2nd Speaker (Structure: 4 minutes of rebuttals, 4 minutes of case)

I will start off by addressing three main points of contention with the 1st proposition speakers speech before moving on to my case proper. (Rebuttals 4.5 minutes) Moving on to my case proper, I will be discussing the impact of the privilege of the veto powers on the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council and their motivation to perform their role most efficiently. Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, there lived in the early 1900s, a man by the name of Abraham Maslow proposed the Theory of Human Motivation. He suggested that it is necessary, for any group of professionals at a high level such as the UN Security Council to have a certain amount of nonmonetary motivation in the form of esteem needs, which includes power, in order to succeed. The veto power provides the P-5 with this power.

P-5 veto rewards the disproportionate contribution to global security. The most important function of the United Nations, as defined in the UN Charter, is the maintenance of international security. But, different states make very different contributions to international security. Thus, it is appropriate to reward states that make a greater contribution to this primary mission of the UN. The veto to the P-5 does this. As a result, countries would be ready to contribute and take up this role. I ask the proposition; do you honestly think that the US would be ready to take up its unappreciated role against armchair critics if it wasnt rewarded for its disproportionate contribution in comparison to say, Singapore? No, definitely not. If all states are given equal power in the UN SC, it is possible that the most powerful states in the international system will simply not participate, as the proposition today proposes. This is not within the interests of the international community, as the participation of the most powerful states is essential to achieving international objectives, particularly security objectives. Offering veto powers to the most powerful states helps incentivizes the participation of these powerful states, and this ensures the longevity of the UN and its objectives. This has been evident in the increasingly successful use of the veto power both during and since the Cold War. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast. Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was utilised on only 7 occasions, whilst more than 20 peacekeeping operations were mandated. This figure exceeds the total number of operations undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45 years.

UNs effectiveness would be compromised Practical side This motion must fall, thank you.

Pre-ambles "Stop!" shrieks the world, "What about the appalling loss of innocent blood in Syria?" It's at this point that Russian diplomacy smiles a cruel smile.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition, I admit is particularly skilled in dramatization of a cruel world lacking kindness and compassion and portrayed the veto powers as the big, bad wolves leaving the minorities to die in poverty. The opposition, on the other hand would like to urge you, to exit this world of idealism and adopt a practical approach to this case. Rebuttals 1. Atrocities First and foremost, I would like to address the proposition repeated reference to the case of genocides, Syria and increased atrocities Sir, we are not oblivious to the fact that some atrocities may be overlooked, but looking at the big picture, it is necessary for the prevention of the escalation of war. Perhaps some decisions may not be passed, but rash decisions that could lead to devastating effects on the world and perhaps even the escalation of conflict, or World War 3 would be vetoed. We suggest that it is not practical or in our hands to prevent lives from being lost altogether, but it is in our hands to prevent 1 million lives from being lost instead of 1000 or 10000 Human rights - to prevent war? To prevent those poor children walking to school from being bombed down? Function: UN TO PREVENT WORLD WAR 3 SUIT PURPOSE = MORE IMPORTANT TO SERVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN HUNDREDS OF NATIONS than to save that one Syrian child Cruel, but necessary decision to be taken

2. The proposition has been nave enough to assume the world to be a peaceful world with no possibility of conflict and assuming that war would not be possible Opp = extreme Prop = rights, democracy, exceedingly abstract World = closer to extreme, not idealistic Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity.

Korean War: China was miffed at US, they did not go to war, but fought a proxy war. Disguised their soldiers as Korean troops and got back at the US History had shown that diplomacy is not the first resort Why historical examples? This has happened in the past and has since been prevented by the veto powers. Does the proposition suggest that we wait for another war to come up and jeopardize world peace.

3. UN Archaic organisation Veto- obsolete tool The veto power is still as relevant as it ever was. As the opposition notes, the veto power was granted to ensure the victors in World War II that they could prevent the escalation to world war that had so ravaged their lands and populations. The maintenance of the 'long peace' over the subsequent half-century can be at least partially attributed to the effectiveness of the Security Council veto; the P5 are tempted away from military solutions towards diplomatic feuds due to their ability to bring overbearing political power to bear on rivals. For example, fears of Iran's acquirement of a nuclear weapon have been abetted by US-sponsored efforts to impose sanctions on the regime. Without the veto power, the Security Council would not remain in its current, useful form and may not have prevented a resort to war in this case.

