Challenge Debate: The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.
I will argue my assent towards the Topic statement. Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Definitions/Clarifications:
• Unesco = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; which aims to "contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter". (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
•Unjust = Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
•Funding = refers to the money due next month ($60m (£37m))
 | ||
|
|
|
|
1
point
Great, thanks a lot for accepting. Good luck too! First of all, I think that the US government's decision to end its funding was unjust and wrong because: a) It directly counters the core principles of the US democratic system. b) Appertains to self-interest and a political stance, at the expense of others. c) An action that has profound negative impacts development projects, humanitarian aid and public improvement programmes. d) Represents the immoral power of the elite; in essence the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority, yet due to its position within the global international order, it is able to 'strike back'. e) Palestine is a tiny region! Why punish the whole world just to withhold development, support and aid to a tiny landmass? My main argument is as follows: The US government's decision to end its funding of the Unesco organization was made in retaliation to the outcome of the UN vote, which saw that out of 173 countries taking part, 107 voted in favour, 14 voted against and 52 abstained. The vote itself indicates the support of an overwhelming majority for the full admission of Palestine to Unesco. In essence, 62% of the countries were in favour, compared to only 8% against (without taking into account the neutrality of abstinence; 30%). As a democratic country, and one that prides itself in the core facets of liberty, freedom, individual rights, justice and equality, surely it should respect the free and democratic decision made by the UN? Consequently the US's decision to withhold funding can be interpreted as a retaliatory (and almost petty) action, in the face of democracy and justice. As an analogy, one could say that when a vast group of supporters of a candidate in a hypothetical presidential race discover that their hopeful has been defeated democratically, they would decide to stop paying taxes to the government in retaliation. In effect; they would be striking a blow the institution that they oppose, but in the process, they would be harming the states spending power, negatively impacting aid, health care and support. The main effort of this analogy is to emphasise both the immorality of the US's decision and it's inherent illogicality. It shows to the world, and those critics of the US, that all is not what it seems. Perhaps the US's ideals of democracy and freedom (and the imperative respect of those aspects) are false? Perhaps they mean nothing other than empty and coercive political rhetoric? These are questions that I like to consider, for I honestly feel that the US's principles of freedom, liberty and equality are tantamount to none; the most advanced in the world, yet seem to be frequently forgotten. Palestine, as a (currently) unrecognized entity or social conglomerate, represents both a tiny landmass and a relatively small population. Therefore, the financial impact of such a decision on Unesco's funding would be minimal. The funding would undoubtedly bring great social and economic improvements to the region, while in relative terms, having a small impact on the funding capacity of the organization. Unesco supports and funds a plethora of social, economic, humanitarian and cultural projects world wide, and Palestine would represent a small proportion of the total aid and assistance provided. So, if it was argued that the US's decision was based on a (politically motivated) need to prevent funding for Palestine, then it is essential to consider that they would be achieving their aims at the expense of numerous countries, and millions of people. The level of US funding - $60m (£37m) - represents a massive proportion of the total capital that Unesco receives; around 20% of its total budget. This strikes me as immoral and unjust. To pertain to a political stance (which in itself is also arguably immoral!) Moreover, with the removal of ~20% of Unesco's total annual funds, millions of people will suffer and numerous projects and development programmes will suffer significantly. The year of 2010 saw developments made in countries ranging from the bedraggled and earthquake stricken country of Haiti, to the rapidly expanding and developing country of India, to name a few. Programmes saw the education of many, the protection of key areas within these countries, and the improvement in the living standards of many. These represent just a few of many improvements that Unesco brings to not only the developing world, but to a vast number of nations. Therefore I would like to point out the intrinsic and inherent immorality of the US's decision to withhold funding. They are countering development and advancement with the ambition of a Machiavel and the tactlessness of a revenge seeking bigot. While