Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization.

About a month ago in StudCo, we had a kid submit that the united nations was a horrible organization and should be gotten rid of. I gave a speech against this, but no one went against this topic. I just want the chance to debate someone on this topic. Thanks!

So I have to argue against the United Nations then? Hmm a challenge indeed, but I'll give it a try. I don't think it's all that bad, but I do think it needs a lot of work. That said I will allow my opponent the first argument seeing as he is so eager to give his speech as it were.

Resolved: That the United Nations is a bad organization

(I got hit pretty hard in one of my other debates for not defining P.E.T.A., so now I define any word that needs defining)

Definitions: United Nations-political organization established 1945; headquarters in New York City in E central Manhattan overlooking East River

Bad- inadequate or unsuited to a purpose

Organization- an administrative and functional structure

1st pt: They solve the minor problems that would cause countries trouble
The international court of Justice, a division of the U.N., hears many different international problems. They have delt with people who commit war crimes, try to start ethnic cleansings, and though it sounds like they don't have much to do, they actually are still trying people in the court. While this sounds like not very much, it gets rid of the problems associated with trying people internationally. While country A may feel that it is better because they were the victim country to try the criminal, country B may feel that it is their responsibility because they are the country of origin, and country C may want to try them so they can have a say in the matter. They also set international trade laws, etc. so that the countries don't need to waste time, or waste money dealing with small issues.

2nd pt: the u.n. works with the small amounts it is given
To start off, the entire peace keeping mission only cost 1.3 billion (un.org), to compare this , the entire u.n. budget is only 0.5% of the entire united states military budget. The Tokyo fire department receives one billion more dollars than the u.n. does, it is only 4% of New York City's budget, even New York State University receives 3.7 billion more than the u.n. does. For workers doing these peacekeeping missions, there are only 52,280 people working these missions. Compare that to the over 150,000 people working at McDonalds, or the 50,000 people working at the 5 Disney parks around the world. With this small amount of people and money, the united nations continue to help out countries solve international issues, help out natural disasters, etc. For every eight missions the united nations have, they successfully solve seven, compared with the eight missions the U.S. may deal with, but only solve 4.

3rd pt: united nations has done a lot.
We all know about the few and far between missions where the united nations hasn't acted, but what about all of the missions they have successfully done? Eighty per cent of the work of the UN system is devoted to helping developing countries build the capacity to help themselves. This includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights; saving children from starvation and disease; providing relief assistance to refugees and disaster victims; countering global crime, drugs and disease; and assisting countries devastated by war and the long-term threat of land-mines. The Human-Security Report that lets us know how the un is doing states: 40% drop in conflict, 80% drop in deadly conflicts, and a further 80% drop in genocide and policide.

Here goes...

The UN's main goal is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but since the establishment of the UN there have been many wars. Why? They didn't have enough power sometimes, and others they just chickened out, so to speak.

Rwanda. Thousands of people were being killed and the UN troops were pulling out. That seems like a major failure to me. It's even been said that the UN had reliable evidence that the genocide was about to occur. Upwards of 800,000 thousand people died, and the UN had information that would help prevent it three months prior.

"What happened in Rwanda was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. It had been under preparation for months, preparations made in the presence of two-and-a-half-thousand UN peacekeepers. UN troops had informants from within the Interhamwe who were telling them about the plans. This information was being sent to UN headquarters in New York."

"…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…" If you can't save them how can you save the successing generation?

"…armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,…". Was it not in the common interest of 800,000 people that some force was used to save their lives.

"…to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security…" Again, I believe they failed.

http://www.abc.net.au...
http://www.ameasuredresponse.com...

Also they failed to prevent America and Russia from doing what they wanted to do, which resulted in the Cold War and the Vietnamese War.

Uhm... I have nothing to rebut so I guess I'll just say:

The UN failed to protect the Tutsi's even with prior knowledge of the impending massacre.

Sorry about not posting...i was getting ready for a lincoln douglass tournement... not my best type of debate... so here it goes:
First point) "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but since the establishment of the UN there have been many wars. Why? They didn't have enough power sometimes, and others they just chickened out, so to speak."
When we look to this we see that none of this is sourced or quoted. When we look to the facts what we see are completely different actions, the united nations for instance has troops in the darfur region so they can protect the aid that is being distributed.
Second Point)the rwanda genocide, there were not enough U.N. soldiers, and there were soldiers there, but the united states felt that this situation would escalate into another vietnam 'conflict'and would not send any more troops.
Third Point)'If you can't save them how can you save the successing generation'
If we look to the facts again, it says something different, not only has the u.n. saved millions of lives besides lowering the child death rate to make sure there is a succeding generation, the united nations has also raised the literacy rate throughout the world so that these kids who grow up can be educated leaders so they themselves will understand the atrocities of their childhood. The united nations can't change the way the current generation thinks. they can imprison them to make sure that these people do no more harm such as Jean Kambanda who was put on trial at the international criminal tribune (part of the un) so when we look to it they are preventing future wars, and the cold war was not an actual war hence the name 'cold'. And for the vietnam arguement, it was a conflict that was not involved with the u.n. even though they did send support afterwards.

Well, I haven't got the time to make another argument, sorry, I'm busy trying to catch up with school after being sick so much in the past month. I just don't have the time to do the research and write the argument. Sorry.

Sincerely, Kat.