United Nations army?

[abskebabs]

This is an idea I've hadl ingering in the back of my mind for a little while now, and so I thought would just share it with you to see what you think of it.

 

What if instead of going through the slow process of drawing up peacekeeping forces from individual countries; the United nations had its own army that it would readily be able to draw up and deploy as a peacekeeping force. The army would be made up entirely of volunteers from different parts of the globe and with absolutely no affiliations to any particular army or other organisations. It may even be helpful if they denounce allegiance to their own country.

 

The force would have to be highly well trained and educated as well as being geared specifically towards the role of peacekeeping(or perhaps more...), and so only equipment fit for this specific task would be required by it.

 

Of course this would require the cooperation of individual countries, or they would make moves to ban the UN or its armed wing which would only cause global destabilisation.

 

If such a proposition is possible to impliment then this would allow larger, possibly more effective peacekeeping forces to be formed to resolve conflicts such as the Lebanon-Israel conflict more quickly, and less subject to the whims of individual countries.

 

Despite the optimism I have over my idea if it was implimented well and managed well, I doubt any politicians in the world have the will or the want to pursue it:-( .

 

Please feel free to poke holes in my argument and offer possible alternatives or changes you think would be beneficial.

[Sisyphus]

Where will the soldiers come from? Where will the money come from? Where will the UN military bases be?

 

I don't think such a thing could ever work without some kind of world government, which the UN is not nor was it ever intended to be. The problem is that nations are too independent. Take the United States, which is powerful enough that it's very unlikely such a thing could work without its cooperation. They would never ever commit a portion of their own military to what amounts to permanent, unconditional foreign control. Nor could I imagine foreign recruiting stations being tolerated on U.S. soil...

[Edtharan]

I think the peace keeping agenda would be better severed as a police force, not as a military force. A police force (in most western countries - military police is not what I am proposing) is a civilian body and thus has a differnet legal coverage. A police officer has limits on the force that they apply and they can be repremanded for excessive force. Military forces do not have as much restraint on them (although there is some).

 

A police force would see them not as enemies, but as criminals. They would use investigation and forensics to track down the ones instigating the problems and arrest them.

 

A UN police force would only be brought in if the UN could impose laws (essentially what a peace keepers try to do by force). These laws might just be the Humanitarian laws, or might be something more detailed and complete.

 

The reasoning behind the removal of force to keep the peace, is that if you push people, they will push back (as this escalates, this is called a battle).

 

A lot of the power of the trouble makers comes from the groups, if you can isolate them from the groups they loose their power. A ploice force could identify them, locate them and take them out without needing to gather large numbers of people, thus eliminating or reducing the "Push".

 

Also a police force is less threatening that a military opperation.

[ParanoiA]

That sounds like the slippery slope to one world order. I like the idea of using various country's militaries to administer their resolutions. It's cool to have a cooperative body that represents the globe, but the power should always remain in the individual nations that support it. It my opinion, it should always remain a concept, not an object.

[abskebabs]

I appreciate the responses everyone, but I feel you have misunderstood my initial proposal, or perhaps I did not make certain things clear enough.

 

First of all, the troops would not be drawn up from any existing army, but be volunteers recruited to join the agency or army, who would voluntarily denounce allegiances to any country.

 

Secondly the UN itself would not have direct command over the troops as resolutions concerning the deployment of peacekeepers(or police force if that would be more suitable) would still depend upon resolutions passed and agreed by member nations.

 

This would prevent a "one world order" while tackling the problem of raising troopsfrom individual countries that may be unwilling or unable to offer troops.

 

As for Sisyphus's objection about the US not tolerating recruiting grounds on its soil; I can only beg hippocrisy on the part of America, as the Bush is planning on setting up recruitment posts in various Engish speaking countries throughout the world; especially poor ones lke India.

[Royston]

I appreciate the responses everyone' date=' but I feel you have misunderstood my initial proposal, or perhaps I did not make certain things clear enough.

