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

Rebuttals: In this round I will address my opponents Round 2 constuctive. To simplify my rebuttals I will sum up Pro’s contentions in syllogism form. I do not intend to misrepresent or oversimplify my opponent’s arguments. Rather, make clear the rebuttals that I am making. C1: Military peacekeeping requires offense. (a) “Rebel Groups go unpunished for violence committed outside of safe zones” (Example Rwandan Genocide) (b) If there was a cost attached to violence such groups would be deterred from such action (c) Due to (a) and (b), Pro says “offensive operations are necessary to ensure peace in many situations.” Therefore… United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. (a) This argumentation suggests that a role of the U.N. is punishing violence. The U.N. Charter contains no such goal. To view the Purpose and Principle of the U.N. follow this link. (1) (b) Attaching a “cost” to violence might deter such action. This is no guarantee. For example, the actions taken against Isis as a cost to their actions have not seemed to deter any violence. Rather, has (as I suggested in my round) responding based on dominance has created more animosity. Aside from this, offensive action is not the only “cost” that could be used. For example, not recognizing such groups as legitimate, trade embargo’s, etc… Pro sites the Congo as evidence. Perhaps offense was successful. Depends on how success is quantified. I have sited an example where success was not found. Most importantly pro does not show that offense was necessary in this case, only that it was used. As (a) is not a goal of the U.N. or peacekeepers and (b) does not inherently entail “offensive” or success it is reasonable to dismiss pro’s conclusion. Offensive operations are not necessary to ensure peace, nor do they guarantee peace. This contention is negated. C2: The authorization of offensive operations leads to peace. Point A: Efficacy (a) “The efficacy of offensive operations can be measured by how well they achieve peace enforcement.” (b) “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.” Finally, in December 12 in Nirobi, Kenya, a peace agreement was signed.” (c) “Thus, it is safe to conclude that offensive operations can coerce a rebel group into resuming peace talks and terminate current conflicts.” The argumentation used in above is reasonable. However, does not show that such efficancy cannot be achieved without offensive capabilities. As I have shown the U.N. has had a great deal of success without offensive capabilities. The example of Congo seems valid, though as I have provided the example of isis to show that examples can be shown that offensive operations may be entirely ineffective. Even Pro’s terminology is that “offensive operations can….” As opposed to “do.” The same is true about efficacy of non-offensive operations. They “can” have the same effect as offensive. Thus far pro has not shown offensive operations to be more effective than the status quo. Point B: Deterrence (a) “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.” (b) “Collier documents a huge deterrent effect: a 75% decrease in armed conflict in former French colonies.” (c) “Giving the UN peacekeepers the power to engage in offensive operations will have a similar effect” Again, the argumentation is reasonable however, France has the sovereignty to act in such a manner within their own territories. Whereas U.N. Peacekeepers have no such authority. In fact to give the U.N. Peacekeepers such authority undermines individual state’s, like France, sovereignty. To undermine the sovereignty of nation states is contrary to the principles that guide the U.N. as prescribed in the U.N. Charter. While the pro claims that “The authorization of offensive operations leads to peace,” it is clear that there is no guarantee that peace will be the result. Offensive operations can lead to escalated fighting. Likewise, offensive operations might deter violence, but it might not. Even if it did, the U.N. would have to violate principles of its inception in order to possible deter violence. C3: The UN is the best organization to be able to perform such operations. (a) "non-UN operations are often percieved to suffer from partiality, bias, logistical issues, and vulnerability to domestic politics (8)." (b) “The flaws within other systems that have peacekeeping forces shows that the UN is the best group to allow to perform offensive operations.” The point made in (a) is exactly why the U.N. peacekeepers should not be given offensive capabilities. Such action while creating animosity for those on the receiving end of such offensive action would certainly not view such actions as unbiased. The U.N’s operations are often perceived as less biased then non-UN operations due to the absence of aggression. (b) Pro simply claims flaws within other systems without substantiating the claim. Other comments on pro’s case: Pro says “Collier explains that the UN has been extremely effective in promoting peace in the past:” “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.” These quotes are reinforcement of the status quo. Pro has conceded that the U.N. is “extremely effective” without offensive capabilities and “has been able to reduce conflict in its current state.” This is contrary to her entire first contention. It is also not a logical conclusion. Consider the phrase simplified. Given that A reduces B in its given state, A should be given power C. Nothing about the UN being successful in its current state would logically lead to a conclusion of changing its state. As all contentions are negated, the resolution is also negated. (1) http://www.un.org...