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

I'll use this round to attack my opponent's case, as specified earlier.C1: Offensive action by the UN peacekeepers is contrary to their purpose.POINT A: Con's first point essentially explains that offensive action perpetuates a state of war, thus making offensive action counter productive. This simply isn't the case. Firstly, offensive operations have been successful in creating peace in the past. Look to the most recent example: Congo. Verini explains that, "On December 12, in Nairobi, the M23 and Congolese and Rwandan officials signed a peace agreement. After more than a year and a half of fighting from the government, the rebellion disarmed." There are two things that can be observed here. Firstly, the peacekeepers were present in Congo for a year and a half and the situation was not getting better. Secondly, the use of force coerced the rebels into complying with the will of the international community. This is because the goal of offensive operations is not to "defeat" the rebel group, rather the goal is to aid the transition from conflict to peace by whatever means necessary. Also reference my constructive where I noted a deterrence effect through the use of offensive operations. Once enough rebel groups are defeated, violence will decrease. Thus, even if offensive operations create peace through undesirable means, the overall need for peacekeeping will decrease.POINT B: Con lists examples of UN goals that are compromised by the use of offensive action. However, con gives absolutely no examples of offensive action that has inhibited the UN from achieving such goals. Con specifically talks about civilians. Non use of force except in defense of the mandate actually perpetuates violence against civilians because a rebel group's use of violence out of safe zones is permissible under the status quo. Civilians outside of safe zones are more likely to be harmed by the rebel groups in the absence of offensive action. Look back to my constructive in which I discussed the Rwandan genocide; this is an ideal example of how the UN's unwillingness to use force hurts civilians. In fact, offensive action actually assists the UN in achieving some of the goals listed by con, such as the disarmament of rebel groups, as I have shown earlier. Do not buy con's argument about how offensive action destroys existing political systems, as he has given no examples of this actually happening. If anything, offensive action helps governments get back on their feet since rebel groups are more likely to comply with the will of the international community under such an agenda.POINT C: Firstly, observe that offensive operations have been authorized for around 60 years under mandate VII. The UN is still hesitant to use offensive action, but observe that such action is permissible. Con's own evidence even states, "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VII." Basically con's evidence notes that offensive action shall be applied when needed.Even if offensive operations weren't permissible under the status quo, this argument is still flawed. Arguing that the UN doesn't allow offensive action (and therefore they shouldn't do so in the future) is uncompelling because no actual reasons are given as to why the law *shouldn't* be changed. C2: Peacekeepers guiding principles oppose the use of offensive action.Cross apply what I talked about when attacking con's subpoint c. Also reference my constructive; peace enforcements is one of the four basic tenets of peacekeeping and ought to be used when needed.Con talks about impartiality being violated through offensive action. Firstly, con is confusing neutrality with impartiality. Peacekeeping is inherently a violation of neutrality as the goal is to deter rebel groups from perpetuating conflict. Impartiality is different because it actually penalizes violent acts. Impartiality can be compared to a good referee. A good referee will penalize infractions when one side violates the rules, but a good referee will not favor any particular side. The is what offensive operations do because they simply attach a greater cost to violent crimes committed by any group. Thus, such operations are not biased or unequal.C3: Status quo has been effective.Firstly, since offensive operations have been permissible for awhile now; con's defense of the state of the UN actually hurts his case. Effective offensive operations have helped in the past; specifically benefiting the civil war termination ratio in countries by tripling the likelihood that conflict will be terminated.Secondly, even if the status quo is *good,* the UN could still benefit from the use of offensive operations. Again look to my Rwanda example. Multiple sources argue that use of offensive action could have lessened the effects of the tragedy.C4: International relations.Con cannot effectively argue that offensive operations hurt international relations without giving an example of offensive operations actually hurting international relations. The impacts of the UN's inability to perform offensive action (such as Rwanda, and Congo before the operation) result in heightened oppression and resentment. Remember that offensive operations are a tool in the toolbox. They are only used when absolutely needed to create peace.The resolution has been affirmed.