The Instigator
DylanDraper1993
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
DylanDraper1993
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,371 times Debate No: 12320
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

DylanDraper1993

Pro

Hello. I am Dylan, and this is my first debate on Debate.org. I look forward to a debate that will both intrigue me and keep me busy over the next few days.

-- Introduction --

In order to understand "International Organization" we must first define it.

An international organization is an organization with an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types: International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate internationally. [1]

In this debate we will specifically be talking abut IMGOs. For example, the United Nations, NATO, the EU ect.

Point 1: Some INGOs slow down the economic growth of the international community, and thus slow down the individual countries.

For this instance let us use the IMF. The IMF is an IMGO that was founded in July 1944 for the purpose of stabilizing the worlds economy.[2] The IMF is a unique INGO with the way that the voting works. The IMF uses funds from the member nations to create a reservoir of money that they can use if they get a majority vote on the situation.

Voting power: The quota largely determines a member's voting power in IMF decisions. Each IMF member has 250 basic votes plus one additional vote for each SDR 100,000 of quota. Accordingly, the United States has 371,743 votes (16.74 percent of the total), and Palau has 281 votes (0.01 percent). [3]

What that means is if enough nations with larger votes vote against something that the smaller nations not only want, but need, then the larger economic nations (The Untied States, Germany, the Netherlands ect.) can easily mussel their way through and end up benefiting no other economy other than themselves. This effectivly gives the smaller nations (Palau, C�te d'Ivoire, Vanuatu) no chance of survival.

Point 2: INGOs like the UN lack the speed and power to help nations in their time of need, often crippling them to the point of no recovery. They therefor offer a bleak hope to nations in need.

The UN is an embarrassment to the way that the world has tried to implement an international police force. They do no have the resources that is needed to undertake such a feat. They have time and time again cried out "We need more money to do stuff!" They were underfunded during Haiti hurricane relief. [4] They claim that almost every operation in Africa is underfunded. [5] And they just recently decided to shell out 9 million, yes million, USD in grants.

During Bosnia & Herzegovina, on of the UN's least shining moments, the United Nations had tasked itself to protect over the most violence Europe had seen since World War II. The United nations had had enough and asked for outside assistance. Having not realized the situation beforehand, the UN had left the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a state of peril for the next ten years. A lifestyle that has not gotten much better for the Bosnian, Croats, and Serbs living in the country. [6]

I thank the person who takes this debate, and look forward to their opening argument. Thank you!

-=References=-
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.imf.org...
[4] http://www.un.org...
[5] http://www.unmultimedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

<>
Your example shows how the IMF helps big country's more that little countries, you have not shown how this is harming the little country, more so than the IMF not existing.

<>
This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so.

Your resolution is that INGOs stop nations from reaching their full potential. I have seen no arguments to suggest that the INGOs are what is stopping them. if the INGOs did not exist would these nations be reaching their full potential.
if so, i have seen no arguments to support this
if not, clearly it is not the INGOs that are stopping them.
Debate Round No. 1
DylanDraper1993

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply.

"Your example shows how the IMF helps big country's more that little countries, you have not shown how this is harming the little country, more so than the IMF not existing."

In this case the definition of subsidies as A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector.[1]
Perhaps i should be more detailed. Let us assume that the IMF has written up a proposal that simply states "Developed nations may not subsidize exports into developing nations to a price any lover than that nation allows, if they do so the IMF is required to counter subsidize" What the resolution is trying to do is stop countries from subsidizing their exports in order to manipulate the other countries economies, a very good thing and a good idea.

Now we assume that the united states wants to maintain its power in influencing other nations economy. ie. crippling nations by subsidizing goods from the United States, thus selling the goods for a cheaper price than the home nation. So the large powers of the IMF vote against the resolution. I have created an excel spreadsheet that shows that the top 17 members hold 67.42% of the vote. [2] (I do not know how i could show you the spreadsheet i made, but i can give you the place where the raw data was found, and upon instruction will provide the spreadsheet.)

What that means is that these 17 members, arguably the most powerful nations in the world, hold the fate of these smaller nations (160 of them) in their hand. You can draw the conclusion yourself as to how the vote would go. And whilst this still brings us to the point that the larger nations are benefiting, the international community as whole benefits much more if the vote does pass.

The fact that smaller nations economies becoming larger benefiting the intentional community as a whole was decided in the League of Nations conference in 1933. [3]

"This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so."
The case in Bosnia & Herzegovina was of this. Had the United Nations not taken action, and let the violence go unanswered, then the nation would have recovered economically at a much faster rate than right now. [4] What Joe Black said is that if the UN decided to take action then it should do so with food and aid, and not soldiers. [4] As of right now we see that B&H is still, almost 20 years later, the same as when the UN decided to intervene.

