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