The Instigator
frbnsn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wxyz2000
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is United Nations just?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
wxyz2000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 62001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

frbnsn

Con

According to me, UN(United Nations) have an unjust structure and so absolutely, it must be changed.
It is very funny, an establishment which has been for peace between disagreements, has 5 permanent members (USA, Russia. China,France and England).
Even if all other countries are fully in agreement on a matter, no acceptable that, as long as (even)one of the five is disagree!

Where is justice?
wxyz2000

Pro

Since my opponent has not provided a definition of "just", I will provide one. In this debate, "justice" will be giving people what they have earned. Justice will also be the height of fairness (relative fairness; as there can be no system which is completely "fair"); therefore if my opponent wishes to claim that the "UN is not just", he/she must give an alternative method which would be more just than the current system.

The United Nations was originally the official term for the Allies which defeated the Axis in World War II. The victors and the most powerful countries of the century would obviously not enter an organization with weaker and poorer countries if the structure had not been tilted in their favour. Why should the United States contribute the largest sum of money to the United Nations if they were not favoured in the organization? Without this "injustice", the United Nations couldn"t possibly have been formed. Similarly, people who hold more stocks of a company have more say than those who hold less.

The five most powerful members of the UN have created a more level playing ground than it was necessary for them to create. I would like to point out that of the five principal organs of the UN, only one of them have the five permanent members, and that is the UN Security Council. Additionally, individual positions of power are usually not given to people who are from the five countries. For instance, the secretary-general of the United Nation (highest possible individual position) have been from Norway, Sweden, Myanmar, Austria, Peru, Egypt, Ghana and South Korea respectively.

The United States, the country which essentially conceived the idea of the United Nations, also decided to create a balance in the political spectrum, with three democratic countries and two communist countries. Even today, although the USSR has fallen apart, Russia remains hostile towards the West, and so this balance is maintained.

Having nations which can promptly veto a "bill" is a good idea. It can hinder the actions of a too-powerful country. Consider, for instance, the explosive number of wars instigated/supported by the United States today. A single powerful country can influence the votes of the masses. While it is true that the other "four countries" have not completely done their jobs preventing the United States from instigating wars, their presence increases the likelihood of this from happening.
Debate Round No. 1
frbnsn

Con

I mean that the structure 'the five permanent states of the UN' is not right, I think it is clear.
Then USA may conceive the idea of the establishment of the UN, right, but today, according to me, each state of the Security Council is using its position for its own interest, right or wrong; as we see in palestinian where Israel persecute palestinians and USA doesn't veto and in China, Chinese government likewise persecutes Uighurs in Eastern Turkhistan...
The UN is not a company which deals with goods and services; we talk about societies and humen;
On the world, there are a lot of people who are not from these five states. Any state or a group of states must not decide on people of the world.
So vote must be equal to every country.
wxyz2000

Pro

My opponent argues that a better alternative to the current UN system would be to allow every country to have equal vote.

First of all, if every country in the UN had been allowed equal vote, it may never have been formed at all, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph. Wealthier countries will demand concessions from poorer states. When the BRICS organization was founded, the new bank needed to have an initial subscribed capital of $100 billion dollars and an initial subscribed capital of $500 billion dollars to be equally distributed between its four members. China, being the largest economy, contributed the largest sum of money to the organization. Therefore it was agreed that the headquarters was established in China. Similarly, the United Nations, as a post World War II organization, would inevitably bend to the self-interest of the powerhouses of the day and victors of World War II. It was those powerhouses who had the most influence, and who channeled the most resources into the organization.

http://www.voanews.com...

