You are on page 1of 38
GDI2004 Symonds/Apel Standing Army Multilateralism Advantage Page Argument 1-3. 1AC Multilateralism/Proliferation Advantage 4-5. Standing Army key to disarmament 6. Standing Army key to overall UN cred 7-9. SQ Bush is committed to Unilateralism 10-13. Unilateralism Bad Impacts 14-16, Multilateralism Good Impacts 17. Supporting the UN key to multilateralism. 18-27. Multilateralism Good Impacts 28-33, Proliferation causes war NEGATIVE 34, US is muttilateralist now 35. Neg answers to muitilateralism 36. Standing UN Anmy crushes international law 37, The plan can’t overcome poor UN planning GDI 2004 Standing Army ADVANTAGE TWO: MULTILATERALISM Boh rameans cornonited to cnilaberalrsan ” Ye SS Justin Wolfers, Assistant Professor of Economics @ Stanford, Sydney Moming Herald, Sune 19, 2004, <0 Peter Hartcher takes Mark Latham to task for suggesting new directions for Australian foreign policy. His most robust criticism? "This leaves Latham compfetely outside the mainstream of US politics.” Frankly, this strikes me as worthy of robust praise, The US leadership is full of dangerous unilaterlists fed by religious fervour, They are a group whose legitimacy is barcy fed by any democratic mandate, and one that only occasionally respects intemational law. George Bush _has comprehensive) world dis sub Itag. And for commentators ike Hartcher to sugges that there ate likely reriminations from Australia showing even a hint of an independent foreign policy is absucd. By any tsar evn ade ug pals Atala ave proved moreamiaed soon roe US policies than virually any other county. Wir orduced US vailetecalisan Hhreatens leman existence -~ only empowerinay fhe ON can save vs, ‘The Post, Africa News, fune 20, 2004, p. np. ‘AS we commemorate the World Refugee Day today, the wotld should also reflect on some of the major causes ofthe displacement of citizens from their counties ito counties that they never thought they would evec live in. For us, the fast thing that comes to mind is the present state of global insecurity and violence that is to a larger extent a creation of both state sponsored and individval or group terrorism. Today, we lve in a world thet does not know that ther is never & good war, ‘or wll there ever be a bad peace. As a result, we should not be surprised that there is a general escalation of violence in the World today which in turn has driven millions of people out oftheir homelands. While we know that violence breeds Violence, the so called most civilised nations have continued to use barbaric methods to deter violence. Itis quite strange that the only surviving global superpower, the United States, has continued to use methods chat completely defy democratic or ‘ivilian tendencies in tying t secure a peaceful world. Meanwhile, while the United States continues tp use barbaric and nilateral_ methods to que am. the resulting effect has been an increase nes around th Butas We have stated befor, the United States deoided to invade Iraq carly tast year, this should not come as a surprise. The fact thatthe world is faced with terrorism will never bea justification for any nation to use uncivilised means to deter the threat posed by any terrorist individuals or groups. Again, ised i wi . when its i at ‘And no one can challenge us on orld asides. Indeed, a great ‘number of human life was lost in 1994 in ‘while the world's Wor winked. And this is why we say we five na = i wed whe it and it moves i the most uncivilized and bacbarc annr. i i in inv iw that this isa di ‘new and much more empowered international system. GDI 2004 Standing Army LAC. OS schon ho ott loteral prctkeee: rs cosa alias een - the glan reverses, NS vopal S Renner, Senior Researcher at Worldwatch institute, Sepia (Michael, In Focus, http mw. ora/securityipes \n mber 2000 er.him, July 2004) ‘(Fundamentally the United States needs to decide whether it wants multilateral peacekeeping to be a serious option. On the one hand, Washington wants to retain the ability to act unilaterally. On the other hand, it does not want to be dragged into conflicts that it judges insignificant or too messy to resolve, like those in Rwanda, East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Congo. It wants the UN to be availabie for such Purposes and to serve as a convenient scapegoat when things go wrong The broader—and more troubling—context is that Washington does not want to be bound by the very rules governing international conduct that it urges others to respect. U.S. policy toward UN peacekeeping bears the tell-tale signs of an exceptionalism that rejects common, reciprocal obligations. The struggle over peacekeeping policy is also a struggle involving the legitimacy of international law and institutions. Both struggles hinge on cooperatively reconciling the contradictions of national sovereignty in a globalizing world. hithhon, ay Bfetue hndeg Aeiay se ey ore) ON abhes seek nay hig to pabtcchen Faith, National Centre of the Australian Baha’l Community, 2003. (Bahai, Achievement se and a standis ebObjects.cxe/NewBNO Website woa/wa/pages?page=pu ‘b%2F52%2FGlobalprosperityl %2F Australia'srelationswiththeUNI, July 2004) TAchievement of peace and a standing army for the United Nations ‘The Committee also raises the issue of the suitability of a standing army for the UN. Without a standing international force, whose loyalty to the UN and endence from national consi lions Can be lems of disarmament (including nuclear Proliferation) cannot be resolved, They present an ever-present risk to the welfare ofthe world and of Australians. Ad hoc arrangements, as most recently experienced in the case of East Timor, are beset by political and logistic ¢ ties, which hinder the deliy cof peace and ScSUTUY Ta poopie Whose es te Teal people Whaas ives ie Teale. The problems are fa Rom theoretical, as the consequences for those individuals are the Toss of life freedom, fami ly - and property while these problems are resolved. The establi shment ofa standing arm} ‘Toul to some extent reduce the harm that flows from delave in the deployment STUN forces which arise in the current context, The establishment of core regional forces under ——————E—E—E rr Or