4. Lastly, I would like to tackle the point made on equality. Not just donations, but also about contribution and expertise What overrule this idea of equality is expertise and their suitability as a geographically and politically diverse group. At a point in time, we do look to a teacher or professor to solve that math problem The P5 of the UNSC is looked to as the more experienced authority As we can see the P5 countries, while a small group, represent a large number of people in the world. China is communist, the US are big capitalists, Britain is a soft socialist country while France is a hard socialist country (now) while Russia represents many of the Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries (Iran for example). Together these countries weave a tapestry of diversity that makes sure that many different ideologies are given power in the UN. Therefore, while one group has all the "power" in the UN according to you, they represent a vast range of people all over the world. The UN Charter does not offer sovereign equality. The UN charter does not explicitly offer sovereign equality as a right in the international system. Rather, international security and equality of security is the primary objective. UN SC veto power is a means to maintaining the greatest level of international security, and is thus consistent with the primary objectives of the UN charter. Prep material UNSC P-5: China, France, Russia, UK & US

In 1950, the Soviet Union missed the opportunity to veto the soviet governments empty chair owing to its discontent over UNs refusal to recognize the PRCs representatives as legitimate representatives of China

The veto power has been wielded with increasing success both during and since the Cold War. This makes it still necessary for increased efficiency in the Security Council. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast. Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was utilised on only 7 occasions, while more than 20 peacekeeping operations were mandated. This figure exceeds the total number of operations undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45 years. Therefore, the veto, rather than bringing the feared side effects of slowing up the Security Council, has been used increasingly well. The prodigious use of the veto during the Cold War period might have saved the world from the realisation of nuclear war. Now, increasing nuclear proliferation is a reason for maintaining the unity of the P5 by means of the veto. The current rhetoric concerns rogue states gaining possession of nuclear weapons. These are states whose potential deployment of arms is unpredictable and with whom there is limited international dialogue. If the P5 is split on a matter of international security, any one or more of its members could become equally rogue. Thus, the veto has been effective in uniting the P5 powers in the face of security issues.

Population

Together the P5 nations make up roughly 28% of the total global population. One in four people come from a P5 nation. That is a significant number.

Economy

Together the P5 nations make up 44% of the total global economy. Nearly half of all goods and services bought and sold is done by P5 nations. [2][4] (GDP of all P5 nations / total global economy)

As you can see, together the P5 nations are massively powerful in the world and no other countries can stand up to these numbers. With just over 25% of the total population and nearly half of the global economy these nations are certainly capable of making veto decisions.

Smaller Nations

The veto power is given to these nations in order to prevent a group of smaller nations from banding together and trying to pass something ridiculous such as a tax on the P5 countries to help pay for Third World countries. This veto power prevents a rule by smaller bands of countries that could get together to further their own agendas at the expense of others. This would certainly dampen the goal of "world peace".

Tradition

The P5 nations were the countries that founded the UN and it is only fair that her founders should be able to run it the way they want. As much as you want to believe that the UN is an engine for world peace and prosperity in reality it is a political world stage run by the P5 countries in order to put on a good face for the Third World. The P5 countries founded the UN and they gave themselves veto power and therefore they have veto power.

Balance and Compromise

This veto power prevents certain types of stalemates from occurring in the UN. As you can see the veto power was strategically given to countries who would oppose each other. I.e Russia and the US, France and Britain etc. This prevents blocs from being formed in the UN. The Russians cannot get a group of their friends (smaller nations) and form a bloc in the UN to try and push their own goals through. Neither can anyone else, they don't have to. Instead of creating divisive groups in the UN the veto power allows countries to act on their own and prevent these factions from being formed.

Rule and Peace

In order to achieve true peace and balance you cannot give rule to the masses. If every country in the world had an equal say in the UN nothing would get done and I mean nothing. In order to achieve any sort of peace or compromise you must have a strong ruling party to try and make decisions or forge the way or else it would be chaos. The P5 nations serve as this group. Rule by the masses would be chaos in the UN.

Differing Opinions

As we can see the P5 countries, while a small group, represent a large number of people in the world. China is communist, the US are big capitalists, Britain is a soft socialist country while France is a hard socialist country (now) while Russia represents many of the Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries (Iran for example). Together these countries weave a tapestry of diversity that makes sure that many different ideologies are given power in the UN. Therefore, while one group has all the "power" in the UN according to you, they represent a vast range of people all over the world.

They pressed the button in World War 2, why not now? Nuclear War