[Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

[devonin]

Since the discussions in CT have been slowing up a little, I thought it might be a nice CT tradition to start up, for various posters to post essays etc that they've written over the years, as a catalyst for discussion.

It would be nice to see some lively discussion over the -content- and -ideas- of such papers, without getting bogged down in literary criticisms of style and formatting. In many cases, these essays would be from earlier in our academic careers, and we are probably more keenly aware of how much our writing used to stink than anyone commenting later, so try to keep things topical?

To get the ball rolling, this is an essay I wrote way back in my first year of university for a World Politics course, on the prospect of the United Nations forming its own standing army. My own opinion on the subject has changed since I wrote it, but I'm very curious to hear from others about it.

I apologise in advance for some anti-american bias, but I wrote that essay very shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, and in many places, critical evaluation of America was pretty rampant.

Since its creation on 24 October 1945, the United Nations has been an organisation devoted to preserving global peace and unity. It seeks to do this through negotiation, discussion, and many other peaceful methods of conflict resolution. However, many times since World War Two, these peaceful solutions have not always worked. In cases such as those, the U.N. is occasionally forced to resort to more aggressive measures. The U.N. Peacekeeping forces have been involved in dozens of operations to preserve peace in conflict-ridden nations. In light of recent perceived ‘failures’ of the U.N to react in a way proper to the situation, particularly in Rwanda and Somalia, many nations and intellectuals within nations have been denouncing the U.N.’s effectiveness in maintaining world order. One proposed solution to this problem is the formation of a standing army under the direct control of the U.N Security council. Such a thing would allow the U.N. much greater leeway in their ability to intervene to stop conflicts before they can escalate, and stop large military nations such as the United States from becoming the ‘World’s Police.’

The concept of military forces under the control of the U.N Security Council is not a new one. Article 42 of the U.N. charter states that “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41” (referring to the placing of embargoes on non-complying nations,) “would be inadequate, or have proved to be inadequate it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. ” Further, Articles 43 and 45 make reference to the fact that it is “All members of the United Nations…undertake to make available to the Security Council…armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. ”

The fact that many global conflicts have been prevented or ended if already begun by the peacekeeping efforts of the U.N amply proves the need for such a force, but that doesn’t speak to the necessity of a standing army under the U.N.’s direct control. As it stands now, the Security Council needs to first get Council approval to send forces, and then attempt to raise forces from the member nations, often a laborious process.

The time it takes to raise a force large enough to act in a violent crisis often results in the loss of many unnecessary lives. The perfect example of this is the Rwandan genocide, where hostile Hutus attempted to exterminate the Tutsis. In an article in the U.S News & World Report discussing the pros and cons of raising a standing U.N. army, the author states “It took U.N. member states three months to organize a relief force. By then, most of the killing had been done. ” Had the U.N already possessed a large military force ready to be sent into action, those long months could have been bypassed, and countless lives saved. Instead 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed, and the United Nations suffered a huge blow to credibility as an international peacekeeping force.

However, one cannot simply say ‘so let the U.N. have its army’ or else the world could quite easily see the nation who happened to contribute the most forces, or else have the general in command ordering troops into areas where they do not belong. In an interview with a History and Political Science graduate of the University of Western Ontario, this writer received an opinion as to how a system such as a U.N. standing army should ideally function. “The force would be made up of volunteer soldiers from all member nations, the soldiers and commanders would rotate on a regular basis and would be fully funded and trained by the U.N. in peacekeeping duties. It would not be made up of full divisions or units from member-state standing armies as this could potentially cast doubt on the objectivity of forces involved. ”

In addition, by allowing volunteers from all member nations to essentially detach from their own nation’s standing army to serve in the U.N. peacekeeping force, this would minimise the clout large military nations have now in deciding where and how to allow the United Nations to act. Two of the countries that contributed most helpfully in Rwanda were Ghana and Tunisia, neither of which are large nations economically, militarily nor politically as compared to the permanent Security Council members. Such a broad based group from which to collect forces would also do much to increase the credibility and objectivity of U.N. peacekeeping efforts while allowing smaller nations such as Ghana and Tunisia to make worthwhile contributions to the peacekeeping effort without constantly serving in the shadow of the United States, Canada and other large peacekeeping nations.

One of the problems facing the United Nations while it attempts to gather forces for peacekeeping efforts is the need for ‘coalition building’ that is, gathering enough member nations interested in giving forces and supplies that making an intervention becomes logistically possible. This was the main problem the United States faced while gathering support for actions in Iraq. Although it had the infrastructure to launch its invasion on its own, which is what it ended up doing with the aid of Great Britain and Mexico, had the U.N. possessed a standing army, and had the member nations agreed to act in Iraq, the Council could have had troops on the ground much faster.

This quick response time and broad base also allows the U.N. to take power away from the world’s ‘police force’ namely, the United States. As a nation, the U.S.A has acted outside the guidelines of the U.N. charter in its unjustified invasion of Iraq. In a case such as that, the proper duty for the U.N would in fact have been to intercede on behalf of Iraq to prevent an unlawful military action. But since the prime contributor of forces to peacekeeping efforts is the United States, the U.N. either wouldn’t be able to muster the necessary forces to intervene, or else would have had to try ordering American peacekeeping troops to enter combat against their own home nation, another situation that a broad, multi-nationally based standing army would avoid.

Perhaps the greatest contribution a standing United Nations army could make to world peace and stability is its power as a deterrent. Many conflicts in history have been avoided by the mere application of non-violent force. Moving forces into neighbouring countries to stop would-be invaders from following their plans could easily make a would-be warlord think twice. Should a nation like Nazi Germany again arise in Europe, such an army would simply deploy to the area to make it clear that no aggressive move would be tolerated.

In the same vein, a military force composed entirely of disparate nationals can be the ultimate in neutral force. With generals and commanders who rotate on a set basis, and forces from any and all of the well over 150 member nations of the U.N. such a force could move into any nation without causing fears of invasion or undue interference, allowing the U.N. diplomats time to get in and attempt to resolve touchy situations before they can spark. A perfect example of this is the current state of affairs in South Korea, where invasion fears by Kim Jong Il are preventing the U.N. from entering negotiations with his government to resolve his nuclear weapon threats.

Since its creation, the United Nations has striven to be a force for peace and stability in the world. While its peacekeeping forces are more effective than no interference at all, the inability of the U.N. to bring forces to bear in an appropriate and timely manner, to work around the inevitable foot dragging and red tape generated by requests for military forces, or to create a neutral force that should be tolerated if not welcomed in any crisis situation are all obviated by the creation of a standing army under the direct control of the Security Council.

Works Cited
1. Morrison, Brent. B.His. Interview. Monday November 3rd 2003
2. Ruse, Austin. Clinton Calls for U.N. Army Newsmax Sept 6, 2000
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/6/11264
3. United Nations. Charter
4. United Nations. Press Conference on Report of Rwanda Inquiry
Reprinted by Africa Policy Information Centre 16 December 1999
5. United Nations. Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda
Reprinted by Africa Policy Information Centre 15 December 1999
6. U.S. News & World A United Nations Army? US News & World Report v121 PG 45 August 5 1996