I do not advocate any utilitarian approach, I do feel that the US should have taken a reasoned approach of adroitness when dealing with this issue. The US government should realise that their actions will be negatively impacting many, and should act accordingly. Therefore, even though the admission of Palestine to Unesco may oppose their fundamental political stance in the Middle East, they should accept it as fair. I am neither a devout supporter of consequentialism nor deontological ethics but I would say that the US should appertain to moral obligation and social duty; they should have retained funding solely because it would have the most positive impact on the greatest number; because it was the morally correct thing to do; and because it would result in a just and righteous eventuality or outcome. But then again, governments do not abide to morality. My point still stands, however, that the US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust. I look foreward with anticipation to your reply! Side: Defender
Con I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, welcome him to DDO, and wish him good luck in his first debate. This is a specific resolution within a complex issue that should allow for an interesting exchange. My opponent has framed his initial arguments rather nicely which should allow for an organized rebuttal. A) "It directly counters the core principles of the US democratic system." The core principals of the US democratic system generally only apply to the US. While the US believes that spreading democracy is a good thing, this is only for the greater cause of stability. The US has historically tolerated and installed dictatorships that would maintain stability, specifically with regards to global markets and commodity prices. Human rights are often additionally useful to stability, but generally not as much an essential policy for regime support. On a global scale, the US certainly isn't interested in a democratic system. Once again, the US tolerates (and funds) global diplomatic bodies like the UN while they promote stability, but time and again will veto or block anything not aligned with its interests. This is all typical of any sovereignty throughout history. Furthermore, the US passed laws in 1991 and 1994 that forbid it's funding for any UN organization accepting Palestine as a full member. Abiding by this federal legislation, created within the US democratic system, would be far more reflective of its core values than ignoring it. [1] >> The US does not respect democratic actions simply because it implies, liberty, justice and equality. It respects them if they lead to those things. The current evaluation of the US is that this step, among many others to come, will indeed not lead to those things my opponent mentioned. Democracy: When a functional Palestine is established the US has it doubts whether it will be a democracy. Liberty: The levels of liberty are reflected by its likely lack of democracy. Equality: The equal rights of homosexual and women will be in doubt. Justice: I want to focus on this point further as it allows for a greater understanding of my argument. Within the whole context of this issue we all need to ask ourselves what is the end goal that will bring Palestinians justice. At each step along the way of this process, at least 2 goals should be quite clear, A) Rights for Palestinians B) Security for Palestinians Being that nearly half of all Palestinians would not be given citizenship in the current imagining of this state, those points are not realized, and an entirely new approach seems necessary. [2][3] Being that the goal should be, at the very least, finding a solution to Palestinian suffering, and that this plan has yet to be even properly conceived, leads the US to be wary of funding such an entity. Not to mention that this entity likely would not reflect many of the values my opponent believes epitomizes the US. Therefore this instance (UNESCO vote) does not reflect anything to do with US values other than the fact that it involved voting. B) "Appertains to self-interest and a political stance, at the expense of others." UNESCO was aware that this vote was going to lead to the U.S. cutting it's funding. It was aware and did so regardless. This vote would then certainly qualify as a political stance by UNESCO at the expense of others it wishes to help. While the US certainly acts out of self-interest, I can't imagine the country that doesn't. While those interests haven't yet been fully defined, we shall certainly get to that later. C) "An action that has profound negative impacts development projects, humanitarian aid and public improvement programmes." UNESCO should have considered the value of this vote with regards to US funding. It is unfortunate US funding had to be lost, however UNESCO managed to be active from the time US president Reagan defunded it, until they, under President George W. Bush, returned to doing so. >> I believe my opponent is misrepresenting the conduct of the US. The US is a democracy that functions by the rule of law and its own public opinion. As mentioned, the outcome regarding the loss of funding by this vote was determined nearly 20 years ago by US laws created in the early 