing to leave them. Those former colonial powers acted in their own self interest to recede their foreign policies.
3. The NATO intervention in Kosovo was not in the interest of the participating countries. There was only a moral reason for the intervention rather than a logical one.
Regarding your first argument, your"best example", I would like to point out that the UN's participation in the conflict in Rwanda was a complete failure. Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN said "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret." The fact that the UN "intervention" in Rwanda failed to stop or even resist the genocide shows that this is not a strong piece of evidence.
America's Cold war polices were very much in there own interest. America wanted to stop the spread of Communism at all costs out of fear that they would be left alone to fight the Communists. As for America's cold war policies, such as espionage, were in place to protect themselves from the Communists and Russia.
Although I know little about Kosovo, I know that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stabilize the region and prevent potentially dangerous radical groups from obtaining power.
The debate is not about whether the acts of countries are successful or end in failure. I thought this was debate about whether countries act in their self interest or not.
"America's Cold war polices were very much in there own interest. "
I would disagree with that statement. Clearly some of the countries where the United States intervened or aided , it was not in their self interest. But let us not get entangled in the Cold War.
"I know that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stabilize the region and prevent potentially dangerous radical groups from obtaining power."
So in essence you refute your own claim that a country always acts in it's own self interest. As you said the NATO intervention was there to stop "dangerous radical groups."
There are many other examples where countries do not act on their own self interest.
Reese_G forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Thyanchor 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Well... The reason for my decisions lies on arguments alone. SEeing as Reese_G did not provide any arguments nor successfully refuted any of Tophatdoc's arguments. I have to give it to Tophatdoc. Looking at the arguments themselves, I had to agree with CON's response to every response against his claims. The debate was about if they act out of self interest, not if the actions were successful. (You could start a different debate on that, though.) I didn't necessarily buy the Cold War argument, because I mostly didn't understand it and I agreed more with the PRO. However, he didn't adequately refute, so I had to give it to the CON. Lastly, the Kosovo argument. I didn't know what was going on there, seriously. There was little explanation and little debate on it, but it seemed as if the CON won that argument, as the PRO forfeited. In general, to do better as you both go on, use more evidence and don't use wikipedia so much. Use more credible websites. Lastly, good luck to you both. ~TA
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.