Here is the rough draft(a very very rough draft) of my case with the Freire K. I wasn't really sure how to go about using a K in PF so I kind of just put it in as observations. Also, this is my first year of debate and I wrote this case at 3 in the morning so it is probably a bit convoluted and not fully developed.
My partner and I negate the following resolution: Resolved: United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations. We offer the following observations.
Observation 1: Debate has become inherently flawed. Debates have fallen under the pattern of banking education, a term coined by Paulo Freire to show that the traditional education system makes students into empty containers which educators must deposit knowledge into. Similarly, debaters have chosen to fill their cases with as much as evidence as possible without thinking of the actual real life impacts and meaning behind their arguments. This method is crippling and detrimental to debate because it undermines the true reason of debate: to have a holistic view of today's global society. Instead of this becoming a debate of numbers and evidence we must focus on the ethics and moral obligations of what we should value as humans.
Observation 2:The resolution causes us to be spectators of the realities of the topic and those around us, dooming us to being objects of our educational process.
Freire 1968 (Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Pg 75-76)
“Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others; the individual is spectator, not re-creator. In this view, the person is not a conscious being; he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside.”
Contention 1: Preserving the human dignity of individuals in warring states must be prioritized over all.
SA: Human dignity must be accounted for first.
Human dignity, as defined by Duhaime's Legal Dictionary, is “an individual or group's sense of self-respect and self-worth, physical psychological integrity and empowerment.” Law professor Linda Hawthorne (2011) states that “human dignity is inherent to every human being, inalienable and independent of the state.” Article 1 of the “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, says that “Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.” If we do not ask the ontological question of who we are or who are we trying to save and why, then policy actions being enacted to give the power of offensive operations to UN peacekeepers will be doomed because we are not treating these people as individual human beings but as numbers in a body count. By doing this we directly lose human dignity because we do not have face to face relationships with those that we are trying to save with offensive operations, therefore seeing them only as numbers and stripping them of their self-respect and self-worth.
SB: Offensive operations would go against the very principles of the UN and harm human dignity.
Yasushi Akashi (1995) states that “for peace-keeping operations to be successful, they must be based on the consent and cooperation of the parties in conflict. Consents and cooperations will be forthcoming only if the UN remains impartial in its dealings with all parties. A UN peace-keeping operation cannot...impose solutions onto unwilling parties, whatever the pressures to take sides on legal, moral, or political grounds.” In order to conduct offensive operations they would have to launch the operation against ONE party and the international community would be endorsing ONE group over another. This creates a myriad of problems. For example, which side should be attacked and which should be supported. The answer is not explicit in most cases. In the DRC, both the government and rebel groups are guilty of mass atrocities against civilians. Since the line between right and wrong is rarely ever explicit, offensive operations will fail to solve these conflicts. Going in without consent of all parties directly goes against UN principles because both parties are not mutually agreeing to have that foreign aid there and paints them simply as a number to be saved. The way we think and frame our relations with others is more important than how we act. To not take into account the ontological reasons of why we are helping people and who they are is genocidal in itself.
Contention 2: Offensive strategies will not solve for peace.
SA: External factors do little to help.
Global Security define offensive operations as “the decisive form of war. Offensive operations aim to destroy or defeat an army.” Through having the power to attack offensively, the UN simply becomes another country waging war. Peace created through force from external factors is usually unstable and fragile. Elizabeth Schmidt (2013) writes that the UN, the African Unions, and other organizations have only done more harm than good across all of Africa. Schmidt states that Western countries “often oversimplified complex issues and proposed the kinds of military solutions that historically have had negative effects on civilian populations” and “External involvement often intensified conflicts and rendered them more lethal.” Robert A. Pape (2010) states that more than “95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day.”
SB: UN Peacekeepers oppress the oppressed.
UN peacekeepers in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, committed human rights abuses against the people they were deployed to protect. Bookey and Halling (2008) write that “MINUSTAH's actions rise to the level of violations of international law in contravention of the Status of Forces Agreement(SOFA).” MINUSTAH's actions have “led to the deaths, severe injury, warrantless detention, and persecution of hundreds of persons known for their political support of ousted President Aristide bears alarmingly resemblance with the definition of crimes against humanity stated in the Rome Statute.” Alex Newman, of the New American (2011), reports that UN troops in Haiti had a “collective rape carried out against a young Haitian.” Ezili Danto states that “In 2007, it was discovered and reported that girls as young as 13 were having sex with U.N. peacekeepers for as little as $1 in Haiti,” and “Sri Lankan soldiers were accused of systematically raping Haitian women and girls, some as young as 7 years old.” Further, in the Ivory Coast, UN-backed troops trying to replace the nation’s Catholic leader with a Muslim central banker slaughtered well over 1,000 Christians — probably more. The soldiers reportedly engaged in widespread rape and murder as they marched toward the capital” (Newman 2011) and this not even the full list of all abuses. By voting Con in this round there is guaranteed prevention of the exacerbation of these abuses because peacekeepers will be receiving less powers, but there is no guarantee of preventing any of these abuses on the Pro because there's no way of knowing for sure whether or not these genocides would have been prevented.