90's. D) "Represents the immoral power of the elite; in essence the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority, yet due to its position within the global international order, it is able to 'strike back'." >> It is indeed. The US, as it has done many times before, will defend its own interests among any global, voting majority. All countries would do exactly the same thing. >> I believe my opponent is once again misrepresenting the US position. The US public, through taxes, grants money to UNESCO out of their own good will. It would be nice to be thanked for this, but no US taxpayer expects it. In the mean time I think most US citizens would prefer not to be condemned for the equivalent of ‘not providing charity'. US laws and foreign policy generally reflect US public opinion. In this case it follows as well that the core values of the average US citizen were not met when UNESCO decided to take this vote. Therefore the incredible generosity of the people of the United States shall not be forthcoming in the near future. E) Palestine is a tiny region! Why punish the whole world just to withhold development, support and aid to a tiny landmass? >> When my opponent refers to ‘Palestine' what exactly is he referring to? It is a shame that much of the verbiage on this issue has become so politically loaded as to need clarification on what should be a very simple statement. While ‘tiny' is a relative term, historic Palestine is a decently sized area, made up of several countries including Israel and Jordan. There are others who may refer to Palestine only as the land area Israel exists upon, while other say ‘Palestine' is a reference to Gaza and the West Bank. While in other instances such as the most recent debate regarding a Palestinian state, generally refers to it in place of only the West Bank, with Gaza not being included. For the moment, I am going to assume my opponent is referring simply to the West Bank, and if so, we can agree, it is not a huge landmass by any standard. >> The US fails to see how such an action contributes to the pragmatic approach of finding a solution to the conflict, thus does not reflect its interest in a meaningful way. With that goal in mind, this is not a reasonable action, especially for those people that my opponent insists pay for it. I will stop here and respond to any issues I may have missed in future rounds as I am nearly out of space. I would like to thank my opponent for sharing his thoughts on this issue and look forward to his response. [1] http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com... [2] http://www.theblaze.com... [3] http://www.commentarymagazine.com... Report this Argument Side: Contender
1
point
A very interesting rebuttal. Thanks for your promptness. A) I would like to thank my opponent for pointing out these laws of 1991 and 1994. The US has actually consolidated this political stance into law. But is this enough to justify it? I do not think so. The fact that laws legally ‘justify’ the policy does not necessarily mean that they are moral and ethical. In the same way that (and here I’m sure that my opponent will agree) while the racist segregation laws of the first half of the 20th century were a part of the US constitution, they were unquestionably wrong. They served not to justify or substantiate action and crude rhetoric, but rather represented deeply bigoted and immoral social conventions of the past. They were removed and amended in due course. Similarly, there is no reason to think that these laws of 1991 and 1994 won’t be amended or abolished. I will build on this point in a moment – (a)i) why these laws can be interpreted as illogical and (a)ii) the issue of domestic support. Moreover, my opponent seems to induce that: “abiding by this federal legislation, created within the US democratic system, would be far more reflective of its core values than ignoring it.” I find this to be rather confusing. So is he/she stating that by ‘abiding’ to the laws they are fulfilling a sense of legal obligation? This would counter the point made by my opponent in that the US would “will veto or block anything not aligned with its interests”. The US would be withholding funding due to a legality, not a conscious choice of the government? Perhaps. Or is my opponent stating that by ‘abiding’ to the laws, the US would be pertaining to the traditional core values (i.e. freedom, equality and justice etc.)? a)i)Within this web article, (see opponents first citation), a number of important points are raised regarding the peculiarity of the US’s decision, and the illogicality of the laws that seem to enforce the decision Interestingly, Timothy Wirth from the article states“the implications of this [withholding funding] are really dangerous for the United Nations and the United States”. He has reason to believe this, for Palestine has also outlined its intentions to apply for membership of a number of other UN bodies, such as the UNIDO, WIPO and UNCTAD. Assuming it Palestine is able to succeed in these three other bodies (as is highly likely), the US would consequently cut funding to these organizations, “jeopardizing funding to programs that protect international intellectual copy rights and promote trade in the