Resolved: The United Nations should be abolished

Let's begin. My opponent stated something in his acceptance speech. He stated that he will be following as his vision of the United Nations an organization that upholds the values found in the U. N. Charter. However, there is no such organization. The United Nations was created with great goals in mind. Visions of glory and world peace danced before it's founders' (the "winners" of WW2) eyes. They created this international forum of discussion and legal affairs to, as my oppoent kindly stated, save future generations from war, promote human rights (such as the dignity and woth of a human being, and equal rights of the sexes). They sought justice. They sought international law. They sought respect for treaties. They sought better standards of life. Do you, as the reader/voter/my opponent, see any of these fulfilled today? I don't. Indeed, the United Nations, once an aspiring organization for good, has instead become the perpetrator for such evil as it sought to eradicate. I will show you how. P1: The UN GA (General Assembly)The United Nations General Assembly is the main body of the United Nations. [1] It has 193 member countries, all of which share an equal vote on propositions called "resolutions". This seems fair and democratic, doesn't it? Well, it is on a country basis. But not on a population or power basis. That's the scary part. It allows for a two thirds majority of nations, most of whom do not support the goals established in the Charter[2], to tell the world how to act (granted, to an extent). This example, while a valid point to support abolishing the UN, could encompass my whole argument in a sense. The UN is a failure not because of bad goals, but because of goals that are far too good (to the point where they're beyond reason), and a body that is corrupt and disregards those goals. This is, sadly, not only applicable to the majority of third world countries that make up the UN's main body, but even more "elite" nations like the U. S. and the group of nations known as the EU (European Union). P2: Peacekeeping does anything but. .. .Peacekeepers, the main form of "military" the UN has, are a disgrace to the organization. These soldiers in blue have recieved shame and criticism from everything to flawed doctrine and training, inability to be effective in situations, and even aggravating those they were sent to protect! I will show all three of these gripes with the UN's main peacekeeping force. A. Flawed doctrineThe peacekeepers, while armed, trained to fight, and sent to protect the victims of many atrocities, have a flawed idea at their core. They believe that peace can be gained through peaceful means at all times. "Peacekeeping" in the UN Peacekeeper's handbook is defined as helping preserve the peace, however fragile. It mainly consists of ". .. observing cease-fires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements – military, police and civilian – working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace. "[3]Nowhere does it mention "use of military force", the key word in any UN document meaning an actual discharge of weaponry. In order for the UN Peacekeepers to actually be able to engage in a combat situation is through specific permission from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council, we'll get to them later). This means that the UNSC, which is hugely flawed and in gridlock over practically every major situation, and is the only body with the power to "OK" lethal force, must agree and vote (which is harder than it sounds because of its make-up) to allow these peacekeepers to fire. .. on a situation-to-situation basis. So, assuming they actually did get permission, it's too little, too late. This isn't hypothetical, either. This has happened. Bringing us to. .. B. IneffectivenessI am going to list three of the main incidents showing us key examples of why the UN peacekeepers are a useless waste of money and resources. Rwanda. U. N. peacekeepers in Rwanda watched (Yes. .. watched) as Hutu murdered 800,000 defesnseless Tutsi. Bosnia. U. N. Peacekeepers declared safe areas for Muslims. Yet they did absolutely nothing but stand by as the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica. [4, for both]Israel-Lebanon border. Hezbollah terrorists disguised themselves as U. N. Peacekeepers, used vehicles bearing their insignia, and lured Israeli soldiers inside. They murdered them all as real Peacekeepers did nothing to intervene. The U. N. wouldn't even disclose information about the incident until years later when the remains of the soldiers were returned to Israel and they were confirmed to be murdered. [5]As we can see, U. N. Peacekeepers are reluctant to protect even the innocent, because (A) they have no emotional connection or feeling of responsibility for, or (B) are told to never engage without explicit orders that never come in time. But it gets worse than that in. .. C. Peacekeepers ARE the problem in some areas. Peacekeepers have a reputation to not only be ineffective, but also be harmful to those that they should be protecting! The worst example of such a thing is the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), where the second largest Peacekeeping operation to date is still taking place. However, it's not peaceful there. It is actually known as "the rape capital of the world", and it's all thanks to the boys in blue. The thing is, many armed groups roam the countryside, pillaging the villages and looking for gems and treasures. Why? Because they're disorganized, bored, and not really from countries with the same values as the U. N. was formed with. .. [6] Yeah. .. So instead of protecting the innocent in the Congo, these soldiers are allowed to do practically whatever they want. Apparently, they want to rob, murder, and rape women and little girls across the whole countryside. [5, again]This is so bad, that many advocate destroying Peacekeeping solely for the acts still being committed in the DRC. However, no action is ever taken. But that could all change with the removal of the U. N. This is one of many reasons we must abolish the U. N. , and why it should be abolished today. Moving on to my brief third point (running out of room, but I have so much more I could say). .. P3: The UNSC (United Nations Security Council)The UNSC, the only body in the UN that can pass legally binding resolutions to impose on the rest of the world, is hardly representative, legitimate, or effective. The main reasons for these all stem from two design flaws in the UNSC.1. The 5 permanent membersThese 5 members always get to sit on the Security Council, no matter what. All the other 10 members must be elected and can't serve consecutive terms. However these five nations (U. S. A, U. K. , France, China, Russia) will always be secure in their position of political power on the global stage. [7] However, on a council that is supposed to be both part of a democratic body, and one reflecting modern distribution of power, this is a joke to the rest of the UN. [8]Second, the veto power, or the ability of any of the five permanent members to strike down any resolution, (Including certain urgent ones for Peacekeeping) perpetuates inaction and apathy amongst the politically diverse council members. This practically renders the Security Council inable to act. So, with these three hulking criticisms of the UN as support, and my characters gone, I stand firm the UN should be abolished. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you. Sources1. . http://www.un.org...2. . http://www.ynetnews.com...3. . http://pbpu.unlb.org...4. . http://www.foreignaffairs.com...;5. . http://www.idppcenter.com...;6. . http://www.un.org...;7. . http://www.un.org...;8. . http://www.foreignpolicy.com...