AFF Case

We Affirm Resolved: United Nation peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.

According to Merriam Webster, should implies an obligation.

Observation 1: The resolution specifically ends with should have the power to, which simply is just asking whether or not UN Peacekeepers should at least have the ability to engage in offensive operations. However, the resolution is not implying that offensive operations will be used in every circumstance. The only time offensive tactics will be used is if the circumstance calls for it. Therefore, if by the end of the round you as a judge believe that in certain situations we must use offensive strategies, then you affirm, because that answer the question of whether or not we should at least give UN Peacekeepers the capability to use offensive tactics.Contention 1: Offensive Operations are more effective in solving conflicts

Currently, UN Peacekeepers only have the capability to act in self-defense, which creates a lack of offense. This lack of offense is the reason for many historical failures of stopping conflict and genocidesHultman, Lisa. "Robust Peacekeeping: A Desirable Development?"EInternational Relations. N.p., 2 Sept. 2014. Web. 01 Jan. 2015.Hultman 14 explains:

A UN-sponsored report recently concluded that more than 191,000 people have now been killed in the Syrian conflict. Commenting on the report, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay strongly criticized the Security Council for its inaction. The case of Syria has once again raised the question about the relevance of the UN and its ability to protect civilians. While civilians are being slaughtered on the battlefield, the UN Security Council fails to agree on an appropriate reaction. It may remind us of historical failures of the UN, like in (the cases of) Rwanda and Bosnia. What happened to the promises that never again would this happen? In fact, much has changed since then. The greatest failure in Bosnia was that civilians were killed despite the presence of UN peacekeepers. The peacekeeping principles of impartiality and the use of force only in self-defense hindered the appropriate action.

Thus, UN Peacekeepers need offensive capabilities in order to stop conflict

In fact, with Offensive Operations UN Peacekeepers could have stopped the Rwandan Genocide

Davis 14 explains:

Blair, David. To prevent another Rwanda, all it takes is a few well-trained troops. The Telegraph, April 3 2014.

What followed is best conveyed in the terse words of General Romo Dallaire, then commander of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda. In just 100 days, over 800,000 innocent Rwandan men, women and children were brutally murdered while the developed world, impassive and apparently unperturbed, sat back and watched the unfolding apocalypse, he wrote. Gen Dallaires searing memoir of those 100 blood-soaked days, Shake Hands with the Devil, contains a lesson of eternal relevance. This distinguished Canadian soldier offers his professional assessment that a mere 4,000 trained troops, entrusted with a mandate allowing the use of force to protect civilians, could have stopped the genocide in its tracks. For want of a handful of soldiers, 800,000 people died. Why would such a modest force have been enough? The answer is twofold. (This is true for 2 reasons) First, Rwanda has no vast or uninhabited tracts of territory for killers to find refuge. Instead, the densely populated country is only slightly bigger thanWales; for good measure, Rwanda also possesses a good network of tarred roads. Second, the Interahamwe militiamen whose hands were steeped in blood the name means those who kill together often carried out their massacres armed with nothing more advanced than machetes. They could not have resisted proper soldiers, able and willing to stop mass murder by using force. How many encounters with, say, a battalion of US or British infantry would these thugs have been able to withstand?

And, when Offensive Operations were used for the first time in history in the Dominican Republic of Congo, Peacekeepers were able to stop the conflict.

Thalif 13 states:

Deen, Thalif, U.N. Peacekeeping goes on the offensive Inter Press Service. 2013 Nov 13. http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/u-n-peacekeeping-goes-on-the-offensive/

As U.N. peacekeeping operations assume a more aggressive role in conflict zones, the first concrete results came last week when the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) defeated the M23 rebel group after a 20-month-long insurgency. That victory was thanks in part to the support provided by the 25,240- strong U.N. Stabilisation Mission in DRC (MONUSCO), but more importantly, the 3,000-strong first-ever U.N. Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) created by the Security Council last March.

So as you can see, in the past without the UN peacekeepers having the power to use offensive operations, 1 million helpless people died during the Syrian and Rwandan genocides. But during the conflict in the Dominican Republic of Congo where for the first time in history peacekeepers were granted offensive capabilities it resulted in the defeating of the M23 rebel group and thousands of lives being saved. For this reason, UN peacekeepers should at least be granted ability to use offensive operations in the cases where theres a lack of offense. Contention 2: Cyber Warfare

Offensive operations would allow the United Nations to engage in cyber peacekeeping

Shekaraub, Shahrooz I. "Keeping the Peace in Frightening New Arena: The UN's Cyber Options."Truthout. N.p., 6 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Jan. 2015.

Shekaraubi 14:

Unfortunately, the recent increase in cyber warfare has led the UN to mobilize in a limited way only on international cyber security. The cyber attacks on Estonia, the Stuxnet virus launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran and ongoing cyber terrorism including online fraud, identity theft and stolen intellectual property are just a few examples that demonstrate the vast challenges and the pressing need for UN leadership in this emerging battlefield.The UN should confront cyber warfare in its entirety by expanding its peacekeeping operations to include a cyber department. The growing sophistication and range of cyberwarfare, coupled with a lack of rules and laws that would govern state behavior in cyberspace, makes the protection of information, communications and human lives an urgent task for the UN. This proposed peacekeeping cyber operations would focus on monitoring cyber attacks and increasing transparency.

This UN cyber department should design and implement international laws and rules in relation to cyber activities that would set the basis for the norms, rules and principles of responsible behavior by states in cyberspace. Sanctions can serve as an enforcement tool when peace and security are threatened by states involved in cyberwarfare. Through the UN's cyber peacekeeping operations, they could help create the mechanisms for states to exchange information and views on laws, practices, crisis communication, domestic organizations and policies pertaining to cyber security. This includes helping states establish the mechanism for law enforcement cooperation to reduce events that could be misread as hostile state actions.