"Then USA may conceive the idea of the establishment of the UN, right, but today, according to me, each state of the Security Council is using its position for its own interest, right or wrong; as we see in palestinian where Israel persecute palestinians and USA doesn't veto and in China, Chinese government likewise persecutes Uighurs in Eastern Turkhistan""

My opponent argues that if the current UN system would allow every country to have equal vote, then a state would be unable to decide for the rest of the world. This is not the case. Giving a state the right to veto a resolution should decrease the chances that "a state is able to decide for the rest of the world". For instance, if the United States was to invade Iraq again, it must both have the support of the masses and the consent of the four permanent member states. That is one extra condition that the United States must fulfill, and having the four permanent member states will detract the powers of a central authority. While the fact that "Israel persecute palestinians and USA doesn't veto" and "Chinese government likewise persecutes Uighurs in Eastern Turkhistan"" doesn"t speak well of the four member states, who did not veto, it also does not speak well of the masses, who also allowed these "persecutions" (in the words of my opponent) to take place. Consequently, my opponent cannot argue that with the abolishing the five member states we will see an increase in "fairness".

The fact is that since 1991, the United States has become the world"s dominant military, economic, social and political power. As such, it has much leverage over fellow UN members. Weak nations do not wish to move against the United States. As such, it is better for the United States council to be comprised of powerful members who can restrain the US. For instance, when the US tried to justify its occupation of Iraq, France voted no. As French president Chirac stated, "My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because this evening it considers that it is not necessary to make war to achieve the stated goal of the disarmament of Iraq".

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frbnsn

Con

First of all, if an organisation will be established for the benefits of humen being, interest (especially financial interest) should remain in the second, as I say previously.
I believe that these organisations, like this, are established by some (especially USA) dominant states, for the purpose of legitimizing their interests, rather than the interests of humen.
wxyz2000

Pro

My opponent ignores my argument that the United Nations would not have been created if concessions to the then powerful states had not been made. This is a question of viability, not morals.

If the United States completely wished to legitimized its interests, it would have not permitted its political opponents - communist countries such as the Soviet Union or China - to have entered the status of the five permanent members. Then, the Soviet Union vetoed many proposals by the US which it considered to be self-serving. Today, with only one superpower, it is wise to invest other countries with more power so as to constrain the ambitions of that country.

The United Nations, though not perfect, has accomplished many things that would help to make this world a better place. It has:

Strengthened International Law. The United Nations Over 550 multilateral treaties - on human rights, terrorism, global crimes, trade, oceans - have been negotiated and concluded through the efforts of the United Nations.

Encouraged innovation through the World Intellectual Property Organization

Spearheaded the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has gained nearly universal acceptance, and provides the legal framework for all activities in the ocean and the seas.

Prosecuted war criminals.

Is eradicating many diseases such as polio, smallpox and tropical diseases (such as onchocerciasis).

UN reduced child mortality rates in developing countries from 1 to 10 in 1990 to 1 to 18 by 2011.

The UN has achieved much more.

http://www.un.org...

Most of these endeavours were done with the funding of powerful countries. These were evidently for the benefit of the poorer states, and not for the richer ones.

As my opponent has not provided a feasible and more just form of government, I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
We all want peace in the middle east.Now who is to blame there is no peace. Simple to see who is the problem. If Hamas would lay down their arms,, there would be peace. If Israel would lay down their arms, there would be no Israel.Israel does not have hate in their hearts for the Palistinians. They would gladly leave them alone and let them prosper.And trade and have commerce with them That is what neighbors are for.

But the Palistiniians have hate in their hearts. Instead of just being at peace with Israel, raising their families in that peace, they, in too many instances , strap bombs on their children to kill Israelie children.
Posted by wxyz2000 2 years ago
wxyz2000
@Emilrose

Israel doesn't have its own agenda?
Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Israel army would be "pathetic" too without help from the most powerful component of the UN: the United States. Without support from the powerful allies in the west, Israel will soon be consumed.
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
U.N is a politically motivated establishment, ran by corrupt officials and people with their own agendas.
What's amusing is that they have the audacity to accuse Israel of "war crimes", and then a few weeks later their pathetic army escapes to Israel when running away from Syrian rebels.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
How about just painting a target on the building and invite Al quaeda in for target practice.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by IronCurx 2 years ago
IronCurx
frbnsnwxyz2000Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just generally outperformed Con in arguments and sources, Pro also rebutted
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
frbnsnwxyz2000Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro makes better assertions and rebuttals, along with sources (con had none)