United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

Justin Time

Inactive
hursday, June 15, 2006 11:43 a.m. EDT

United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed

Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army” – an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe.

Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.

Its actions would be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, according to the Toronto Star.

"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity,” which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.

"With countries moving away from U.N. peacekeeping, and troops overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid reaction force) has new appeal."

The idea of a U.N. emergency force was first given serious thought in 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide. But at that time, the U.S. was concerned that the force would become an out-of-control "U.N. army," and developing countries felt threatened by what they feared could be an interventionist force directed by the West.

But University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert Johansen, the book's chief writer, says a U.N. force could help prevent horrendous conflict such as the Rwanda genocide and the current crisis in Darfur.

"With an independent force at their disposal, and no obligation to send in their own troops, the Security Council's often squabbling members would have less reason to drag out debates about when to intervene in crises,” the Star reports.

The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, less than the wars that have plagued Africa and Asia in recent years. "A U.N. 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," the book states.

But experts say there are serious obstacles to overcome before the rapid reaction force could be created.

"The concept is sound but it would depend on who was willing to join up and ante up," says Canadian Col. Pat Strogan, vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

"If there weren't reluctance on the part of countries to contribute in the past, it might have taken root by now."

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/prin...x.com/archives/ic/2006/6/15/114719.shtml?s=ic
 
The UN

Get the American Republic out of the UN and the UN out of the Republic! Move it to Moscow, Beirut. Paris, Berlin. or Bum Eff, Afrika, just move it..........
 
Given the UN's marvelous armed-force record thus far, this idea sounds more like a Rapid Rape-Action Force that would be useful in enforcing that oil profits will continue to flow into Paris and Moscow regardless of any sanctions that the UN itself imposed.

Let's see ... a multi-national force with troops who may not all speak the same language, have different levels of training, have different perceptions on how they are treated and how they should treat others, with the prejudices inherent in their cultures that will probably conflict with the prejudices of other cultures, with different dietary habits and taboos, and with different religious beliefs that may obligate them to not cooperate with non-believers. Sounds like another brilliant idea from the UN.
 
My biggest concern is who will decide where the "rapid reaction force" is deployed. If their main concern is to deal with situations of urban unrest and such, should we ever have something like another (God forbid) city-wide riot in L.A., would we be facing armed foreign troops landing at Long Beach or LAX and declaring "international martial law" in an American city? IMO sounds like another power grab disguised as a humanitarian effort.
 
They have such a wonderful record !! Every time someone shoots at the UN forces the little blue people run and hide !!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including medics, the proposed force would be recruited from professionals hired by the U.N. from many countries, and based at designated U.N. sites.
And let me guess........the United States would be responsible for paying for 13,289 of these people-right? :barf: :barf: :barf: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
a multi-national force with troops who may not all speak the same language, have different levels of training, have different perceptions on how they are treated and how they should treat others, with the prejudices inherent in their cultures that will probably conflict with the prejudices of other cultures, with different dietary habits and taboos, and with different religious beliefs that may obligate them to not cooperate with non-believers.

Sounds a lot like the makeup of the French Foreign Legion.
 
its a bad idea to start with....but

it would take a unanimous security council vote to send them anywhere... which means we would have a paid army of 15,000 that doesnt do much.
 
Sounds a lot like the makeup of the French Foreign Legion.
On a surface level, perhaps. Yes, the FFL is comprised of volunteers of any nationality, race, or creed. However, they serve France and not various and diverse governments. They become Frenchmen and thus have a single, unifying allegiance.

They fought on both the Allied and Axis sides during WWII.

They didn’t fare very well against the Japanese in WWII.

They didn’t keep Algeria for France in 1962.

They didn’t win the Indochina (Vietnam) War for France.

As Dr. Phil might say, “How’s that working out for them?”

(Then again, in light of that record of success, maybe the proposed UN army is similar to the FFL.)
 
Last edited:
"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," said Peter Langille of University of Western Ontario, one of the major contributors to the book "A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity,” which will be presented at the U.N. on Friday.

Like how about not forcing girls to have sex for food?:barf: Disbanning the UN would be a good start.
 
Crisis management experts are calling for the creation of a "United Nations army” – an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours to intervene in emergency situations around the globe.
The fatal flaw is that the UN actually has to decide to do something.
How long did the killing go on in Sudan? Not just the three years the UN is floating around, they have been killing civilians in the south for over a decade.
Then there is the tremendous response to the targeting and killing of civilians in Bosnia, Croatia, then Albania. Years of indecision broken by US action.
Rwanda, Somalia, Liberia - when do these people actually decide to act? How about Indonesia or the Zapatista rebels or Tamil? Any decision to even talk to the governments and the rebels about those bullets flying around?

So what do they really want a standing army for? Certainly not for action. Maybe, at best, they want an army like an impetent rich old man wants some arm candy - too look at and to look good.
 
Has there ever been an armed conflict in which the UN successfully intervened? I certainly wouldn't count Korea in that category, given that it ended with the border pretty much the same way as it started, and that N. Korea has continued to threaten S. Korea ever since and seems likely to do so for the foreseeable future. Not exactly a "problem solved." And my recollection is that NATO, not the UN, handled Bosnia, if you can call that a success.

About the only accomplishments I've heard lately regarding UN forces have been the rapes of women in small African countries. Why anyone would want to increase the UN's ability to do more of that under force of arms is a mystery to me.
 
The UN is by charter an international debating society, NOT a government by definition. I think in the end after they find that they can enforce their mandates for global control with this new toy we would end up fighting them. Wonder which side the Feds will be on?
 
'United Nations' and 'rapid reaction' do not belong in the same sentence.

The idea of a U.N. emergency force was first given serious thought in 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide.
Uh-huh. That was the one where the UN already had 2500 soldiers in the very spot, and then just pulled their troops out and watched it happen.
 
Back
Top