This house believes that the UN should not intervene in internal conflicts of other countries. – The government side, PM Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the prime minister of the government side. Today, we are debating under the motion that this house believes that the United Nations should not intervene in internal conflicts of other countries. Before starting the debate, I, as the prime minister, would like to define some words that will be mainly used in today’s debate.
UN is an international organization that works for global peace, not only to provide short term remedies to urgent issues, but also to find long term, ultimate solution to problems all over the world. ‘ Internal conflicts ‘ means visible conflicts among two or more groups within the country, which include ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, riots, forceful overthrows of governments, secessionist or independence movements, or civil and political violence. ‘Intervene’ means interventions of external countries or organizations mainly by force – military means, for humanitarian purpose or global peace.
Please make it sure ‘intervention’ is generally considered as the use of force and military. Let’s get into an enthusiastic debate. We, the government side, assert that the UN should NOT intervene in internal conflicts of other countries. While supporting the motion, I, as the prime minister will state the stance of the government side by 2 points out of three. Then our deputy prime minister will provide one more argument and further evidences. Our whip will clarify why our side, the government, strongly believes the motion should pass.
Now, I will move onto my own constructive argument. We analyzed the motion by three points of view- First, does intervention of UN guarantee the own right of the country? If not, how does intervention of UN affect the future of the country? Second, can the decision making of intervention for global peace completely free from any private benefits of specific countries? Third, does intervention of UN actually resolve the conflicts and achieve peace. First, above all, we, the government side strongly assert that intervention of UN is not consistent with non-intervention principle.
Currently, it is the UN Charter that establishes fundamental norm in states’ relations. The Charter says “Any members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity of political independence. ” Although it leaves a great deal of discretion to the UN’s own action of interference and there are many controversies over the interpretation of the extent of ‘interference’, the Charter Framework is restrictive in the use of force and military intervention in state relations. Thus, the intervention of UN itself is contradictory to non-intervention principle.
The intervention of UN seriously infringe on the right of self-decision making and taking action about the internal conflicts as the self-government. Their own capability to resolve conflicts is ignored. I argued that the major premise of intervention is not valid and the independence of countries which are intervened is severely damaged, and then, what would be future influences on the country which is intervened by external force? Once UN intervene in internal conflicts , the intervened country cannot develop ever, and also, cannot be independent ever.
The government side certainly believes that resolving or overcoming conflicts is one of the processes of development. If there is a dictator or unfair situation in the country , it is the citizens of that country who can change the society through demonstration or revolution. Look at the developed countries. They achieved democracy through French Revolution. It doesn’t matter whether the conflict is for democracy or just due to disagreements. If the countries rely on external forces to resolve the conflicts, and jump off the necessary process to evolve, they lose the chance to develop then.
Moreover, the intervened country becomes subordinate to the main countries involved in UN intervention. For example, in Korean War, UN military forces helped South Korea and blocked North Korea to occupy the whole peninsula. And, United States compromised absolute majority of the UN army. After that, Korea had to sign some unfair treaties with US like SOFA which admits extraterritoriality of United States. Let me move onto my next point. Deciding on whether UN would dispatch army or not is highly dependent on the opinions of a few limited countries in the United Nations.
Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations-China, Russia, England, United States and France. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation’s objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel ( with which US has close relationship with,) more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.
Also, According to Cuba’s Foreign Minister, a “preventive war’ is taking place in Libya using the protection of civilians as a pretext to plunder the country’s resources, petroleum. The exclusive power of permanent countries bears inconsistency in UN’s intervention. In the cases of Syria, Palestine conflicts, in which almost 20 thousand people died, UN doesn’t take powerful action as with in Libya, because permanent countries’ veto and inactive attitude.
Those powerful countries think the intervention may not benefit them. As you see, the decision making cannot be completely neutral and cannot be completely free from certain powerful nations’ interests. It means that UN intervention can be abused by certain nations to achieve ‘their’ goals, not ‘global peace’. So far, I , as the prime minister stated two main arguments- UN intervention ignores the countries’ own right to make decision UN intervention could be abused. Thank you.