One of the major problems facing peacekeeping has become apparent over recent days, as the UN struggles to round up enough manpower to send a mission to Lebanon and enforce the UN backed ceasefire there.
Ewan MacAskill, the Guardian’s Diplomatic Editor suggests the development of a permanent – albeit relatively small – standing UN force, ready to leap into action at a moment’s notice:
The only answer to the problem of peacekeeping is the creation of a permanent UN force. Keeping lots of troops hanging around would be wasteful. But one of the reforms suggested for the UN was the creation of a permanent command/planning group. That idea needs to be expanded to create a bigger command organisation, a spearhead group that could move in at short notice.
He’s on the right track, but I’d add that the UN needs to get away from the idea that such a force should be composed of men from member states’ own military forces. That would be a recipe for disaster.
A member state contributing to such a force could, quite simply, pull their troops home at a moments notice if they considered a particular mission not in their interests. While this would have less of an impact if the troops withdrawn were regular grunts, imagine what would happen if a country decided to withdraw the UN force’s leader, because it didn’t agree with a particular mission?
So, in order to work, any UN force would have to be truly independent of individual member governments. It would have to be a force whose toops’ primarily loyalty towards the UN. Which, in my opinion, means that the UN would have to effectively set up its own army, employing ex-military personnel from around the world.
I can’t see anyone agreeing to that for a while – least of all the Black Helicopter brigade – but I can hope…
Which, in my opinion, means that the UN would have to effectively set up its own army, employing ex-military personnel from around the world.
I’d oppose this with my dying breath. An army must at least be accountable to some form of government, such that said government can be held responsible if the army does something it shouldn’t. The UN cannot perform this function as it does not have any democratic legitimacy of its own, and consists of every thugocracy on the planet. An army controlled by the UN would find itself being controlled by corrupt UN officials in the pay of dodgy dictators doing the bidding of those same dictators.
No, an army contolled by a non-governmental body is very dangerous indeed.
The glib reply is, of course, no more dangerous than an army ‘controlled’ by some of the world’s governments.
But, seriously, I don’t think your fears about it being in the pay of corrupt UN officials are all that likely to be realised.
The kind of ‘army’ I envisage would be relatively small (no more than 5-10,000 men, if that, designed solely as a rapid reaction force to enforce ceasefires in the very early stages, while a more permanent force, made up of ‘proper’ state controlled armies is cobbled together.
It would be a relatively high profile force, so would be under heavy media scrutiny, I’m sure.
Most importantly, it would be under the direct control of the UN Security Council, with all it’s cumbersome veto checks and balances. It wouldn’t come into action for anything but urgent missions. (Although this does also, unfortunately, mean it is still likely to spend most of its time in barracks, peeling potatoes, or whatever it is soldiers do while in barracks).
The biggest danger such a force would face, to be honest, is getting dragged into long term peacekeeping missions as the ‘relief’ troops that member governments should then send don’t arrive.
I know, I know. I’m a hopeless optimist. But at least I’m not advocating we outsource the whole damn thing to Grunts ‘R’ Us. (That’s for tomorrow’s essay).