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

A very interesting rebuttal. Thanks for your promptness. A) I would like to thank my opponent for pointing out these laws of 1991 and 1994. The US has actually consolidated this political stance into law. But is this enough to justify it? I do not think so. The fact that laws legally ‘justify’ the policy does not necessarily mean that they are moral and ethical. In the same way that (and here I’m sure that my opponent will agree) while the racist segregation laws of the first half of the 20th century were a part of the US constitution, they were unquestionably wrong. They served not to justify or substantiate action and crude rhetoric, but rather represented deeply bigoted and immoral social conventions of the past. They were removed and amended in due course. Similarly, there is no reason to think that these laws of 1991 and 1994 won’t be amended or abolished. I will build on this point in a moment – (a)i) why these laws can be interpreted as illogical and (a)ii) the issue of domestic support. Moreover, my opponent seems to induce that: “abiding by this federal legislation, created within the US democratic system, would be far more reflective of its core values than ignoring it.” I find this to be rather confusing. So is he/she stating that by ‘abiding’ to the laws they are fulfilling a sense of legal obligation? This would counter the point made by my opponent in that the US would “will veto or block anything not aligned with its interests”. The US would be withholding funding due to a legality, not a conscious choice of the government? Perhaps. Or is my opponent stating that by ‘abiding’ to the laws, the US would be pertaining to the traditional core values (i.e. freedom, equality and justice etc.)? a)i)Within this web article, (see opponents first citation), a number of important points are raised regarding the peculiarity of the US’s decision, and the illogicality of the laws that seem to enforce the decision Interestingly, Timothy Wirth from the article states“the implications of this [withholding funding] are really dangerous for the United Nations and the United States”. He has reason to believe this, for Palestine has also outlined its intentions to apply for membership of a number of other UN bodies, such as the UNIDO, WIPO and UNCTAD. Assuming it Palestine is able to succeed in these three other bodies (as is highly likely), the US would consequently cut funding to these organizations, “jeopardizing funding to programs that protect international intellectual copy rights and promote trade in the developing world” and would “hamper the United States ability to protect the existing interests of the U.S. music, film, and pharmaceutical industry”. These points indicate why it would be against the US’s financial, economic, social and political interests to end funding here. a)ii) I will now move on to the dilemma of public support. My opponent has cited this contentious issue on a number of occasions, and I can see where he/she is coming from. If the US’s decision to actively hamper Palestine’s (arguably) justified ascension onto the political stage, did reflect the will of the American people, then maybe it would be constitutionally justified? Although I must stress that the tyranny of majority does in no way provide ethical or moral justification. May I also reaffirm that I did define ‘unjust’ in the preliminary round as: ‘not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair’, rather than being a synonym for legal or justified, as is sometimes suggested in my opponents arguments. But my point is this: did the US’s decision reflect the will of the American people? Well, one would believe that since it was carried out under US law, then it should. “The US is a democracy that functions by … its own public opinion. [The outcome] was determined nearly 20 years ago by US laws created in the early 90's.” However, I would like to contend this. At the time, in 1991 and 1994, perhaps it can be said that the US people did support such a stance, but a whole 20 years later? There is no way of knowing this unless certain opinion polls were conducted. The US carried out its decision to withhold funding without consulting the American people. Thus, the argument that it reflects their will is invalid. To back up this point, I would like to emphasize the fact that the will of the American people does change frequently, in a sense, mirroring the inexorable dash from left to right seen in every successive US presidency. During the 20th century, American support for Israel (and currently lack of support for Palestine) would fluctuate, much like the ebb and flow of the tide. A good example of this could be support for Israel in 1973, after the Yom Kippur, which saw 54% of Americans state their strong support for Israel, while only 8% supported the Arab Nations in the Middle East. However, after a period of 9 years, we can observe a significant drop in support for Israel, down to only 32% in 1982, and a significant rise in the support for the Arab States, up to 28% from 8%. [1] This is very important, as I highlight the brevity and inconsistency of US support for Israel, and how the status quo from 20 years ago (1991 & 1994) cannot reflect the current stance today. This is why I believe that the US lacks the ‘political’ and ‘social’ justification to enact the laws. B) “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 is an interesting perspective… but perhaps a bit biased? My opponent argues that UNESCO itself is to be held accountable for the consequent lack of funding. It is essential for the UN to retain its current level of international credibility. Therefore it is important that the international organization does not buckle under the pressure of a single country (US). Also, to be fair, each country’s opinion should be equal in votes of this nature. “While the US certainly acts out of self-interest, I can't imagine the country that doesn't” Indeed, but there is a point at which many countries stop. And anyway, I’m not arguing with this point. C) “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.” There is no question that UNESCO will manage to be ‘active’ in spite of losing 20% of its funding. It just means that it will be 20% less effective. “UNESCO should have considered the value of this vote with regards to US funding”. They have no choice. The UN abides, in relative terms to elements of justice and morality. They lack the authority and immorality to deny Palestine the opportunity to enter UNESCO. The decision did, does and will lie with the world stage. D) "The US, as it has done many times before, will defend its own interests among any global, voting majority.” My opponent seems to contradict himself on numerous occasions. On the one hand he/she states this, then on the other states that: “The US is a democracy that functions by the rule of law and its own public opinion” I do not mind which viewpoint is adopted, because neither detract from the fact that the US’s actions were immoral and unjust. E) Apologies, I should have actually added Palestine to the list of definitions. I view Palestine as a contiguous state neighboring Israel, which should bear resemblance to the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war. http://www.ccmep.org... Here we can see an illustration of the various stages of Palestinian territory. I think we can agree that Palestine resembles the ‘tiny’ state in ‘Stage 3’ of the diagram; that is both Gaza and the West Bank. [1] De Boer, Connie. “The Polls: Attitudes Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47.1 (1983): 121-31. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2011.