 

First of all, the troops would not be drawn up from any existing army, but be volunteers recruited to join the agency or army, who would voluntarily denounce allegiances to any country.

 

Secondly the UN itself would not have direct command over the troops as resolutions concerning the deployment of peacekeepers(or police force if that would be more suitable) would still depend upon resolutions passed and agreed by member nations.[/quote']

 

The only problem I see, is that funding for such a project would have to come from somewhere, and depending on it's source, would sway the independance of the UN army, to 'these countries fund this project, and not these other countries.' Despite the employees of the UN army denouncing their alleigiance, I can't see it carrying much weight, if they were deployed to a war situation.

 

It would take all countries to be involved, and I can't see that some countries would agree to such a plan, to make it completely non-bias. Which means that the UN could still be considered the enemy. They would still be prone to attack, just like any other army.

[ParanoiA]

I appreciate the responses everyone' date=' but I feel you have misunderstood my initial proposal, or perhaps I did not make certain things clear enough.

 

First of all, the troops would not be drawn up from any existing army, but be volunteers recruited to join the agency or army, who would voluntarily denounce allegiances to any country.

 

Secondly the UN itself would not have direct command over the troops as resolutions concerning the deployment of peacekeepers(or police force if that would be more suitable) would still depend upon resolutions passed and agreed by member nations.

 

This would prevent a "one world order" while tackling the problem of raising troopsfrom individual countries that may be unwilling or unable to offer troops.

 

As for Sisyphus's objection about the US not tolerating recruiting grounds on its soil; I can only beg hippocrisy on the part of America, as the Bush is planning on setting up recruitment posts in various Engish speaking countries throughout the world; especially poor ones lke India.[/quote']

 

That's exactly a one world order scenario. Once the UN has it's own army, it can begin to grow and incrementally expand and invade through time. You're right, it is made up of member nations...member nations that can envy and gang up on the more successful nations.

 

I just think it's not smart to establish a neutral military under the jurisdiction of the UN. It should remain a cooperative arrangement for diplomacy only.

 

And I'm not sure you should call it hypocrisy as much as strategy, when you are competing for potential military personnel.

[Pangloss]

I don't know that non-compliant Middle Eastern nations really care very much whose troops are on their soil. When you look at the actual criticism they put forth, the issue for them is their lack of voice the United Nations (and specifically on the Security Council).

 

This is one of Iran's biggest complaints, for example. Obviously they have an axe to grind over the nuclear issue, but it's important to bear in mind that the blame-the-UN approach has a great deal of traction with the common people, not only in Iran, but all over the Middle East. It plays very well in Peoristan.

 

Once you take that into consideration, the idea of a "UN army" seems fairly moot, because it would only have significance to western observers. And since "peacekeeping forces" are often reflagged in blue and white anyway (Bosnia comes to mind), what's the difference really?

 

In terms of the potential tactical advantages of having a standing force, I'm not sure there really are any, but it might be worth exploring further (like having a "ready response" unit for humanitarian efforts that need protection or rescuing or what have you). Perhaps with certain charter restrictions you might find something workable there. I imagine this has been looked at by the UN before, and it might be interesting to see what the history is on this.

[abskebabs]

The only problem I see' date=' is that funding for such a project would have to come from somewhere, and depending on it's source, would sway the independance of the UN army, to 'these countries fund this project, and not these other countries.' Despite the employees of the UN army denouncing their alleigiance, I can't see it carrying much weight, if they were deployed to a war situation.

 

It would take all countries to be involved, and I can't see that some countries would agree to such a plan, to make it completely non-bias. Which means that the UN could still be considered the enemy. They would still be prone to attack, just like any other army.[/quote']

To prevent the infuence of particular countries, funds for this army/police force could be taken in the form of donations to a charity. The doners could also be made unknown and anonymous to prevent certain figures or associations having a disproportionate influence on the organisation. In this way the organisation would not be held under scrutiny by other countries.

