United Nations Military Proposed

[vangemeren]

World needs United Nations army, says book
Last Updated Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:37:26 EDT
CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/15/un-army.html

The world would benefit from an international, United Nations-backed force of military, police and civilians that could respond to world crises within 48 hours, a group of academics and security experts is planning to tell the UN.

A report published Thursday in the Toronto Star quotes from a book titled A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

"A UN agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis, enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars through early and often preventive action," says the book, which will be presented at the world body on Friday.

The book's chief writer, University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert Johansen, told the Star the UN army could help prevent tragedies such as the Rwandan genocide and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

It would be a professional force that wouldn't deplete the military resources of countries or leave governments wondering how long their troops will be deployed in a foreign country, said Johansen.

The force, estimated to cost about $2 billion US to set up, would operate out of UN-run bases with a mobile field headquarters.

A UN-run emergency force isn't a new idea. It was initially proposed after the Second World War, surfacing again after the Rwandan genocide.

However, critics feared it would become an army controlled by Western nations.

Canadian Col. Pat Strogan, vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, told the Star the concept was sound, but hinged on which countries chose to participate.

 

[Old Sweat]

How do you get around the pesky issue of Security Council resolutions and the unwillingness of 'host' countries to accept intervention?

 

[vangemeren]

Vetoes in the security council would probably mean that this proposed military would never be used, as it seems when something is proposed, at least one of the big five seems to veto it.

Another problem is that what happens if the U.N military is committed to a country (or one where they have interests in) in which they have personnel in the U.N Military?
i.e. Say it's deployed to Cyprus, what about Greek and Turkish soldiers/units in the U.N army?

 

[GAP]

Guess who they would expect to finance all this wonderful stuff?

Wanna bet they expect the US to ante up the majority?

 

[Zee]

Is it too harsh to say that the countries with any influence and resources in the U.N. other than Russia, China and a few others are NATO Member countries? A U.N. force I imagine would be made up from the majority the NATO Members, and U.N. mandates usually won't pass without the consent of NATO Members in the U.N. If I were just operating on that premise it would make me think that a U.N. force is unlikely and counter productive for the most influential countries in the world, which are mostly NATO Member nations who have already spent money making their militaries inter-operable for the sake of the alliance.

I guess my arguement is that NATO forces are indirectly the proposed U.N. force, and any U.N. mandated mission will mostly be NATO Members, although lending the opportunity for non member countries to offer resources.

Nah, Yah, Hein?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Having already worked for them in this capacity, albiet at arm's length, with our own country's military, I shudder at the prospect of the middleman (our own command) being removed. Yup, that's the army I want to belong to :

 

[ArmyRick]

Here is what I think of this idea.

HA ha ha ho ho ho hee hee (I'll put on my clown suit and wear a UN ball cap)...

No seriously, let the grown ups bring peace to the world (if neccessary, with deadly force used on undesirable factions)

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Having already worked for them in this capacity, albiet at arm's length, with our own country's military, I shudder at the prospect of the middleman (our own command) being removed. Yup, that's the army I want to belong to :

Exactly.  The UN can't manage its own vehicle fleet, let alone directly command 15000 armed soldiers.  A nice, "academic" idea...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I do not agree with Col Stogran (but it would have been nice and professional if the Star could have spelled his name right - what a bunch of incompetent amateurs, bunglers even by the low standards 'journalists' set for themselves.).  In my view the concept is deeply flawed unless (in the very highly unlikely event) the UN is reformed so thoroughly that only about 25% of its current members have any votes on any issues.

The ability to use force for the public good is the essence of governing.  A standing UN creates, de facto, a world government.  To govern is to choose and I am about 99.9% certain that most Canadians do not want Algeria, Burundi and so on, through to Zimbabwe, making use of deadly force choices for us.  I am not opposed to a world government if we give it some, even a tiny bit of thought, before we create it. The report (hardly a book) A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, ( http://www.globalactionpw.org/uneps/UNEmergencyPeaceService.pdf  authored by Robert Johansen of Notre Dame - http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=17882&seltopicid=218 ) proposes a world government without benefit of thought.

We understand that we need to have standards for participation in the governing process.  Here is Canada one must be an adult (mature judgement) and a citizen (a stakeholder in the country) to vote – we even used to have very basic good citizenship standards such as a requirement to be out of jail before voting but that’s anther rant.  There are no standards in the current UN and it would be unacceptable to turn a world government over to it.

The proposal is nonsense and needs to be perforated every four inches, rolled up and assigned to the thunder boxes in Afghanistan.  Stogran should know better.

