The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.

This is a specific resolution within a complex issue that should allow for an interesting exchange. My opponent has framed his initial arguments rather nicely which should allow for an organized rebuttal. A) "It directly counters the core principles of the US democratic system. " The core principals of the US democratic system generally only apply to the US. While the US believes that spreading democracy is a good thing, this is only for the greater cause of stability. The US has historically tolerated and installed dictatorships that would maintain stability, specifically with regards to global markets and commodity prices. Human rights are often additionally useful to stability, but generally not as much an essential policy for regime support. On a global scale, the US certainly isn't interested in a democratic system. Once again, the US tolerates (and funds) global diplomatic bodies like the UN while they promote stability, but time and again will veto or block anything not aligned with its interests. This is all typical of any sovereignty throughout history. Furthermore, the US passed laws in 1991 and 1994 that forbid it's funding for any UN organization accepting Palestine as a full member. Abiding by this federal legislation, created within the US democratic system, would be far more reflective of its core values than ignoring it. [1] <<<"As a democratic country, and one that prides itself in the core facets of liberty, freedom, individual rights, justice and equality, surely it should respect the free and democratic decision made by the UN? ">>> The US does not respect democratic actions simply because it implies, liberty, justice and equality. It respects them if they lead to those things. The current evaluation of the US is that this step, among many others to come, will indeed not lead to those things my opponent mentioned. Democracy: When a functional Palestine is established the US has it doubts whether it will be a democracy. Liberty: The levels of liberty are reflected by its likely lack of democracy. Equality: The equal rights of homosexual and women will be in doubt. Justice: I want to focus on this point further as it allows for a greater understanding of my argument. Within the whole context of this issue we all need to ask ourselves what is the end goal that will bring Palestinians justice. At each step along the way of this process, at least 2 goals should be quite clear, A) Rights for Palestinians B) Security for Palestinians Being that nearly half of all Palestinians would not be given citizenship in the current imagining of this state, those points are not realized, and an entirely new approach seems necessary. [2][3] Being that the goal should be, at the very least, finding a solution to Palestinian suffering, and that this plan has yet to be even properly conceived, leads the US to be wary of funding such an entity. Not to mention that this entity likely would not reflect many of the values my opponent believes epitomizes the US. Therefore this instance (UNESCO vote) does not reflect anything to do with US values other than the fact that it involved voting. B) "Appertains to self-interest and a political stance, at the expense of others. " UNESCO was aware that this vote was going to lead to the U. S. cutting it's funding. It was aware and did so regardless. This vote would then certainly qualify as a political stance by UNESCO at the expense of others it wishes to help. While the US certainly acts out of self-interest, I can't imagine the country that doesn't. While those interests haven't yet been fully defined, we shall certainly get to that later. C) "An action that has profound negative impacts development projects, humanitarian aid and public improvement programmes. " UNESCO should have considered the value of this vote with regards to US funding. It is unfortunate US funding had to be lost, however UNESCO managed to be active from the time US president Reagan defunded it, until they, under President George W. Bush, returned to doing so. <<<"They are countering development and advancement with the ambition of a Machiavel and the tactlessness of a revenge seeking bigot. ">>> I believe my opponent is misrepresenting the conduct of the US. The US is a democracy that functions by the rule of law and its own public opinion. As mentioned, the outcome regarding the loss of funding by this vote was determined nearly 20 years ago by US laws created in the early 90's. D) "Represents the immoral power of the elite; in essence the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority, yet due to its position within the global international order, it is able to 'strike back'. " <<<"the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority">>> It is indeed. The US, as it has done many times before, will defend its own interests among any global, voting majority. All countries would do exactly the same thing. <<<"due to its position within the global international order, it is able to 'strike back'. ">>> I believe my opponent is once again misrepresenting the US position. The US public, through taxes, grants money to UNESCO out of their own good will. It would be nice to be thanked for this, but no US taxpayer expects it. In the mean time I think most US citizens would prefer not to be condemned for the equivalent of ‘not providing charity'. US laws and foreign policy generally reflect US public opinion. In this case it follows as well that the core values of the average US citizen were not met when UNESCO decided to take this vote. Therefore the incredible generosity of the people of the United States shall not be forthcoming in the near future. E) Palestine is a tiny region! Why punish the whole world just to withhold development, support and aid to a tiny landmass? <<<"Palestine is a tiny region! ">>> When my opponent refers to ‘Palestine' what exactly is he referring to? It is a shame that much of the verbiage on this issue has become so politically loaded as to need clarification on what should be a very simple statement. While ‘tiny' is a relative term, historic Palestine is a decently sized area, made up of several countries including Israel and Jordan. There are others who may refer to Palestine only as the land area Israel exists upon, while other say ‘Palestine' is a reference to Gaza and the West Bank. While in other instances such as the most recent debate regarding a Palestinian state, generally refers to it in place of only the West Bank, with Gaza not being included. For the moment, I am going to assume my opponent is referring simply to the West Bank, and if so, we can agree, it is not a huge landmass by any standard. <<<"Why punish the whole world just to withhold development, support and aid to a tiny landmass? ">>> The US fails to see how such an action contributes to the pragmatic approach of finding a solution to the conflict, thus does not reflect its interest in a meaningful way. With that goal in mind, this is not a reasonable action, especially for those people that my opponent insists pay for it. I will stop here and respond to any issues I may have missed in future rounds as I am nearly out of space. I would like to thank my opponent for sharing his thoughts on this issue and look forward to his response. [1] . http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com... [2] . http://www.theblaze.com... [3] . http://www.commentarymagazine.com...