Resolved: UN peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.
Debate Rounds (4)
I stand in negation of the NSDA January 2015 Resolution: Resolved UN peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.
Contention 1- The United Nations in multiple cases has failed to actually bring peace.
The UN is a failure when is comes to actually bringing peace. Allowing these "Peacekeepers" to have weapons, to be used for anything but self defense is a liability risk. In multiple cases such as Somalia 1992-1994, Rwanda 1994-1995, Bosnia 1993-1995, and Democratic Republic of Congo 2011-Present, the UN Peacekeepers being there have only upped the ante and made rebels and opposing forces less likely to quit. In Somalia 1992-1994 the United Nations deployed nearly 30,000 troops to Somalia to fight opposing forces. But, the Peacekeeping mission failed, killing nearly 54 Pakistani Troops, let alone killing 22 American Soldiers and 99 others. In the Rwanda Genocide 1994-1995 the United Nations sent 22,000 troops to Rwanda, to hopefully bring peace to the already agitated Hutu and Tutsi rebels. That only made things worse. The UN involvement only brought Genocide, and 800,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed. Then there was Bosnia 1993-1995 where the UN sent in about 12,000 Peacekeepers were sent to Bosnia. In the end, the Peacekeepers only upset the rebels more. 20,000 Bosnians were killed by the end of the war in 1995, after another Peacekeeping mission failed.
Then there is the most recent failure with the Democratic Republic of Congo and the UN. The second largest peacekeeping mission to date, with 25,000 peacekeepers deployed into the DRC. This has only proved to fail to bring peace. In a report by Susan Price of the BBC, nearly 150 allegations of rape, prostitution, sexual & child exploitation have been brought against the current 25,000 peacekeepers there. The saddest part is, the UN, Peacekeeper Generals, and the Peacekeeper"s themselves have a "boys will be boys" type of attitude when it comes to these peacekeepers satisfying their sexual needs. Although the UN is choosing to have an attitude like this, in the "Code of Personnel for Blue Helmets," rule 4 is "Do not indulge in any immoral acts of sexual, physical, or psychological abuse or exploitation of the local population." This is very ironic, considering that the UN does nothing about these 150 allegations. If the UN can"t own up to their own Code of Conduct, why should they have the power to engage in offensive operations.
Contention 2- Offensive Operations has a blurred median.
Offensive Operation has no set definition, like one by Merriam Webster Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc. It has a blurred understanding that is to be interpreted by whoever. This gives Peacekeepers pretty much leeway to do whatever they feel is an Offensive Operation. Is an Offensive Operation the invasion of a country? How about attacking encampments? Everyone can agree that this gives peacekeepers leeway to do whatever they want. This is a simply flaw in this resolution.
Everyone can agree that to be Offensive, you must have an enemy or an opponent. Who decides that one is the enemy? Or should the peacekeepers be allowed to attack anyone that they see fitting? Any argument that states that the UN needs to be offensive, is simply void because of the incapability to prove what an offensive operation is.
Contention 3- Allowing peacekeeper to be offensive, will lead to abuse of power.
U.N. peacekeepers are not a military force and should not be allowed to be one. The U.N., effectively ruled by the five nations on the security council, should not have a military which carry out offensive operations. That opens the door to vast potential for abuses of power. As stated in Contention 1, The UN has over 150 allegations of peacekeepers abusing their power and indulging in sexual, physical, and psychological acts. If in the past 3 years (2011-Present) Peacekeepers without the power to be offensive have abused their power and indulging in said acts, imagine what would occur with the ability to be offensive.
Furthermore, with the three contentions above, the UN has proved to be unsuccessful and abusing of power. And lastly the blurred line of offensive operations.