 

As for employees of the UN, perhaps it would take something more drastic, radical or imaginitive to make them forget national allegiances and focus on allegiance to the UN. Perhaps they could be given a say over whether pursuing a certain issue is the right course of action, making the system democratic in a sense. It may help boost morale if the ppl in this police force believed in their cause.

 

Perhaps rather than direct voting on a certain issue, which could induce some bias; a parable that relates to the issue in a slightly abstract way could be told leading to a dilemma, and then votes could be taken on the right course of action.

[abskebabs]

That's exactly a one world order scenario. Once the UN has it's own army' date=' it can begin to grow and incrementally expand and invade through time. You're right, it is made up of member nations...member nations that can envy and gang up on the more successful nations.

 

I just think it's not smart to establish a neutral military under the jurisdiction of the UN. It should remain a cooperative arrangement for diplomacy only.

[/quote']

This is not necessarily the scenario as this police force(as I will now refer to it), would be regulated, and only be allowed to carry specific ammunitions that are fit for its task, and so would not require large equipment like misslie launchers, battleships, aircraft carriers or even tanks; as these would be unnecessary for the role assigned them. Without these kinds of ammunitions, it would not really be in the form of a world dominating army, but more of a standing, readily deployable police force/peacekeeping force.

 

The soldiers in my mind, would be better trained for tasks involved in peacekeeping as this would be what their training would be geared towards, and may also be better motivated than current UN troops.

[abskebabs]

I don't know that non-compliant Middle Eastern nations really care very much whose troops are on their soil. When you look at the actual criticism they put forth' date=' the issue for them is their lack of voice the United Nations (and specifically on the Security Council).

 

This is one of Iran's biggest complaints, for example. Obviously they have an axe to grind over the nuclear issue, but it's important to bear in mind that the blame-the-UN approach has a great deal of traction with the common people, not only in Iran, but all over the Middle East. It plays very well in Peoristan.

[/quote']

This I feel is a separate issue, but still one that needs tackling. I feel certain western countries have a disproportionate influence in the UN and this issue definitely needs to be tackled as the World Order today is different to thow it was when the UN began. There need to be changes which meet the realities on the ground, as has already been sugested by ppl within and outside the UN(for example, expanding the security council to include Brazil, China and India).

 

As for the lack of influence Arab countries have, I am not sure how this could be tackled.

[ParanoiA]

This is not necessarily the scenario as this police force(as I will now refer to it)' date=' would be regulated, and only be allowed to carry specific ammunitions that are fit for its task, and so would not require large equipment like misslie launchers, battleships, aircraft carriers or even tanks; as these would be unnecessary for the role assigned them. Without these kinds of ammunitions, it would not really be in the form of a world dominating army, but more of a standing, readily deployable police force/peacekeeping force.

 

The soldiers in my mind, would be better trained for tasks involved in peacekeeping as this would be what their training would be geared towards, and may also be better motivated than current UN troops.[/quote']

 

Well then it's too limited to be effective. You might need tanks or battleships for minimal roles at least. The dynamics of the conflict should dictate the force required. It's better to have a flexible manpower base to work with. And it also forces nations to work with each other for mutual peace. When you have to give up some of your own resources, you tend to respect the process a little more.

 

Peacekeeping is a misleading term. It's this generic label that's put on a position that we don't really understand. That's because keeping the peace requires different tactics with the various geographies, conflicts and players involved. I don't believe you can create a super elite police force that can operate in any scenario in the world. It's better to use forces that are more compatible with the environment you're trying to keep the peace in.

[Pangloss]

China is a permanent member of the Security Council.

 

That's an interesting discussion in itself, but changing SC membership doesn't solve the problem of acceptance of UN rulings by non-compliant nations. Or more importantly, getting the UN to take action on controversial matters.

 

For what it's worth, although I'm an optimist by nature, I think we have been making great progress in international relations through the UN. For one thing, problems such as Darfor and the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict receive immediate international attention these days, due to improved technology and media focus. That's certainly not as good as if they were responded to, but hey, at least it's a step in the right direction.

 

Human beings aren't very good at taking the long view. We want problems solved immediately, not generations down the road.