New argument one: INGOs like the UN have already stopped developing nations.
In this point we will take North Korea for an example. Ever since the Korean war, tensions between the west and the DPRK have always been touchy. The UN has time and time again imposed sanctions on North Korea and have virtually stopped their economic growth and development. [5] We see that the South Koreans have a booming economy with modern socio-economic stability. [6] The reason is, due to the UN, the US has gained enough power to press the DPRK due to bitter times in the 1950s. [7]

I thank my opponent for listening and await his reply.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.imf.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://flag.blackened.net...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

<>
two major problems with this argument. 1, it only shows that IMF has the ability to do so, in order to be relevant you must show that it has done so.
2. This arguement also has the same problem as your previous arguments. you show how the big countries can prevent the IMF from helping the little countries, so the worst case scenario in this situation is that we are in the same situation we would be in if the IMF did not exist, so you can not say it is harming the little country.

<>
explain relevance.

<>
this is the first argument that addresses mine that 'This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so.' however by the nature of this argument it does not save your previous ones, including from this round and last.
In response to this argument, i read your resource [4], and i could not find the part that said the economy would recover faster. In fact, it specificly states that "The only role the UN has played has been to evacuate (white) Europeans", please point out, the area in the article that supports your argument.

<>
DPRK=North Korea
I read the economy section about North Korea, your source [5], and, at the time i read it, it sounds like North Korea is doing nicely with stable economic growth, the only mention of sanction i found was in the source list and that UN sanctions caused DPRK to progress with it uranium enrichment program, your source offered no evidence nor claim that North Korea's economy has stalled.
Debate Round No. 2
DylanDraper1993

Pro

Thank you for a once again speedy reply, and to keep me busy on this lazy Saturday

-="it only shows that IMF has the ability to do so, in order to be relevant you must show that it has done so."=-

I apologize for creating the same mistake in a row. While i will admit that it is hard to find something where the IMF acted entirely out of interest, i can find many were they have left out a few nations in order to save a few pennies. If anyone recalls the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, you will remember that it started with an entirely different international organization, and ended with the IMF. ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. They are considered the NAFTA of Southeast Asia. [1]

During the 1997 economic crisis five of some of Asia's most economically sound nations crashed. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea. I will not go into what happened and how it came about, i will simply say that here is where the IMF failed big time. They dished out 40 billion USD to bail out South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. But what about the Philippines and South Korea? If you did not already know there was a similar resolution where all the nations where included, but Germany and the USA (with 20% of the vote together) decided that it was ultimately too costly to include all nations. Despite the fact that the first resolution was backed by almost all of Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America it failed anyway. The Philippines at one point had 0.00% economic growth. Unheard of in the international community. The Philippines had to go under a grueling slow crawl back into the game, taking an ultimate 3 years for it to recover fully. This is an example of larger powers using its economic power in the IMF to serve its own interests, and leave out others. [2]

The IMF was set up in order to help nations. Nations are required, as part of the IMF mandate to donate part of their GDP the the funds of which the IMF can use. [3] This negates your point of "so the worst case scenario in this situation is that we are in the same situation we would be in if the IMF did not exist, so you can not say it is harming the little country." The developing nation has lost money as part of the IMF and has nothing to show for it.

-="explain relevance." =-

Relevance is that the international community wanted for INGOs to help people. This is the case with the forerunner of all INGOs the LON. Yet they haven't achieved a thing.

-="In response to this argument, i read your resource [4], and i could not find the part that said the economy would recover faster. In fact, it specifically states that "The only role the UN has played has been to evacuate (white) Europeans", please point out, the area in the article that supports your argument."=-

The entire article as a whole has stated that letting the UN intervene is a bad idea for the host nation and the international community. It clearly states that in order to help the nations the UN should not give the false pretense of saviors, but merely aid bringers. Therefore the article as a whole clearly supports my point. [4]

However you did point out a paragraph that i did miss that further supports my point i made in round 1, point 2: INGOs like the UN lack the speed and power to help nations in their time of need, often crippling them to the point of no recovery. They therefor offer a bleak hope to nations in need.

You said "The only role the UN has played has been to evacuate (white) Europeans", what you failed to mention however is the other quote found not even a line away form that one "It included footage of people being clubbed to death within about 300m of UN forces and also of an incident where a woman was dragged past UN soldiers to be hacked to death with a machete. They just stood and watched." What the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians thought that they where going to get was a force that would come in and stop the violence. Instead they got a fake force that was sent there to evacuate people. A task that they did rather poorly as 400'000 people died. [5]

"DPRK=North Korea"

I am well aware... what is your point?

