Resolved: United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.

------------------------------------------------Con Rebuttal------------------------------------------------Rebuttal 1: My opponent’s 1st contention is that Military Peacekeeping Requires OffenseMilitary peacekeeping does NOT require offense. My opponent brought up the Rwandan genocide in her case. However, I’d like to first point out that there would have been no way for peacekeepers to be able to help in that situation. The Rwanda genocide is often referred to as the “Fastest genocide” (1). By definition, peacekeepers can only be deployed by vote of the Security Council. The UN doesn’t have a standing army, so the process is that the SecCo passes a resolution authorizing, then the UN determines what nations the peacekeeping force will be comprised of and, lastly, the blue helmets are sent off to fulfill the mandates of the resolution. All of this takes time, however. Roughly six months according to numbers from the UN itself (2). If an offensive operation is needed, six months is a very inefficient timeframe to be using. My opponent also mention the case of Congo. The most recent failure is happening with the Democratic Republic of Congo and the UN. As the first official Offensive peacekeeping mission, it has 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 (3), 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" (4). 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, then they should not have the power to engage in offensive operations. Rebuttal 2: My opponent’s 2nd contention is that The Authorization of Offensive Operations Leads to PeaceShe fails to remember that peacekeepers are defined as first and foremost as remaining members of their respective national armies (5). This creates an inherent contradiction for the peacekeepers themselves, especially in instances where the “offensive operations” might run contrary to the foreign policy and military aims of whatever nation a particular soldier belongs to. Authorizing offensive operations also runs the risk of ruining the entire purpose the UN was predicated upon when one undertakes an offensive operation it, by definition, is taking sides in a conflict (See Con’s original Contention 1 and sources). This could easily lead to a breakdown of willingness to even participate in the UN process because it now no longer represents a neutral forum for discussion in the eyes of whatever conflict side is acted against offensively (See Con Contention 2 and sources). So, authorizing offensive operations would only lead to a decrease in international support, thus failing to enact greater peace. Lastly, I’d like to ask the voters to please take into consideration that the Pro side does not have any sources for her arguments. All links on the bottom of her case lead directly to the debate. org home page. ------------------------------------------------Summary------------------------------------------------1. Military peacekeeping does NOT require offense. Peacekeeping Operations did not have enough time to respond in Rwanda, and Offensive actions are currently failing in Congo. 2. The authorization of offensive operations does NOT lead to peace because it creates a contradiction for the standing peacekeepers and would decrease international support. This would leave less peacekeepers in general to enact peace. ------------------------------------------------Sources------------------------------------------------(1) . http://www.submergingmarkets.com...(2) . http://www.un.org...(3) . http://news.bbc.co.uk...(4) . http://www.un.org...(5) . http://www.un.org...