[Skye]

The UN has its own standing army, it's co-located in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

 

But really, maybe the UN needs to look at greater financial compensation to the wealthy countries that provide the high-end technology and skills. Modern 'peace keeping' is becoming much more dangerous with the proliferation of RPGs and explosives.

[abskebabs]

Peacekeeping is a misleading term. It's this generic label that's put on a position that we don't really understand. That's because keeping the peace requires different tactics with the various geographies, conflicts and players involved. I don't believe you can create a super elite police force that can operate in any scenario in the world. It's better to use forces that are more compatible with the environment you're trying to keep the peace in.

Such a force does not exist at the moment, but couldn't one be trained and geared specifically towards the role of peacekeeping, in all conditions? I think such a thing would take a very long time to impliment effectively. Experience would need to be gained at all levels, for the organisation to become effective, while good research in volatile areas would help prepare forces for employment.

 

China is a permanent member of the Security Council.

Oops, my mistake, I forgot.

[Edtharan]

When I suggested a ploice force, I was not saying that an armed force should be labled as one. I was talking about a police force that is trained in phorensics (spelling? - dislexia sux) and detective strategies, they would not be an armed force sent to "put down" insergents (as this is currently part of the peacekeeping military force.

 

What happens after the initial violence is over, an military force still sees these as enemies, rather than crimainals. An armed responce will make them dig deeper (and then requier more force), where as a police force will be less visible and more able to find the instegators of the violence in a nonviolen (or less violent) way.

 

Also a military force is seen as an enemy and in a warrior mentality, they can prove their bravery and dedication to a cause by fighting them (even if they loose). Where as a police officer brings with it the stigma of the dishonerable criminal (and I am not so nieve that I think that they would nessesarily think this, but the communities they operate in would more likely think this way, so reduce the alure of the insergents).

 

Also an army is realy only answerable to the governing body that controls it. A police force, as a civilian body, is answerable to the people (and by this I mean th people of the countries that make up the UN and the countries that they are deployed in), not just the governments. This is a big difference between the two forces. You can invade with an army, but not with a police force (unles you trained them to do so - and then they would be an army).

[ParanoiA]

Such a force does not exist at the moment, but couldn't one be trained and geared specifically towards the role of peacekeeping, in all conditions? I think such a thing would take a very long time to impliment effectively. Experience would need to be gained at all levels, for the organisation to become effective, while good research in volatile areas would help prepare forces for employment.

 

Ok, now think that through. We're going to train some elite force to operate in any peacekeeping scenario in any part of the world? First of all, that's a ton of training that will require partitions and huge numbers of manpower. They're going to be training for environments they will likely never operate in. Whereas the armies already in that region already are trained for that environment, with history and knowledge of the area not available as a neutral outside force.

 

And again, the dynamics of a given conflict are not compatible with the limitations of such a force. The limits of the peacekeeping force becomes the bar of expectation for the insurgents when those limitations are known. A modern army doesn't really have a reasonable limitation for insurgents to surpass, whereas this peacekeeping force would. And would have to if it's not going to be a new world order threat.

 

It just sounds all nice and logical on the surface, but thinking it out doesn't really yield anything desirable, to me anyway.

 

Not sure I really dig the police force mentallity either. I understand the psychological perspective, and is very appealing, but it's still a static value being applied to dynamic problems. I guess I just like the flexibility and responsibility that comes with each nation coughing up military resources on a per conflict basis.

[gcol]

Sorry, people, nice idea but it won't work. Several reasons, mostly money and control.

 

Just remember the old (Scottish?) saying "who pays the piper calls the tune". Setting it up would be expensive, even if the personnel were volunteers. Whoever put in the most would expect the biggest say and heaviest veto. No major power with areas of special interest would contenance a truly independant armed force that could theoretically threaten those interests. In short, even if it could be financed it would be as impotent as the existing UN.

 

Wish it were not so, nice idea, but it will never fly. It is one severely defunct duck (or parrot, for Python fans.)