-="I read the economy section about North Korea, your source [5], and, at the time i read it, it sounds like North Korea is doing nicely with stable economic growth"=-

The average monthly salary of a North Korean is... wait for it.... wait for it..... 47 USD. Whilst the chart did show stable growth, that damage has been done. 1% growth into 47 dollars is five cents a year.

North Korea and South Korea have very similar geography, similar resources, the people have the same genetics, and are relatively the same build. There are some very big differences. South Korea has the 14th highest GDP in the world. North Korea is 97th. South Korea has a labor force of 24.7 Million. North Korea is at 20 Million.[8][9] This is a picture of the Korean Peninsula at night.[7] It is no secret that the energy consumption of a nation is directly proportional to the economy of the nation, and there we see the stark reality.

What make these two nations, that have shared thousands of years of history, so different? The answer is the UN backing of South Korea while it imposes sanctions on North Korea. I understand your point on not being able to find UN sanctions concerning anything other then Uranium enrichment for the IAEA, however there have been both economic, militaristic, and Diplomatic sanctions imposed on the North Koreans.Here is a 15 page document of the sanctions currently imposed on North Korea [10] Before the Korean War (1950-1953) both parts of the nations had similar economies with similar growth. [11] The power the United States has gained through the UN has turned a grudge into an international economic war.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.imf.org...
[4] http://flag.blackened.net...
[5] http://www.gendercide.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://upload.wikimedia.org...
[8] https://www.cia.gov...
[9] https://www.cia.gov...
[10] http://www.au.af.mil...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

<>
yet again, you still have to stop making these arguments or explain how helping the big country harms the little one, the same goes to the second part of this paragraph. BTY isn't this the same mistake you apologized for in line 1?

<>
the government's budget being slightly lowered has no effect on the economy.

<>
your quote was that it is critical that small economies do well for the larger economies to do well, i still fail to see how this is relevant.

<>
I still fail to see how this article says that the UN's actions harmed the economy, i admit it would have been more helpfull to bring aid, but the article does not even claim a negative impact as far as i can tell, Voters, read it yourself and see who's right.

<>

Yet again you need to show how they harm the economies not how they don't help. Ask yourself, would the economy be better off if they did nothing?

<>
how does inaction mean doing harm. Once again would the situation be better if the UN was not there.

<<"DPRK=North Korea"
I am well aware... what is your point?>>
I wasn't, and i don't think many of the voters are either, i just wanted to clarify for them.

<>
It is also communist. This means a socialist economic structure (which is not neccisarilly bad, it just rarely works, but thats not INGOs fault, it human nature) Interestingly, in an ideal socialist economy the average income would be 0 USD.

<>
They are also managed very differently, South Korea is capitalist, and i think a different economic structure is pretty significant to the economy. It might also be North Korea's isolationist attidude, causing their government to heavilly regulate international trade. Also just because they are very similar doesn't mean everything goes the same way. To demonstrate this point i will share an example i learned while i was touring Israel. Unfourtuantly i cannot site a source, so you need to trust my facts.
A group of immigrants to palistine (now isreal) formed a socialist kibbutz. Two generations past and a large group in the third generation expressed a desire to become capitalist, threatening not to return after finishing in the army, which they are required to join for 2,3 years at 18. The kibbutz decided to split into two seperate kibbutzim, one capitalist, one socialist. They were still on the same land right next to each other, but for some reason (i'm not claiming economic structure) the capitalist one did very well ecconomicly, but the socialist one did not.
Returning to the arguement, in order for yours to be true you must demonstrate that the sanctions are the only signifficant variable, which could be difficult because we don't even know what variables are significant.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JacobPearson 7 years ago
JacobPearson
It's not illegal under international law to either instigate a blockade or intercept a ship (even in international waters) which wishes to break this blockade. It is a widely practised tactic - most countries have done it. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

You can drop the 'piracy' meme too Brian. As under international law it was considered a state action, not piracy. "Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Point 2: INGOs like the UN lack the speed and power to help nations in their time of need, often crippling them to the point of no recovery. They therefor offer a bleak hope to nations in need."

Good point. Rogue states like Israel know this which is why they can get away with the gross violations of international law that they commit in Palestine and even in international waters, as was witnessed recently when the Israelis attacked an aid shipment bound for Gaza.

This was clearly an act of state-sponsored piracy and the UN rightly condemned it. However, the Isrealis just shrugged their shoulders and said 'we don't care what you say, we'll do what we like and you can't stop us.'
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 7 years ago
SuperRobotWars
DylanDraper1993gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gizmo1650 7 years ago
gizmo1650
DylanDraper1993gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
DylanDraper1993gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
DylanDraper1993gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DylanDraper1993 7 years ago
DylanDraper1993
DylanDraper1993gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61