UN Standing Army

A UN standing army will never happen, in very large part because the U.S. will never support one. A way to finesse it might be for troop contributing countries to dedicate within their own armed forces special military units, which remain on high alert at all times, whose sole function would be to deploy to crisis spots on short notice. There are obvious problems here, too -- such as how the command structure would work, the mechanics of transfering the job to a more traditional peacekeeping force once the more serious violence tapers off, and so on. Regardless, if the aim of our proposed modernization is to head off future Darfurs and Rwandas, I think a plan for quick intervention by well-equipped, well-trained multinational soldiers with a clear mandate about use of force needs to be part of the deal. Gaining that clear mandate would be a challenge -- and a rapid reaction forces won't do much good if the Security Council dithers over codicils while people die.

On moral legitimacy: I have a lot of respect for Colette's eloquent arguments. But I confess I am not worried about the moral legitimacy of peacekeepers sanctioned by the Security Council using force. The U.S., France and UK have vetoes on the Council, and there are usually at least three other real democracies serving at a given time. When all 15 countries agree to deploy peacekeepers to handle a crisis, it is usually because the U.S., UK or France pushed hard to do so -- not because we caved to pressure from non-democracies. That's a lot more moral legitimacy than the Janjaweed or the Bosnian Serbs have/had. I know, Colette, that your points were in the context of the UN Standing Army idea, but I did want to throw my two cents in here. If there WERE a UNSA, my bet is it would only be able to deploy with Council approval.