The Instigator
Burch
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KoreanDebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United Nations: Should the U.S. always obtain a resolution before engaging in a military strike?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 737 times Debate No: 38675
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Burch

Con

The first round is to accept.
KoreanDebater

Pro

I believe that the U.S. should always obtain a resolution before military strike. Otherwise, the U.S. could be subjected to global condemnation and, possibly, isolation. Obtaining a resolution also eliminates the risk of being condemned about actions during the intervention. If the U.S. acts according to the obtained resolution, there is no danger that the U.S. would bve condemned for it.
Condemnation could mean disadvantages for the U.S. in various fields. In the economical field, there could be a decrease in foreign investments for the U.S., and there could be economical sanctions. This will lead to the fall of the U.S. economy. In the political fields, there could be disadvantages such as motivating other nations to have unfriendly relationships with the U.S.
Debate Round No. 1
Burch

Con

Hello and thank you for accepting the debate pro. This is my first debate on here so I'll do the best I can as far as following general guidelines. Let me know if I break any.

Although the first round was supposed to be for acceptance I will address various issues in which you brought up.

First regarding the negative impacts of the economy. The U.S. is in no danger of international sanctions and that is simply because of how deeply tied the global economy is to the U.S. economy. According to the IMF, the United States economy accounts for 11% of Global trade and 20% of Global manufacturing. Global banks also hold about $5.5 Trillion in U.S. assets, while the U.S. hold about $3 trillion in foreign assets. It has been seen time and time again that markets such as the EU and Asia have all reflected the economy of the United States.
One last thing on sanctions, because it would take a global resolution to impose sanctions on a country such as the U.S., the only mechanism in place to do such a thing right now is the U.N. Although, in this case, the U.S. has gone outside of the U.N. for a military strike, they are still a member of the U.N. security council. Thus, any resolution to impose sanctions of the U.S. would be vetoed by the U.S.

As for the political field; Define unfriendly relationships and what that would mean politically. As we can see, economically, any nation unfriendly to the U.S. economy would hurt themselves worse than they would hurt the U.S. economy. Politically they can condemn an action, but it is hot air. There is nothing they can do militarily to the United States, and it is either the military or the economy that enforces political will.

I will now move to my initial argument. Debunking economical fallout for unilateral U.S. actions was going to be a part of my initial argument so I'm glad you brought that up.

1. U.N. security council: The U.N. security council is an example of why the U.S. may need to act unilaterally on certain instances. There are 5 permanent members: U.S., France, U.K., China, Russia. If any one of these countries have an invested interest in a country that may be subject to a military strike they will use their veto power, regardless of whether or not there is a general agreement among the other nations to have a strike. I will use your own model to prove my point. According to you, a U.N. resolution should always be required for any nation to take action against another. Let's say Russia invades Georgia again, but this time they plan on occupying and annexing it into a part of their nation. Georgia appeals to the U.N. (which in reality they would appeal to NATO). Russia, being a part of the U.N. security council vetoes any legislation proposed which would be potentially belligerent to themselves. Since there can be no resolution and the U.N. is now completely useless, Georgia has no hope of international help since the only way a nation is allowed to help them is through the U.N. I understand that this scenario is unlikely, but this illustrates what would happen if if any one of these 5 nations had an interest in a nation subject to negative U.N. resolutions.

2. National contributions: The U.S. contributes 22% of all U.N. funding. France, U.K., and China are all at about 5.5%, and Russia is at a meager 2.2%. Going by these numbers, the only nation who really sees importance in the U.N. is the U.S. themselves. By the U.S. asking for a U.N. resolution they would be essentially asking for other nations to give permission to the United States to use American taxpayer money.

Well seeing that my computer is about to die, I yield the floor.

Sources:

Economy: http://www.imf.org...

U.N. Contributions: http://www.un.org...
KoreanDebater

Pro

KoreanDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Burch

Con

Am I wrong to assume you have no counter argument?
KoreanDebater

Pro

KoreanDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KoreanDebater

Pro

KoreanDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Burch

Con

Burch forfeited this round.
KoreanDebater

Pro

KoreanDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.