Should The United Nations Have Its Own Military?

[fedfem]

While many seem to believe the UN has become irrelevent, I disagree. I think it is feasible and especially with the recent bullying and rhetoric, important to have a international watchdog. Who else can prevent and prosecute those who break International Law? Opinions?

[Dislogic]

I thought that the United nations already did have an army of sorts... couldbe mistakin though. I think though that this would be a good idea and i also believe that the UN should alot more power then it does now and should be handling most all international problems.

[Nicole]

To my knowlege, there is no military for the UN. I definitely don't think one should be given to it either. It's supposed to be a peace-keeping entity, is it not? Why does it need a military?

[dalin]

Any New World Order conspiracy theorists around?

Seriously speaking, if the U.N. had military power of its own it would be able to better enforce rulings and decisions they make. However, it would become almost like a super-state, having sovereignty over all countries.

edit: the U.N. uses the resources volunteered by its member nations when necessary.

[Dislogic]

Originally posted by dalin@Sep 2 2003, 02:13 PM Any New World Order conspiracy theorists around? Seriously speaking, if the U.N. had military power of its own it would be able to better enforce rulings and decisions they make. However, it would become almost like a super-state, having sovereignty over all countries. edit: the U.N. uses the resources volunteered by its member nations when necessary.

oh thats what they have because i rmember reading somthing abbout the UN forces that were helping with iraq or something... And hell im all for a Super-State as long as they govern Democraticly and fair!

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So what form of government are you proposing for the UN?

[dalin]

I dont think the U.N. should be any form of government. Rather it should be a forum in which we can have international issues resolved. Rather than dueling it out with brute force, two countries at odds can bring the case to a neutral arena and work towards a more reasonable resolution.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So you are basiclly proposing a standing army that has no SOP, other than the wims of a commitee..

[dalin]

SOP?? Not farmiliar with that stands for, but I never said I thought the U.N. should have its own military.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

SOP: standard operating proceedure, I take it you are not a vet...

Why did you respond to my response if you are not defending that arguement? It was directed toward those that want a UN army.

[fedfem]

There is a SOP now. The member states vote on putting peacekeeping forces in place. A reserve force is possible IMO. I know there are many people around the globe that do not see themselves as nationalists of any country and would enlist. I for one see myself as a global citizen first and foremost. There are many NGOs: Doctors without borders, Reporters without borders, Red Cross, Peace Corps etc...I think it would erradicate a lot of needless bloodshed around the globe. With the ICC, Interpol and other similar structured agencies, immense standing armies can be eliminated by most nations allowing them to invest the money into their infrastructure and citizenry. Not perfect but a hell of a lot better than the current state of affairs.

[Black Fox]

Originally posted by fedfem@Sep 2 2003, 03:46 PM There is a SOP now. The member states vote on putting peacekeeping forces in place. A reserve force is possible IMO. I know there are many people around the globe that do not see themselves as nationalists of any country and would enlist. I for one see myself as a global citizen first and foremost.

I don't think that we'll ever see the UN have a standing army for the simple reason that nations place their national interests above any goals that the UN might have. This means that a nation may choose not to contribute forces to this army if it feels that its national interest is being compromised by doing so. And it will be difficult to apply sanctions to a nation if it chooses not to contribute personnel to a standing force.

As to the idea of a 'Foreign Legion' type UN force made up of volunteers - well, I haven't really considered whether that would work. I suspect there aren't going to be many untrained people queueing up to be part of a peace-keeping force in war-zones, though.

[fedfem]

In case anyone was interested...Here is the charter of the UN.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm

[G. Adams]

I agree with Dislogic, as long as the UN was democratic, being a world wide superstate would bother me.

Actually, it would be preferable. If there was one government, the real problems of the world could be dealt with first. Instead of the governments of the West ignoring starvation and drought in Africa, it would be first on the agenda. Once we are cleared of that problem, we can then move onto the bullshit that our government usually does.

And...with no national governments, there would be no national armies, meaning no wars. If they gave up their governments peacefully, that is. Which isn't likely. But then again, the US was succesfully formed, and that only took one civil war to sort out properly.

And with one world government, we could create international trade unions. An international minimum wage. The list of leaps forward for people around the world could go on for ages.

Pipe dream maybe, but a good one.

[G. Adams]

Kind of ignored the real question there.

I don't think the UN can have a military force of it own as it is, because it has no accountability to the people of the world, only governments.

Once I have some control of the UN, a vote, then they can start thinking of a military.

[indierockboy]

too much power in one place.

[Geoff332]

Why does it need a military?

Simply put, because not everyone does what they tell them.