Contention two: peacekeepers can"t keep peace properly if they have to wait for anticipated attacks towards them to happen. In order to be most effective in protecting themselves, peacekeepers must be able to preemptively strike. Currently, they must wait until they are attacked in order to defend themselves. From ("South Sudan: UN Officials, Security Council Condemn Deadly Attack on Peacekeepers." UN News Center. UN, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.) On April 9th 2013, at least 12 peacekeepers were killed after being ambushed on a mission in the Jonglei State. The people who attacked the peacekeepers largely outnumbered them and were directly targeting the peacekeepers. They also killed many civilians, injured many, and many people still aren"t accounted for. The attacks could have been prevented in the first place if the peacekeeper was able to engage offensively against those causing conflict to them and/or the area they are trying to maintain peace in.
Contention three: when peacekeepers can"t preform offensive actions they not only put themselves at risk but the people they are trying to protect. It is true success is never guaranteed, because UN Peacekeeping almost by definition go to the most physically and politically difficult environments so it is all the more reason peacekeeper need the option of using offensive operations. Tim Mawe, a deputy permanent representative, stated in a letter written to the president in June 2014, "We owe it to our service personnel, deploying into increasingly dangerous environments, that they are as well equipped as possible. It is sobering to remember that to this date this year 37 persons serving on UN peacekeeping missions have been killed." Keep in mind this does not take in account the number of the civilians killed and people injured. So by not allowing UN peacekeepers to engage in offensive operations were basically costing innocent people their lives.
chrisjachimiak forfeited this round.
mariahscats forfeited this round.
One thing that is very very important in choosing who the winner of today's debate is you have to consider that Pro never fought against my second contention, talking about how Offensive Operations is not defined. My question for pro is "Is an Offensive Operation the invasion of a country? How about attacking encampments?" My opponent failed to define that term, so therefore, the Points should go to the Con.
In their first contention they said: "In the past when peacekeepers were able to use offensive operations, they were overall successful." According to defense.gov  The Korean War in which they said was 'very successful', nearly 55,000 people died . If I'm not mistaken, the death of 55,000 people is not all that successful. My opponent failed to take into consideration my first contention where I proved countless times that UN peacekeeping is overall not successful and leads to the harm of citizens in which these UN peacekeepers are fighting in. For example: Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and The DRC are 4 complete failures in which the UN peacekeepers used offensive operations. The UN peacekeepers can't be reliable enough to stop the peace in these 4 examples. Therefore, the points fall to the Con.
In their second contention they said: "Peacekeepers can't keep peace properly if they have to wait for anticipated attacks towards them to happen."
This is simply false. In most cases, UN peacekeepers are not actually fighting a war. This seems pretty obvious, but they are there to keep peace. That seems difficult for pro to understand. UN peacekeepers by having the ability to use military grade weapons is most likely irritating the opposing forces, and not actually bringing peace.
In their third Contention they said: "When peacekeepers can"t perform offensive actions they not only put themselves at risk but the people they are trying to protect." If pro would have paid attention to the second part of my first contention, the UN peacekeepers are already putting the citizens in these countries at risk. Just in The DRC, Susan Price of the BBC reports, nearly 150 allegations of rape, prostitution, sexual & child exploitation have been brought against the current 25,000 peacekeepers there.  I'm failing to see Pro's point. How would allowing the UN Peacekeepers to have weapons take the risk factor out. You can't say that you're protecting the citizens when having offensive operations when there's these 150 allegations of Rape, Prostitution, Etc..
I Should only see everyone vote Con in today's debate, considering the incompetence of Pro to actually read my case.
mariahscats forfeited this round.
My first contention is still standing.
My second Contention is still standing.
and My third Contention is still standing.
His first contention ISN'T left Standing. I attacked this in round 3
His second contention isn't left standing. I attacked this in round 3
His third contention like the rest of them isn't standing. I attacked this in round 3.
Seeing as though all of my contentions are still standing, I should win today's debate. Thanks.
mariahscats forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes Con due to forfeit. S&G was good for both. Arguments go Con because of better R1 arguments and Pro had no further ones. Sources go Con because Pro had none.
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.