Do you support The United Nations( U.N.)?
Debate Rounds (3)
Thank you Pro. I accept your challenge and I'm looking forward to a great debate.
I believe, due to numerous mistakes, flaws and shortcomings, the United Nations has been a failure.
Argument 1. Inefficiency
The main argument against the United Nations is its effectiveness. The U.N idly stood by while a million were being massacred in the Rwandan genocide, for instance. As well as in multiple massacres in Congo, Cambodia and Yugoslavia.Instead of intervening to stop the killing of thousands of innocent lives, the United Nation stood by and did nothing to save lives, in most cases. This directly contradicts their goal to eradicate world conflicts thus questioning the success of the organisation. And often times, instead of preventing conflicts, UN resolutions have been used as justification for war (e.g: Resolution 678, used by the U.S to invade Iraq ) Moreover, the United Nations' decision making process is incredibly inefficient, as well as being incredibly unfair, 5 countries alone hold significantly more powers than the other nations in the United Nations. Meaning that a resolution with widespread support could be killed by a single veto from one of the five veto-holding countries. Ultimately, the U.N puts serve the interest of the 5 ahead of their actual mission
Argument 2. Corruption
Furthermore, multiple organisations under U.N supervision have been accused of rampant corruption, such as in the "Oil-for-food programme'. And multiple cases of sexual misconducts by U.N peacekeepers have been reported. Reports indicate that prostitution increased dramatically in areas where the U.N had deployed peacekeepers. Former First Lady of Mozambique stated the following :
'In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution'
Argument 3. Relevance
Truth of the matter is, there is simply no need for the U.N in today's world. Most of the progress since 1945 has simply not involved the United Nations at all. The IMF, The World Bank and the WTO have all worked independently of the UN, to promote greater prosperity, worldwide. The majority of the work done by the U.N could easily be done by any independent agency.
To conclude, the United Nations has failed at its original mission which was to promote peace internationally, and help protect innocent lives at risk. In the multiple instances where it could have acted and saved lives, political interests and abnormally slow bureaucratic decision-making process prevented it to accomplish its intended goals. Furthermore, the U.N and its multiple agencies are home of the most corrupt bureaucrats on earth. Pro states that 'The United Nations is a place where everyone is welcome to solve and work together' That is no longer the case, today, the General Assembly serves merely as 'a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other'. And ultimately an incredible amount of power is unjustly vested in only 5 countries thus benefiting their interest ahead of everything else.
Since Pro has not laid out a format for the debate, I will post my rebuttals to his argument in the next round.
maydaykiller forfeited this round.
I would like to greatly thank Pro for his understanding. I unfortunately was unable to submit my argument for round 2 on time.
I will now layout my rebuttals to Pro's arguments.
Although a change in the leadership of the United Nations may present some benefits, Pro has failed to concretely demonstrate how Ban Ki Moon's leadership has benefited the U.N. He states that 'issues' have been 'resolved' but fails to state which. Furthermore, being connected to the general public isn't the United Nations' mission. Being connected to the public does not end world conflicts nor does it end global poverty. Moreover, although I agree that the U.N can be used as a place 'to meet and discuss' it has been made evident over the past years that during times of crisis around the world, the United Nations has been spectacularly useless. Over 70 years, it has often stood by and watched civilians get slaughtered and humanitarian tragedies unfold. Calling the United Nations a success would simply be erroneous.
To conclude this very interesting debate, I would like to remind Pro and the voters that the United Nations, although created under good intention, purely and simply, fell short of the objectives it set itself. Under its watch millions have been murdered. For instance, at the height of the Rwandan genocide, in 1994, it gave orders to remove the UN peacekeepers from the country . Thus guaranteeing the death of thousands civilians the UN peacekeepers were protecting at that time. And surprisingly, when asked to send much needed reinforcements to protect innocent lives weeks later, they categorically refused to do so.  Thus begging to question the motives of the organisation. The Rwandan genocide is one example of many shortcomings of the United Nations which have led to disastroud consequences. The United Nations simply hasn't done enough of what it could have done, due to political interests of the permanent members of the Security Council. As mentionned earlier, calling the U.N a success would be erroneous.
My sources --
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.