developing world” and would “hamper the United States ability to protect the existing interests of the U.S. music, film, and pharmaceutical industry”. These points indicate why it would be against the US’s financial, economic, social and political interests to end funding here. a)ii) I will now move on to the dilemma of public support. My opponent has cited this contentious issue on a number of occasions, and I can see where he/she is coming from. If the US’s decision to actively hamper Palestine’s (arguably) justified ascension onto the political stage, did reflect the will of the American people, then maybe it would be constitutionally justified? Although I must stress that the tyranny of majority does in no way provide ethical or moral justification. May I also reaffirm that I did define ‘unjust’ in the preliminary round as: ‘not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair’, rather than being a synonym for legal or justified, as is sometimes suggested in my opponents arguments. But my point is this: did the US’s decision reflect the will of the American people? Well, one would believe that since it was carried out under US law, then it should. “The US is a democracy that functions by … its own public opinion. [The outcome] was determined nearly 20 years ago by US laws created in the early 90's.” However, I would like to contend this. At the time, in 1991 and 1994, perhaps it can be said that the US people did support such a stance, but a whole 20 years later? There is no way of knowing this unless certain opinion polls were conducted. The US carried out its decision to withhold funding without consulting the American people. Thus, the argument that it reflects their will is invalid. To back up this point, I would like to emphasize the fact that the will of the American people does change frequently, in a sense, mirroring the inexorable dash from left to right seen in every successive US presidency. During the 20th century, American support for Israel (and currently lack of support for Palestine) would fluctuate, much like the ebb and flow of the tide. A good example of this could be support for Israel in 1973, after the Yom Kippur, which saw 54% of Americans state their strong support for Israel, while only 8% supported the Arab Nations in the Middle East. However, after a period of 9 years, we can observe a significant drop in support for Israel, down to only 32% in 1982, and a significant rise in the support for the Arab States, up to 28% from 8%. [1] This is very important, as I highlight the brevity and inconsistency of US support for Israel, and how the status quo from 20 years ago (1991 & 1994) cannot reflect the current stance today. This is why I believe that the US lacks the ‘political’ and ‘social’ justification to enact the laws. B) “UNESCO was aware that this vote was going to lead to the U.S. cutting it's funding. It was aware and did so regardless.” This is an interesting perspective… but perhaps a bit biased? My opponent argues that UNESCO itself is to be held accountable for the consequent lack of funding. It is essential for the UN to retain its current level of international credibility. Therefore it is important that the international organization does not buckle under the pressure of a single country (US). Also, to be fair, each country’s opinion should be equal in votes of this nature. “While the US certainly acts out of self-interest, I can't imagine the country that doesn't” Indeed, but there is a point at which many countries stop. And anyway, I’m not arguing with this point. C) “UNESCO should have considered the value of this vote with regards to US funding. It is unfortunate US funding had to be lost, however UNESCO managed to be active from the time US president Reagan defunded it, until they, under President George W. Bush, returned to doing so.” There is no question that UNESCO will manage to be ‘active’ in spite of losing 20% of its funding. It just means that it will be 20% less effective. “UNESCO should have considered the value of this vote with regards to US funding”. They have no choice. The UN abides, in relative terms to elements of justice and morality. They lack the authority and immorality to deny Palestine the opportunity to enter UNESCO. The decision did, does and will lie with the world stage. D) "The US, as it has done many times before, will defend its own interests among any global, voting majority.” My opponent seems to contradict himself on numerous occasions. On the one hand he/she states this, then on the other states that: “The US is a democracy that functions by the rule of law and its own public opinion” I do not mind which viewpoint is adopted, because neither detract from the fact that the US’s actions were immoral and unjust. E) Apologies, I should have actually added Palestine to the list of definitions. I view Palestine as a contiguous state neighboring Israel, which should bear resemblance to the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war. http://www.ccmep.org... Here we can see an illustration of the various stages of Palestinian territory. I think we can agree that Palestine resembles the ‘tiny’ state in ‘Stage 3’ of the diagram; that is both Gaza and the West Bank. Side: Defender
|
