NationStates Jolt Archive

The most common complaint I hear about the UN is its lack of ability (or rather, member states' lack of will) to enforce its resolutions.

In light of this, should the UN have it's own permanent army? This army could be drafted from the militaries of member states. This may sound similar enough to the current arrangement, but perhaps the member state could lose the ability to stop its troops being used?

No, that's not fair at all...

Think for me

IMHO yes, but it will never happen because no country will provide troops that answer to the UN and not their own countries' governments.

If the purpose of the UN is to prevent war, then the UN must either have a standing army or the member nations must be willing to finance, train and support an allied army that will have more authority than the peace-keeping forces have had in the past. The UN or some future organization will need to collect taxes, regulate commerece between nations and enforce human rights laws. It will need to prevent multi-national corporations from moving money from country to country to avoid taxes. It will need to insist on a standard of living, wages, health and education for all people no matter the sex, religion or racial makeup.

I think a standing army is a necessity for the UN if it is to truly fulfill its role of maintaining international order. Everyone bitches about the UN being "too weak-willed to enforce resolutions," but with an army of volunteers who member nations can pull out at any time, it's very difficult for the UN to get shit done.

Yes it should, in order to keep order between nations.

Not that it ever will, seeing as none of the major powers would want a strong UN over them.

I'd just like to point out that in the NS sidebar this appears as 'Should the UN have a perm'

I think the UN should have its own higher command, and enforce standardised training and equipment throughout the UN member states, but that forces should be under national control and merely co-ordinated by the UN.

Yes it should, in order to keep order between nations.

Not that it ever will, seeing as none of the major powers would want a strong UN over them.

If the major and minor powers don't on their own accord reach the conclusion that the need to maintian order in the world is more important than their egotistical needs they will forced to by horrible events beyond their control.


"Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life."
-Shoghi Effendi, 1936

(Baha'i International Community, 1995 Oct, Turning Point For All Nations)

The issue isn't military, it's politics. When the UN has wanted to get stuff done in the past, it has done so either with peacekeepers or authorizing member nations to do so (Gulf War I, Korea, a few more). The UN doesn't need a military. It needs backbone.

This is a small part of a much larger statement that describes the necessary processes.

To the Peoples of the World:

1
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet -- in the words of one great thinker, "the planetization of mankind".

2
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.

3
Among the favourable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the consequent vast increase in cooperation among hitherto isolated and antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian organizations; the spread of women's and youth movements calling for an end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary people seeking understanding through personal communication.

4
The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet, and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions, prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in their relations one to another.

5
It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago by Bahá'u'lláh, Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, of which we are the Trustees.

6
"The winds of despair", Bahá'u'lláh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations to exorcize the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions. Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.

(The Universal House of Justice, 1985 Oct, The Promise of World Peace)

[QUOTE=Robbopolis]The issue isn't military, it's politics. When the UN has wanted to get stuff done in the past, it has done so either with peacekeepers or authorizing member nations to do so (Gulf War I, Korea, a few more). The UN doesn't need a military. It needs backbone.[/QUOTE}

Yes, you are certianly right there the politics get in the way. Once is grows a backbone that will come as it arrives at unity of thought and then action. The military will need to backup the decisions.

No No No No, NO!
The UN (tho I think it should be disbanded) should NOT have a standing army. How many of you would trust an army that *your* country couldn't control, let alone the corrupt UN?

the UN should not have it's own army. the UN was created by its member nations; but it should not have power over them. each nation should be sovereign over the UN, the UN should not be able to wage war. they should not have the authority to decide the fate of nations.

How many of you would trust an army that *your* country couldn't control, let alone the corrupt UN?

At least your country would have a say in the UN, as opposed to another "corrupt" nation's army.

...No. You really think it would be effective? Sending Chinese soldiers to fight Chinese soldiers? Massing French-speakers, English-speakers, Arabic-speakers, etc. etc. all into one military?

Sure they'll figure out a way to fix all cultural problems. But I'm against it anyway and I'm just looking for excuses.

Would USA have troops under UN is what is more important. I'm posting here like I didn't find the idea ridiculous. UN troops would be great! What is UN though? A forum for several countries (politicians) to stomp around. Armed force under UN? Oh please! Enough for even a lefty Finn to shiver. *shivers*

IMHO yes, but it will never happen because no country will provide troops that answer to the UN and not their own countries' governments.

I reckon Germany would. Germany would do anything for a permanent seat. Really! Please give us a permanent seat!

I believe the UN was founded to prevent wars from happening again after WW2. That was the ideal.
It then became the showcase for the powers to prove to each other how big and strong they are. That was the practise. (And that was the reason for Korea and not that the UN had backbone then. DPRK was bad then too, but so was the South, which at that time was a corrupt dictatorship and didn't treat its people any better.)

These days, the Soviets are gone, and some still remember the original ideal. Kofi Annan is one of those people. He genuinely cares about peace in the world. What his son did was the opposite, and is very convenient for his enemies too. That doesn't make the UN corrupt.

If the UN could send peacekeepers independently from the interest of single states, they would be helping in Darfur and in Congo, and in Uzbekistan and so on right now. And probably in Israel too (afterall, there are still official boders for Israel from 1948, everything else is occupied territory - including jerusalem) Instead, the Americans one day, the French the next, block everything that's not in their interest. And then the UN gets told "they" don't have backbone.

well, since the UN has a lot of peacekeeping missions, perhaps it is time for a permanent international force....

the ideal candidate would be the Legion Estranger (the French Foreign Legion)... it has a long history, its an infantry force with peacekeeping (and colonial) experience and traditions, it has an already international makeup, its moderately sized (about a division in size total)...

its also not big enough to be threatening but large enough to carry out most missions over a long period of time, something democracies have problems with for example

the UN should not have it's own army. the UN was created by its member nations; but it should not have power over them. each nation should be sovereign over the UN, the UN should not be able to wage war. they should not have the authority to decide the fate of nations.

There are some people who said the same thing about the US. Unfortunatly, some idiots tried to start their overthrow their state covernment insted of paying their taxes and it became pretty obvious that a national military was necessary to ensure the soverignty and stabillity of all states.

The same principal applies to the UN. Currently, Nations with little military power have to rely on the kindness of more powerful nations to ensure their soverignty. When more powerful nations don't care about weaker nations bad things happen.

The UN, obviously, can't just be handed a standing army. It must be completely restructured first. Currently, too many nations hold Veto power over the UN for this to work. A more streamlined and independant UN is necessary if it is to become the cornerstone of a world federation.

UN with a standing army? Yeah... that makes sense =P. A peace organization... with an army. The two biggest problems (one already mentioned) with this idea are that the UN would have to AGREE upon using their army (it would never happen) and say by some off chance it did and it had to do with enforcing a policy on a member nation. I can guarentee many soldiers would not fight against countries that they are from or are supporting. The only force the UN should have is peacekeepers which already exist and guess where they come from? All the member nations! The UN requires EVERY memeber nation to have so many peacekeeping troops avaliable for UN use... Of course the US provides most of the troops and most of the money for them, but that really doesn't matter much. In my opinion the UN is useless for everything besides humanitarian aid anyways, so funding an army that would never be used for them would be a waste no matter how I look at it.

No No No No, NO!
The UN (tho I think it should be disbanded) should NOT have a standing army. How many of you would trust an army that *your* country couldn't control, let alone the corrupt UN?


Exactly!