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

I affirm the resolution which states resolved: UN peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. Observation Observation: The power bestowed upon peacekeepers to use offensive operations is not a power that is necessarily used in all cases; it is a tool in the toolbox. Peacekeepers would obviously not use offensive operations in every situation, only when needed. Thus, pro’s burden is simply to show why having offensive operations is legitimate in certain situations. Definitions Peacekeepers - provide security and political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace. They are guided via three basic principles: impartiality, consent of parties, and only use of defensive operations (what the debate is over) Power - legal or official authority, capacity, or right Offensive - more robust mandates that go beyond self defense or defense of the mandate given to peacekeepers C1: Military peacekeeping requires offense. The ultimate goal of peacekeeping operations is to help both parties in a conflict obtain stability through the transition from conflict to peace, whether that means a cease-fire or a peace talk. Under the status quo, peacekeepers use force in self defense or in defense of their current mandate. Mandates involve the protection of "safe zones" in which peacekeepers do what they can to protect civilians within said zones. The problem is, rebel groups go unpunished for violence committed outside of safe zones. This is exactly what happened in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Gerard Prunier, an African scholar and journalist, describes the peacekeepers as "the powerless UN military force" who watched the genocide without being able to lift a finger (1). Peacekeepers should be striving to convince armed groups that the last two options are futile by attaching a cost to violence. If peacekeepers are limited to acting in self defense and defending safe zones, the rebel groups will likely continue the conflict because little cost will be attached to their violent actions. Matt explains, "Being able to stop and combat the groups that led to the need for a UN mission will make for a more lasting peace than when the groups are ignored or government forces are relied on to stop them. This will go a long way in ensuring that a tragedy like the Rwandan genocide does not happen simply because the peacekeeping forces hands are tied by red tape (2)." Thus, offensive operations are necessary to ensure peace in many situations. The success of the most recent offensive operation by the UN in Congo helps justify their future use. Beehner records that a brigade of 3,000 people was sent to neutralize armed groups in DRC. The peacekeeping mission was considered successful as the M23 rebels laid down their arms (3). Using the situation in congo as a template for future conflicts, the UN should have the power to engage in offensive operations when necessary to truly deal with rebel groups. C2: The authorization of offensive operations leads to peace. Point A: Efficacy The efficacy of offensive operations can be measured by how well they achieve peace enforcement (one of the four basic tenets of UN peacekeeping). Findlay provides a standard: “The goal is not to defeat the particular armed group, but rather to “enforce the peace” by coercing the particular rebel group to comply with the will of the international community and with its previously agreed commitments (4).” When evaluating the efficacy of the Congo offensive operation, Beehner “Peace talks stalled as of mid-feburary. After the brigade, talks resumed. The brigade brings a threat to the rebel position and one that cannot be ignored (3).” Finally, in December 12 in Nirobi, Kenya, a peace agreement was signed. The peacekeepers were able to successfully coerce the armed group to comply with the wishes of the international community, thus justifying the use of offensive force. Green explains in a meta-analysis of offensive operations that, “peace enforcement operations are most successful when they utilize the appropriate spoiler management strategy and maintain impartiality and legitimacy through close cooperation with UN peacekeepers (5).” He documents that peace enforcement has a “318% to 369% hazard ratio of civil war termination controlling for force capability (6),” meaning that the risk of a country being able to prevent a civil war is 3 times more likely. Thus, it is safe to conclude that offensive operations can coerce a rebel group into resuming peace talks and terminate current conflicts. Point B: Deterrence Paul Collier explains in his book Wars, Guns, and Votes that France issued a security guarantee to its former colonies in Africa which provided protection against armed groups. The guarantee was called an "over the horizon guarantee" which can be defined as providing reliable commitment to dispatch peacekeepers to disarm armed groups in a particular area. The French only had to assist its colonies a few times in disarming rebels before rebel groups realized that continued efforts to prolong conflict were futile. Collier documents a huge deterrent effect: a 75% decrease in armed conflict in former French colonies. Giving the UN peacekeepers the power to engage in offensive operations will have a similar effect because the UN will be able to provide an over the horizon guarantee like France did to its colonies, only the UN can do this to all countries. Armed groups will understand the greater cost attached to violence by looking to successful offensive operations in the past such as Congo, thus making them understand that instigating conflict is futile (7). C3: The UN is the best organization to be able to perform such operations.Deil explains, "non-UN operations are often percieved to suffer from partiality, bias, logistical issues, and vulnerability to domestic politics (8)." As C1 has established, there is a need for offensive operations because under the status quo, violence outside of safe zones is permissible. The flaws within other systems that have peacekeeping forces shows that the UN is the best group to allow to perform offensive operations. Collier explains that the UN has been extremely effective in promoting peace in the past: "An annual expenditure of 100 million on peacekeepers reduces the cumulative ten year risk of reversion to conflict very substantially from about 38% to 17%. The ratio of benefits to costs is four to one. Peacekeeping looks to be very good value (7)." Given that the UN has been able to reduce conflict in it's current state, it should be able to use force beyond defense of the mandate when needed. The UN was making no progress in Congo until they utilized offensive operations, thus bringing light to the UN's need to authorize such operations in order to put yet another tool in the UN's toolbox to help them coerce armed groups into complying with the will of the international community.SourcesSince my sources were already saved as screenshots on my computer for easy access in irl debate rounds, I uploaded my sources to debate.org and put them in an album. All the URL's should be seen at the top of the source and I have the link to each screenshot below.1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3, http://www.debate.org...4. http://www.debate.org...5. http://www.debate.org...6. http://www.debate.org...7, http://www.debate.org...8. http://www.debate.org...