The Instigator
Yousefator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)

The United Nations becoming more like the League of Nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Yousefator has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 960 times Debate No: 99548
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Yousefator

Pro

Lets face the facts. The United Nations has done absolutely nothing effective in the past twenty years. It has failed to stop TWO Iraq invasions, failed to stop the invasion of Afghanistan, failed to prevent the killer pollution of the Baltic, failed to protect Syrians, failed to resolve the China - Philippines island issue. Do not respond with resolutions that they passed or promises made, I want ACTION.
And I see None.
Hayd

Con

My opponent is new to the site. My opponent has not brought up any actual arguments thus far, but since I am essentially the affirming side because I am affirming that the UN is successful in preventing world crises I will include my offensive arguments this round. Pro's next round should then also include his opening arguments, but Pro should waive his R4 response in order to make the amount of responses in the debate equal.

I thus propose the following structure for the rest of the rounds of the debate, Pro brings up his opening arguments in R2, I bring up mine along with rebuttal. R3 and R4 are then further discourse. No new arguments are allowed in R4, meaning that ideas that have not been brought up previously cannot be brought up again. For example, Pro could not bring up an entirely new argument about Taiwan that had not been mentioned before in the debate, for it would be unfair for me to respond to as I couldn't have been able to bring up new arguments.

I also would like to note that the meaning of "becoming more like the League of Nations" means the same as, how Pro elaborates in R1, that the UN has not been effective in preventing world crises, just as the League of Nations was. Thus the resolution could just as easily read: the UN is not effective in preventing world crises.

I argue that the UN is successful in preventing international crises and thus is not becoming like the League of Nations. In this way, I negate the resolution.

In Liberia, a 15 year long civil war led to the deaths of 250,000 and the displacement of a million. The UN sent help to rebuild the infrastructure and supply basic needs to the countries population such as healthcare, food services, schooling, etc. This reduced the appeal for another overthrow of the government, or radicalization of the people. The UN oversaw the demilitarization of former soldiers, and facilitated the democratically elected president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and continued peace after the conclusion of the civil war. [1]

This shows that the UN is enacting actual change in the world by preventing war in Liberia and saving the lives of thousands.

In Sierra Leone the UN disarmed 75,000 former fighters and allowed the country to hold democratic elections following the civil war, brought government services back to the people, established an effective policing force and rebuilt the countries infrastructure. This work went to preventing the outbreak of another civil war and maintaining the peace in the region [4].

Changes like these are true across the board. The UN is successful in two out of every 3 peacekeeping missions, and that 7 out of every 8 UN cases ends in peace [2]. This shows that on balance the UN is successful in keeping peace in the world, evidenced by the decline in the number of wars, human rights abuses, and genocides since the end of the Cold War [3].

In conclusion, I have given just two examples of the kinds of successful missions the UN has done in the world. I have proven that on balance the UN is successful in perpetuating peace on the world stage the majority of the time. Thus I negate the fact that the UN is not effective in preventing war.

[1] http://www.unfoundation.org...
[2] https://www.rand.org...
[3] http://www.hsrgroup.org...
[4] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Yousefator

Pro

Okay, so this is going to be my opening argument.

1- I would like to bring the Con's attention, along with everyone else witnessing this, to my first, and strongest case. The UN has failed, over the course of the last forty seven years, to resolve the persistent issue named Israel. I would like to point out that UN peacekeeper influence in the Gaza and West Jerusalem areas has been minimal to date, the strongest action taken, after international pressuring, was to make Palestine as a permanent SPECTATOR member.

It would be an act of ignorance to negate the fact that a total of 91,105 Palestinians and Arabs have been killed since 1860 in all Arab-Israeli conflicts, and the UN has done very little to curb that number. It was the US, with pressure from other European countries, that brokered the Camp David Accords. It was not UN intervention that lifted the siege on Gaza since 2008. It was not the UN that stopped forced Israeli settlements in the lands rightfully owned by Palestinians. It was not the UN which brought Israel to the the International Court of Justice on its proven war crimes of rape, prisoner torture, and arbitrary abduction. It was not the UN that stood up to Jewish excursions into Palestinian Jerusalem. It was not the UN that has convened an Emergency Meeting to enforce the Two-State solution, which would not have only brought PEACE to the area, but also a chance for Palestinians to rebuild their abused homeland after DECADES of uninterrupted occupation.

2- The time has come to reflect the resent UN resolution about the situation in West Africa which begins ; "Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence,territorial integrity and unity of The Islamic Republic of The Gambia, and recalling the importance of the principles of good-neighborliness, non-interference and regional cooperation." This, as the first clause in the resolution, is the most powerful of all promises made in the entire document. It states that "territorial integrity" will be maintained in Gambia, because the UN is commuted to doing so, and, if the UN was effective, it would have DONE so. (3)

3- Resolution 2328 (2016), which demands UN access to, and I quote, "monitor evacuations from Aleppo," has been passed on the 19 of December 2016, meaning that it should be in full effect and the UN should have forces on the ground safeguarding the evacuating residents. Results have not been seen to date, ISIS persists its bombing of the city, and people cannot escape due to fighting in the streets, let a lone be monitored while doing so.

The UN should be stopping CONFLICTS ENTIRELY, not aiming to help refugees or raising awareness. The LON did nothing when Italy invaded Ethiopia because it was incompetent and obsolete. The UN is DOING nothing MAJOR about what is happening in Syria because it also is incompetent and obsolete. Sanctions weren't even imposed on Russia for intervening in the civil war.
Hayd

Con

Pro's arguments consist of specific incidents in which Pro alleges that the UN did not act. I will respond to each in turn and show that the UN in fact did act, or that inaction was the best action to take.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The UN has played a central role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been expressed by providing life-sustaining support to Palestinian refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This includes education, healthcare, and social services to 5 million refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars [1]. Providing sustenance to refugees counters the radicalizing force that leads many Palestinians to attack Israel and thus escalate the conflict. The UN's assistance to refugees has a direct and powerful impact on the alleviation of the conflict.

The UN has also provided a platform for Palestinian political claims via the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which assisted many Palestinians in returning to their homes [2]

The main angle that Pro comes from in the UN not being effective in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the US took the most action, citing numerous incidents of the US working to prevent war. But this line of logic does not work because it ignores the fact that no solution is worked out: any acts that the US did to do peace accords or enforce solutions is null. The most effective force in the region is the UN because they are the ones that are coming through on promises, contrary to every other force in the region by caring for the refugees and preventing radicalization.

Gambia
This argument is incredibly vague. The only thing I can find reference to is that the Gambian election was seized by the military, but it was wise for the UN to evacuate for the UN is not a fighting force but merely a cooperating force: bringing together member nations to work together to resolve the conflict. The UN does not have a large army to send in to protect the elections from the military. Any attempt to do so would have resulted in needless deaths.

Evacuations from Alleppo
Those leaving will be bombed by ISIS regardless, there is nothing for UN to do about it since the UN does not have an army to destroy ISIS. What the UN does do is distribute food and shelter to those making their journey out of the city so that they do not starve to death while escaping [3]. They also provide shelter so that those leaving Aleppo don't die in the desert after leaving.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Yousefator 1 year ago
Yousefator
I did, I should accept the friend request right ?
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Allow me to send messages to you, change your settings
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Please change the time between rounds to 72 hours and make the voting system select winner and then send the challenge to me. I would LOVE to do this
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.