 

[a_majoor]

While the idea of a UN standing army is quite alarming, we already have the 90% solution in the form of NATO and various stand up Coalitions of the Willing.

Since these forces are under the influence of the senior Anglosphere partner (the United States), we have far less to worry about than if we had to deal with a UN force under the influence of, say, China or Venezuela or other nations and cultures with poor grasps of concepts like Rights, limited government or the Rule of Law. One only has to look at the "Sex for Food" scandal ongoing in the Congo to see what the future would hold with a standing UN force.

File this one in the circular data base

 

[a_majoor]

More on a bad idea:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006844.html

Why no "UN Army" will work
Canadians seem incapable of understanding that, in terms of enforcing international peace and security, there is no such thing as the UN. There are the five permanent members of the Security Council, each pursuing its own national interest. Only rarely - as with the 1991 Gulf War and currently with Afghanistan - do those interests coincide to the extent of authorizing the use of armed force. Maj.-Gen. (ret'd) Lewis Mackenzie explains:

A collection of well-meaning academics and security experts recently proposed the creation of an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United Nations. It's a bad idea...
...this month...academics and security experts raised the idea of a standing professional UN army numbering 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including logistics and nation-building specialists. Details of the concept are found in the book A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, which was presented at the UN.

The authors opine that such a force would accelerate the UN's glacial response to the myriad of peace and security problems that cry out for intervention, and they cite Rwanda and Darfur as prime examples. They suggest that the UN force could be on its way to a trouble spot within 48 hours and perhaps even be pre-deployed to nip an emerging crisis in the bud before it blossoms...

To suggest that the existence of a UN army would have helped stop the genocide in Rwanda or could be used to take on the current genocide in Darfur is naive. The stumbling block for both was and is not a lack of resources but rather a lack of commitment beyond national self-interests by some of the Perm 5 members. In the case of Rwanda, there were no self-interests strong enough to authorize intervention; in Darfur, the self-interests of at least two members (related to oil production) [guess which? - MC] mean their vetoes stand in the way of any forceful action. If a UN army did exist, it would still be sitting on its hands far away from Darfur.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Security Council itself would veto any attempt to create a UN army. If one exists, there would be pressure to use it - and the Perm 5 wouldn't like being backed into a decision-making corner...


By the way, about 99% of people are unaware that current US and Coalition operations in Iraq have full Security Council authorization until the end of this year. Take that, UN lovers!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Wanna bet the NDP will want the government to send the majority of our Forces to this body or worse if they got in, put the entire CF under UN auspices. *shudder*

 

[pbi]

This is a non-starter. IIRC, its biggest enemy (it isn't a new idea, BTW...) has always been the US, who is suspicious of the UN anyway, and certainly does not want a Blue Army getting in the way. I am equally sure that neither China nor Russia would really like the idea either. Of course, none of these powers really have anything to worry about: they each hold vetoes on the Security Council so they could easily enssure that such a force (if it ever came into being...) would never go anywhere that conflicted with their national interests.

As well, as some posters have pointed out, the idea of a military force run by the UN, as opposed to by any competent regional power or coalition, is quite scary to any of us who have worn the blue beany.

And here is an interesting question: what would the legal status of such a force be? Is the UN really a "government" that can legitimate commands by its authority and use force on its own? Remember: forces that we send to the UN are not under its "command"-they are under some form of operational control(OPCON). For example, the existence of the CF, and the power of its officers to issue commands and demand obedience, are all rooted in the law of Canada. The CF exists because the law of Canada says that it will. Same for the US forces, etc. If we send forces to a UN mission, the orders that our commanders issue have their force not because of the UN (or perhaps in spite of the UN...) but because of the power Canada vests in them through the NDA.

By what authority would any "UN" officer issue a legally binding order? How would discipline be enforced? If capture ed, what is the legal status of "UN soldiers" who are not members of any particular country's armed forces?

Maybe I have floated a red herring here, but I think it is just one of several concerns about this well-meant but rather poorly thought out idea. I would rather see a "contracting out" to NATO, OAU, OAS, etc. Maybe in the near future, with our new mobility assets, we can take on some of these tasks?

Cheers

 

[Michael Dorosh]

By what authority would any "UN" officer issue a legally binding order? How would discipline be enforced? If capture ed, what is the legal status of "UN soldiers" who are not members of any particular country's armed forces?

Maybe I have floated a red herring here, but I think it is just one of several concerns about this well-meant but rather poorly thought out idea. I would rather see a "contracting out" to NATO, OAU, OAS, etc. Maybe in the near future, with our new mobility assets, we can take on some of these tasks?

