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

The topic of this debate is Resolved: United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. This is a Public Forum style of debate, but any philosophies/values involved will be accepted. R1: Both sides present their case R2: Rebuttal against opponent's case R3: Closing statement and final arguments I look forward to this debate. ------------------------------------------------Con Case------------------------------------------------ Contention 1: Offensive Operations undermine UN Principles Offensive operations undermine the UN impartiality that is necessary in order to get the parties of conflict to negotiate peace. Impartiality is an important principle in the UN in order to preserve peace. These go beyond punishing infractions of the peace process and are taken in order to destroy the enemy. Impartiality is an important principle in the UN in order to preserve peace. Offensive operations downgrade the necessity for consent from countries in intervention and impartiality in that intervening, which limits the capacity for success and decreases cooperation between peacekeepers and governments. Blurring the line of peacekeeping and peace enforcement is a slippery slope that destroys the fundamental principles of impartial peacekeeping. Impartiality is crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main parties, but should not be confused with neutrality or inactivity. United Nations peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict, but not neutral in the execution of their mandate. Just as a good referee is impartial, but will penalize infractions, so a peacekeeping operation should not condone actions by the parties that violate the undertakings of the peace process or the international norms and principles that a United Nations peacekeeping operation upholds. (1) Consent and impartiality are tenets of UN peacekeeping that matter, and both are at risk with offensive operations. The evidence presented here shows a clear harms of a lack of impartiality and consent, like reducing the safety of peacekeepers, decreasing cooperation, and decreasing the support from member states. Contention 2: Offensive Peacekeeping missions decrease International support Countries will no longer support the UN in their peacekeeping efforts if it becomes Offensive. Countries will not want to be sending in their troops in fear of their people dying while taking offensive actions. According to International Rights Laws, countries are currently not allowed to take peacekeepers as hostages in any war situation. However, if they become Offensive peacekeepers, countries will be allowed to detain peacekeepers. These people could be beaten and tortured without any international protection. "A more aggressive approach could alienate countries which have traditionally sent many troops to serve in United Nations operations. Such countries see peacekeeping missions as a way to get training, equipment and extra pay for their forces with relatively little risk of casualties. a senior United Nations official said, "Some of the troop- contributing countries are quite uneasy with what they see as the direction peacekeeping is taking.""(2) If peacekeepers are allowed to take offensive actions, countries" people will no longer be protected and safe by becoming peacekeepers. Offensive actions would therefore decrease international support. Contention 3: Offensive Peacekeeping missions are Financially Irresponsible Because the UN is already financially irresponsible, offensive operations would further this. Any offensive actions by peacekeepers would increase this. The UN is not ready to be changing their peacekeeping missions. "Peacekeeping has assumed a more active role in achieving peace during deployments. The most logistically demanding form of mission is peace enforcement, where uninvited forces are dispatched to separate warring sides in order to impose peace on at least one combatant. During the 1975-80 period, UN peacekeeping spending averaged $164 million per year at a time of traditional peacekeeping. During the 1989-96 period, UN peacekeeping spending averaged $1.75 billion annually, owing to more missions and mission creep as UN peacekeepers assumed more roles and greater risks than in prior years." (3) The UN would not be able to successfully enact offensive operations because of their lack of financial responsibility and their inability to respond in a timely manner. The UN has been proven to be successful in their peacekeeping efforts, so we on the negative side feel that offensive operations would be an ineffective way to handle situations. ------------------------------------------------Summary------------------------------------------------ 1. Offensive Peacekeeping undermine basic UN Principles 2. It would decrease international support for the UN 3. The UN is financially irresponsible to engage in offensive operations ------------------------------------------------Sources------------------------------------------------ (1) http://www.un.org... (2) http://www.nytimes.com... (3) http://econpapers.repec.org...