It might be useful to look at the origins of the UN. It was established post WWII to protect the sovriengty of member nations. That is, to put a framework in place to stop a new Hitler deciding to anex, invade or otherwise start wars. It established clear rules for starting wars and so on and so forth. Before too long, it became the playground of the super-powers. People often underestimate how important the UN was in preventing the US and USSR killing one another (and everyone else in the process). The UN, along with the proxy wars fought in South-East and Central Asia (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran/Iraq, and Afghanistan) and Africa (pretty much the whole continent). A few other issues came up -- human rights, international trade, international law, arms control, and international economics.

At the end of the cold war (circa 1990), the UN had to reposition itself. This was essentially the emergence of UN Peacekeepers -- primarily military units provided voluntarily by member nations to provide security in areas of conflict. The problem was (and still is) the idea of peacekeeping was not very well defined. What did it mean, how do you do it, how much force do you use. All of these questions are still unanswered. This was often compounded by the fact there was no peace to keep (this was the problem in Rawanda, and did give us a great film). Peacekeeping forces have taken on roles where they have enforced UN Resolutions (either Security Council or General Assembly), protected basic human rights, protected workers on UN missions, performed infrastructure rebuilding tasks. The problem is this has been done on a rather ad hoc, case by case basis. The decisions were often made by the commanders, based on their own contries policy, rather than on the UN policy. This was very messy and contributed to the variable of success.

In my opinion, the UN needs teeth. One solution I chatted to with a friend a few months ago has some real interest for me. It will involve quite a bit, some of which is already in place.

1. Work to establish a framework for international law, particularly dealing with war crimes and human rights abuses (and second it to the local governments as much as possible; don't try someone if they are being tried in their own country for the same crime).
2. Establish a clear framework for threat and appropriate response. If done properly, then one nation can demonstrate that another is threatening them and the UN will respond, rather than the individual nations (basically the same framework that the police operate under within most of our countries).
3. Establish clear rules for the use of military force, external police force (foreign people coming in and performing police operations), and the rights of access.
4. Define and build a framework for what are currently called Peacekeeping operations. Specify what will be included in different types of operations and what will be excluded. Establish clear procedures for establishment, escallation and withdrawl of these operations. Clarify the goals and the scope of peacekeeping operations. This would specifically focus on trying to resolve situations without military force of any kind, then using local forces, then supporting local forces, then bringing in external forces as a last resort.
5. Establish clear lines of accountability and transparency of the decision making processes. Effectively, establish clear procedural justice -- that is a process that is accepted as just for the use of military force in whatever role they are used.
6. Give the UN military capability. Perhaps their own Command and Control structure that reports to the security council, with the bulk of the military units provided on the current basis. This would mean that the UN would not have to fund a full military itself, but would be able to run a military operation. The C&C might involve a mixture of secondments of officers to the UN from their own militaries, as well as its own officers. The first three points would govern the use of the military forces.

There was more, but we were getting a little insensible towards the end of the conversation. Probably something we ate...

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 2 2003, 10:33 PM Simply put, because not everyone does what they tell them.

last i checked, the united nations wasn't a dictatorship. it doesn't tell anyone what to do. it answers to us, not the other way around.

[Geoff332]

Where was the implication of a dictatorship. All Governments tells its citizens what to do (the legal -- particularly statutory law). And when people don't do it, there are consequences (the judicial and enforcement arms of the legal system). This doesn't make a country like the US a dictatorship, it merely means it is not an anarchy. The nature and origin of these laws is likely to determine if it is a dictatorship. Providing the UN with military forces would not make it a dictatorship. Eliminating the essentially demoncratic procedures and charter would.

I see two basic models the UN can follow. One is a judicial model the other is a representative model. Under the judicial model, rules are established these guide the decisions of the members. Under a representative model, the members vote on decisions. I personally favour moving the bulk of the security council decision making under a judicial model -- with representative (voting) decisions reserved for procedural issues (establishing the rules) and for exceptional situations. The success of this model rests on the rules established and the transparency of the system. As I outlined, the rules should be established democratically and the process should be highly transparent. None of this suggests anything like a dictatorship.

[G. Adams]

No, it answers to the governments of its security council leaders, as everyone else is easily bought. And the UK and France and pretty easily bought as well. Of course China never moves for or against, just sitting quietly in its corner. But then Russia needs all the help it can get these days, so will look the other way if someone throws it a bone. So its ran by the US. For the US. Actually, the US government.

The UN has no right to any power because there is no accountability to the people it governs. While it lacks this aspect, the UN should be nothing more than an international forum, with systems put in place to prevent war, rather than impose the will of its dominant players.