Cheers

Would you include the EU among those? Or does NATO cover that?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The EU's just a smaller, more bureaucratic version of the UN.  Having worked with EUROCORPS, I wouldn't go across the street with them...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The EU's just a smaller, more bureaucratic version of the UN.  Having worked with EUROCORPS, I wouldn't go across the street with them...

I'm not advocating for them, but wondering if they don't see themselves as a viable competitor with the US - military action would be a way of furthering their own agenda without having the US having a prominent stake, as they do in NATO. Would certainly leave Britain and Canada in the cold as well. Just wondering if that would ever be an intent of theirs - would put the brakes on some NATO missions then, possibly?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Seriously, you're right - there are those in the EU who have argued for a military role to counter US influence.  The recent EU assumption of the Bosnia mission is an example of this idea in action and there have been tentative moves towards a more unified defence system.  However, given the hostility to an increased EU defence and foreign affairs role amongst some nations, I can't see it going very far for the foreseeable future.

EU mounts missions such as Bosnia based entirely on consensus (then again, so does NATO) and has no formal command structure to call upon. Even EUROCORPS is a NATO-assigned formation, rather than being responsive to the EU.  They'd have a long way to go before they could equal NATO's C2 capability and responsiveness.

Bosnia is one thing - it's a mature, very stable theatre that gained consensus very easily - Afghanistan is another. 

Frankly, I view the EU as being as sinister as the UN...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Frankly, I view the EU as being as sinister as the UN...

From a Canadian POV I thought this might be so - thanks for the info.

 

[pbi]

Mike: EU is in the same vein, generically speaking: a regional coalition. But, beyond that point, I have to agree with Teddy. If the abysmal display put on by EuroCorps on ISAF VI was any example, EU has little military credibility. (Both Teddy and I worked for that nasty train wreck...)

Cheers

 

[Scorpyo]

ALbeit  the  Idea  of  a  U N  standing  army  is  a  very  powerfull  and  noble  concept, there  are  several issues  that  must  be  addressed. My  VISION  of  a  U N  standing  army  would  be  one  that  can  effectively  engage  in peacekeeping  and  humanitarian  assistance.  The  Western  World  has  the  duty  and  responsibility  to  be  the  pillar  of  such  an  ARMY.  A  UN  ARMY  that  will  conduct  it's  operations  worldwide  and  cooperate  with  inter-governmental  agencies.  A  UN  army  that  has  a  code  of  honor  and  a  loyalty  to  the  presevation of  peace, order and security  in  our  shared  world.  A  special  education ( such  as  language training, cultural education and spiritual  empahsis )  must  take  place  in a  NEW  UN  ARMY.  World leaders, business leaders and spiritual leaders  must  debate  together  on  what  will  be  the  first -ever  truly  GLOBAL UNITED FORCE. So  I  urge  all  politicians, religious leaders, businessman, historians, military men, sociologists, scholars, environmentalists,philantropists, urban planners, technocrats, doctors ,etc.... and  all  who  want  to see  a  New World Order  in  which  A  UN ARMY  would  ensure  PEACE and ORDER,  to  unite  in  discussion  and  debate. I  see  a  better  world  for  all  of  us  if  such  an  army  were  to  emerge  and  therefore  a  NEW  GLOBAL  COMMUNITY  that  will  RISE  AS  A PHOENIX  to  rid  this  world  of  the  injustice, corruption  and  environmental decay that  plagues  and  effects (  and  it  shall )  ALL  OF  US  sharing  this  Earth....For  the  first  time  in  our  history  as  a people  we  have  the  opportunity  to  create  such  a  FORCE  that  will  represent  the  CITIZENS  OF  THIS  WORLD  and  truly  serve  it's  peoples. In  these  times,  when  we  are  more  close  to  annihilating  HUMAN  CIVILIZATION  than  we  ever  were....we  are  also  closer  to  SEE  A  REBIRTH  OF  THE  CIVILIZATION  OF  MAN  THAT  IS  TRULY  UNITED  IN  THE  COMMON  STRUGGLE! (  TO  BUILD  A  BETTER  WORLD  FOR  OUR  CHILDREN,  TO  WHICH  I  GIVE  THE  ATMOST  IMPORTANCE! ).  This  IDEALISM  could  reach  REALISM  because  we  are  bound  by  HUMANISM!
      May  Providence  bless  all  of  us!

For  any  comments  u  can  contact  me  at        cscorpyo77@hotmail.com