Resolved: United Nations
peacekeepers should have the power
to engage in offensive operations.
JANUARY 10TH PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE
RESOLUTION
DEFINING THE TOPIC
•
The United Nations
•
United Nations Peacekeepers
•
Should have the power
•
engage in offensive operations
History of the United Nations
•
World War I
•
League of Nations
•
World War II
•
The United Nations
BRAINSTORMING
THE PRO SIDE
PRO ARGUMENTS
•
Current system not working - genocide, ethnic conflict, terrorism, wars, etc.
•
Current UN Peacekeepers are too weak. Example: Rwanda (Movie: Hotel Rwanda)
•
Stronger United Nations needed
•
UN Rapid Deployment is best
•
UN Rapid Deployment will prevent conflicts
•
Expanded Peackeeping Solves Genocide
•
Moral Obligation to Solve Genocide
•
Multilateral solution rather than just always depending on the United States
BRAINSTORMING THE
CON SIDE
CON ARGUMENTS
•
Offensive Peacekeeping is not Peacekeeping.
•
Too much power for the United Nations
•
United Nations is not accountable
•
Expanded Peacekeeping increases conflict and chances of war
•
Expanded Peacekeeping hurts UN Credibility and other programs
•
Countries will no longer participate in the United Nations
•
There is no budget in the United Nations for offensive peacekeeping
•
United Nations is too political for effective offensive operations
•
United Nations peacekeepers are not the most trained and effective soldiers
Con Arguments
•
Nation States will undermine UN offensive
operations
•
Threat of UN army being used for political purposes
by the United Nations
•
UN army makes countries’ armies weaker