Should the United Nations peacekeepers have the power to engage in offensive operations?
Debate Rounds (4)
I think that the UN peacekeepers should not have the power to engage in offensive operations.
The Merriam Webster definition says offensive means causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset.
Peacekeeping means the preserving of peace; especially international enforcement and supervision of a truce between hostile states or communities.
The idea that they could do offensive operations goes against what their goal is, which is to keep the peace not be offensive. Even if there is conflict in a country the UN shouldn't be there in the first place. They are supposed to do negotiations not fight.
I would like my opponent to go into further detail when they said " according to the communist ideology, for a truly peaceful communist society to develop, there must be a violent overtake against the government"
Now, the difference between the Peacekeepers fighting than a military fighting is that there will sometimes be different motives. Since the Peacekeepers are backed by the UN, their motive would almost definitely be to establish peace. Though, if it was a foreign military that came in to resolve a conflict, chances are, their main motive may not be "peace", but rather to better themselves. In other words, Peacekeepers are probably more reliable than a national military to engage in offensive operations.
Iraq can be seen as an example of how the U.S.'s real motive was not peace and stability, but rather oil. In the end, there were so many casualties on both sides that it may have been worse than not toppling Saddam Hussein.
It doesn't have to be a specific military that would be in charge of the conflict. Since the UN is made of multiple countries, they can make a group with trained professionals from each country. Their job would be to help the UN peacekeepers. The peacekeepers would be in charge of the negotiations. If conflict occurred, then the trained group can take control. The peacekeepers could still be involved past that point, but the main ones involved would be the new group. The group would be backed by the UN, so their goal would also be peace, but they deal with the conflict.
bluebrit forfeited this round.
1 Going off the Merriam Webster definitions of offensive and peacekeeping the resolution goes against the goal of the UN peacekeepers
2 in some situations conflict cannot be avoided, but the UN peacekeepers should not be in charge of the conflict. They should just be in charge of the negotiations.
I still don't understand why my opponent brought up Marx's theory of history
Before I end this I would like to offer a better resolution. Instead of having the UN peacekeepers in charge of the conflict there should be a group with people of multiple countries of the UN, who would be in charge of the conflict. The peacekeepers could still be there, but they would not be in charge of the operation.
I stated Marx's theory as an example of how peace can only be established through blood and violence.
"Since the UN is made of multiple countries, they can make a group with trained professionals from each country. Their job would be to help the UN peacekeepers." Great idea, but I really do not see why another group has to be created just to deal with the conflict. As ironic it may sound, why not just have the peacekeepers be involved in war as well? I mean, the name can always be changed from peacekeepers to something else.
You are correct in pointing out that the UN peacekeepers have limits to offensive engagement, but the debate question asked "Should the United Nations peacekeepers have the power to engage in offensive operations?", and my opponent's number one argument would be invalid.
In conclusion, my arguments would be...
1. UN Peacekeepers should be able to engage in offensive operations, though there must be solid reason that it would result in peace in the area and it must be agreed upon by a certain amount of UN nations.
2. I believe that there is no need for another group of people to deal with offensive engagement.
Overall, I think that the peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct due to Pro's forfeit. Pro wins arguments. The question in this debate really came down to whether peacekeepers should be the ones doing the fighting, and Pro gives me a convincing argument that peacekeepers, because they come from different countries, will be more interested in establishing peace than pursuing some nationalistic agenda. More to the point, Con's rebuttal doesn't seem practical, as creating a whole separate force to tackle the issue when the peacekeepers already exist and are already deployed in troubled regions just seems redundant and excessive. Suggestion for improvement: both debaters should use and cite sources, should work on developing their points more fully instead of making bare assertions, and should impact their arguments more frequently and explicitly back to the topic.
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.