So I have to write an argumentative essay on Canadians peacekeeping in foreign countries (Cyprus, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia) and I have to argue whether Canadians should or shouldn't be peacekeeping in foreign countries. I have to have 3 main arguments, but I can't think of three solid ones for either yes or no.
Can you give me some ideas for 3 main points for either the yes or no side of the argument?
Yes:
* Developed democracies have a responsibility to help keep peace in the world.
* Canada is a member of the United Nations.
* Preventing wars helps protect Canada.
No:
* The money spent is wasted.
* The safety of Canadian troops should not be risked.
* Canada should maintain its neutrality.
Thanks for the answer, but a few questions.
Why exactly do developed democracies have said responsibility, and how does preventing wars protect Canada?
In most ethical views, the strong have a responsibility to protect the weak.
You think about how preventing wars protects Canada.
If anything, I feel that peacekeeping would only agitate other countries of Canada's presence, no?
That's possible.
But in times of war, Canada may be involved -- as it was in World War I and World War II.
So basically what you're saying is if a war breaks out in the country Canada is peacekeeping in, they'll feel obliged to participate?
Certainly! Let's start with three main arguments in favor of Canadians peacekeeping in foreign countries:
1. Promoting global stability: One argument could be that Canadian involvement in peacekeeping missions helps promote global stability. Canada's participation in these missions demonstrates its commitment to resolving conflicts peacefully and maintaining peace in troubled regions. By engaging in peacekeeping efforts, Canada sends a message of hope and cooperation, which can potentially diffuse tensions and contribute to long-term stability.
To support this argument, you can research specific instances where Canadian peacekeeping efforts made a positive impact. Look for examples where Canadian soldiers played a significant role in reducing violence, protecting vulnerable populations, or fostering reconciliation between warring factions.
2. Protecting human rights: Another argument is that Canadians should continue to engage in peacekeeping because it allows them to protect human rights in conflict zones. Peacekeepers often work in areas where civilians are at risk of human rights abuses, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other types of violence. By deploying Canadian troops, Canada can contribute to preventing or mitigating these abuses, providing support and protection to vulnerable populations.
To build this argument, look for examples where Canadian peacekeepers have been involved in ensuring and promoting human rights in conflict-stricken areas. You can also explore international humanitarian laws and how Canadian peacekeepers have played a role in enforcing these laws.
3. International reputation and diplomacy: Engaging in peacekeeping missions enhances Canada's reputation on the global stage and strengthens its diplomatic relationships. Canada has historically been recognized as a peacekeeping nation, with a notable track record in international peacekeeping efforts. By continuing to be active in peacekeeping, Canada demonstrates its commitment to contributing positively to global affairs and reinforcing its role as a responsible international actor.
To support this argument, you can research how Canada's involvement in peacekeeping missions has affected its relationships with other nations, particularly the countries where the missions took place. Look for instances where Canadian peacekeeping efforts led to improved diplomatic ties, partnerships, or increased influence.
Now, let's explore three main arguments against Canadians peacekeeping in foreign countries:
1. Limited impact and efficacy: One argument against Canadian peacekeeping is that it may have limited impact and effectiveness in resolving conflicts or bringing about tangible change. Critics argue that peacekeeping missions often face numerous challenges, such as insufficient resources, unclear mandates, or resistance from local actors. As a result, the desired outcomes, such as long-term peace or stability, might not be achieved.
To support this argument, you can investigate specific instances where peacekeeping missions have struggled to achieve their objectives or where issues such as corruption, peacekeeper misconduct, or inability to enforce peace have arisen.
2. Focus on other priorities: Another argument is that Canada's resources and efforts would be better allocated towards addressing domestic issues or pursuing alternative international initiatives instead of peacekeeping. Critics argue that there are pressing matters within Canada, such as economic development, social challenges, or environmental concerns, which would benefit from greater attention and investment.
To develop this argument, you can explore the domestic situations in Canada that may require prioritization, such as economic inequality, healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Analyze how resources and attention devoted to peacekeeping could potentially be redirected to address these issues more effectively.
3. Sovereignty and national interest: Some argue that peacekeeping missions may compromise Canadian sovereignty and divert attention and resources away from protecting national interests. Critics contend that peacekeeping often involves placing Canadian troops under the command of an international organization or cooperating with other nations, which can limit Canada's ability to act independently and protect its own interests.
To support this argument, you can investigate instances where Canadian troops have faced challenges related to sovereignty or situations where peacekeeping initiatives have required Canada to prioritize international interests over its own. Examine the potential risks and costs associated with peacekeeping in terms of national security and sovereignty.
Remember to conduct thorough research and gather supporting evidence to strengthen your arguments. This will help you present a well-rounded and persuasive case for either side of the debate.