Should the UN have its own military?

[DinoDoc]

No, under no possible circumstance could I foresee a reasonable justification for granting the UN control over its own armed forces.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Why not?

We already (supposedly) trust the UN to determine where "right" and "wrong" lie in many situations (UN resolutions). Why is it such a big step to have a UN general commanding a standing army?

I would certainly trust a UN general (who can't have any territorial ambitions due to the UN not being able to conquer territory) more than I'd trust a general of the armed forces of any nation. And, with the UN being a multinational organization wide open to inspection and infiltration by all nations, it's unlikely that they would get involved in secret deals with unsavory characters: no incentive, and no way to keep secrets anyhow.

The alternative to not having UN commanders is to have national commanders, inevitably leading to accusations that the UN is just being used as a front for national (usually US) imperialism.

[C0ckney]

i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council

the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Why not?

"Why should we?" is the more important question that has yet answered concretely by anyone in this thread.

[David Floyd]

So you would basically be trusting a politician, or at least a politically reliable soldier who reports to dozens of politicians, to command an army rather than a professional soldier?

And remember who would end up commanding such a UN army - most likely, some "general" from some Third World nation, just because there are more Third World nations in the UN. I mean, look at the current secretary general - some dipstick from *GHANA* leading the General Assembly of the UN?

Or even worse, it might be a French general

[Jack the Bodiless]

DinoDoc:

"Why should we?" is the more important question that has yet answered concretely by anyone in this thread.

I think "Rwanda" is a sufficient answer. Also, the UN might be treated with more respect if it's less likely to be perceived as the lackey of whoever's providing the troops.

Of course, for BIG operations (like Desert Storm), the UN standing army wouldn't be big enough anyhow. I'm not saying that the standing army would replace the current "flag of convenience" setup.

David Floyd:

So you would basically be trusting a politician, or at least a politically reliable soldier who reports to dozens of politicians, to command an army rather than a professional soldier?

I'm suggesting a professional soldier. Yes, he'd report to politicians, but they do at present anyhow: what would change?

If anything, the command structure might be simpler. Under the current setup, everything a UN commander does has to be OK with both the UN and his own government. This would remove one set of politicians.

[David Floyd]

I'm suggesting a professional soldier.

But for the officer to have any degree of competence, he would necessarily have to be Russian, from one of the NATO nations, Australian/New Zealander, Israeli, and POSSIBLY Chinese. Unfortunately, these nations do not make up the majority of the UN, and there's a very good chance the general who gets selected would be some guy who promoted himself during the revolution and is buddies with the tinpot dictator that runs the country. There are lots of tinpot dictators who are represented in the UN, remember.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council

Yes, that is a fairly major difficulty...

the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

Even the commanders wouldn't have to "come from" any nation, except in the purely geographical sense: there will be some volunteers with military experience, and the force will initially be fairly small. And experienced mercenaries could be employed. No government would need to donate its own serving military personnel. In fact, it would be counterproductive if they did: it wouldn't be a truly independent international force anymore.

Equipment might be a problem, but NATO already has experience with standardization: the UN force could adopt NATO standards for compatibility.

[David Floyd]

I think you're underestimated the political aspect of selecting someone to command. Lot's of UN nations wouldn't accept an American commander, and certainly not an Israeli one, even though those two nations probably have the best officer classes in the world.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Unfortunately, I think politics will dictate a need for a selection of available commanders for each operation.

An American or Israeli would have been OK in Rwanda. If you have a good African commander (or Chinese etc), use him in the Middle East.

[C0ckney]

Yes, that is a fairly major difficulty...

and that's the problem. no country, or at least no country that counts, would support this. the fact is that any UN force would be paid for, equiped by and be made up of people from western nations, who would benefit least from such a force.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think "Rwanda" is a sufficient answer.

And I think Srebrenica is a more than sufficent counter.

[Kontiki]

In principle, a UN army is a good idea, but I can't see it working in practice. One of the biggest problems I see lies in the determination of when and how to react to any given situation. Do you make it based on a general vote in the GA (and then, simple majority, two-thirds...)? Do you still leave it up to the SC? The problem with the latter is that there is almost always a clash of opinions among the permanent members, unless the flashpoint is totally neutral for all parties (which, I guess, could be said about Rwanda). Overall, it boils down to the need for a RAPID reaction force, when decision making in the UN tends to be anything but rapid. The only way I can conceive to overcome this obstacle is to have a pre-established set of guidelines for when the force is deployed and, if the conditions are met, the force is activated automatically. However, can you imagine the nightmare (or impossibility, really) of having member nations draft such a set of guidelines? Further, can you imagine the number of instances where you'd get arguements of "yeah, but this situation is a little different"?

[Ned]

Kontiki, Your post nearly parallels my own. The major problem is not the availability of forces, but the politics of the UN. Thus, if the current use of national forces would work if the UN gave its commander's some discretion to responde to aggression and the ability to call in additional troops earmarked for this purpose. We do not need a dedicated UN force.

The ONLY example that I know where a Peacekeeper commander began defensive military operations without prior authorization of the UN is Douglas MacArthur. However, this gentleman was strongly criticized earlier in this thread for acting, I presume, without such prior consultation. We do know that Truman later fired him for publically disagreeing on strategy. But public defiance is not the issue on the table. MacArthur acted when action was needed. I think all peacekeeper commanders should be given MacArthur as a prime example of what they should do under similar circumstances.

[Az]

Ned, I think it was common knowledge that Douglas MacArthur was a rather dangerous man to world stability. A proponent of first-use , offensive nuclear weapons?