The UN should build its own army
Debate Rounds (4)
I look forward to reading my opponent's arguments, which (hopefully) will be well-written and persuasive.
My first argument is that if all peacekeeping forces were recuited and controlled by the UN there would be less confusion when the peacekeeper were required and so overall peace could be kept more efficiently.
My second argument is that if the forces were mainted by the UN the goverentments of the world would haveno need to spend extra money on mainting military forces that they would not be able to use.
I look forward to seeing my opponents arguments.
While the proposed centralized UN military force is not under the control of any specific nation, it is still under the control of a specific person or group of people, who have their own ideologies that they take very seriously.
Now, this may not be a bad thing...if said force is under the control of a group with modern western values. But what if radical Islamists control this military force? Or what about a communist Anti-Theist?
Do you see the problem? Such a force must be under the control of people with "good" values for this idea to not completely blow up in your face. But it's quite probable that mostly people with "bad" values will take over.
For instance, in Hong Kong the Chinese Government has attempted to (I don't know whether or not they were successful) install a Pro-Communist education in Hong Kong.
Surprisingly, I wasn't able to find much information on the bias of education in China, but if it was implemented in Hong Kong by the Chinese then you can be sure that's what the Chinese children are learning.
I'm not talking about mere Liberalism, or even the West European brand of socialism. I am referring to full-fledged communism, the authoritarian kind.
China currently has a population of over 1.3 Billion people, meaning that as of the time I am typing this, one in every six people live in China, where they likely receive a Communist education.
Of course, China alone is not the whole story. Vietnam, a communist nation, currently has a population of over 89 million people. Cuba, a communist nation, has a population of over 10 million people. North Korea, a communist nation, currently has a population of over 24 million (this is under the assumption that in the future, North Korea will be either liberated or opened up to the outside world). Laos, a communist nation, has a population of 6 million. If you put all of the communist nations and their populations together, you result in over 1.4 Billion people. That is, 20% of the world's population. And this does not count former communist nations, where communist beliefs are often deeply rooted. Nor does it count the communists in free nations.
So let's put this in perspective. For every soldier incorporated into this new army, 20% will probably be from communist countries. A united 20% of soldiers could take control, or gain a dominant influence over the UN Army. Or, they could get their soldiers at the highest levels of power.
What you'd result in is a communist UN Army. And since the UN Army would be international, it'd make sense that in this case the UN Army would have the world's largest and best equipped army in the world, by a large margin.
Or, let's take Radical Islamic ideology. In 37 Muslim nations, according to this questionable source, Christians are persecuted.
Many people in these nations must hold radical Islamist views in order for such groups to get away with this. In some nations, such as the areas under the control of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, radical Islamic and Anti-Israel teachings are taught in schools.
Just like communists might take over, it's also likely that radical Islamists may take over.
The overall point so far is that the proposed UN Army may very well become corrupted; no, it will most definitely become corrupted. And when that happens, they'll impose their will upon the world. There will be much difficulty in stopping them, as they'd likely be the biggest army in the world.
The current system is that a handful of powerful nations, often acting alone but sometimes having a few allies, send it's forces into a nation to serve as peacekeepers. The United States has done this in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. France has recently sent its forces into the African nation of Mali to defeat the local terrorist groups. And the list goes on.
As they aren't usually united into one force, a lone powerful nation such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland could be defeated by another powerful nation or an alliance of moderately powerful nations. They could do this if the nation went too far and abused their military might in a severe and inexcusable manner.
Do you see the difference? Accountability. One nation doesn't have too much power, and military alliances are put in place only to stand against a common threat to their security. This is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, which I am talking about. They have handled threats to the world's security for decades now, and they have certainly been held accountable.
I await my opponent's response.
TheShadowHiddenInTheMist forfeited this round.
TheShadowHiddenInTheMist forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.