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 congo 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!

Mark C

Posted by markc at June 26, 2006 07:25 PM