Arming the United Nations
By Charles Bloomer
Last week, in a speech to the United Nations Millennium Summit, President Clinton told world leaders that he supported a United Nations rapid reaction police force. World leaders, the president said, must provide the tools needed to prevent conflict. "We must provide those tools with peacekeepers that can be rapidly deployed with the right training and equipment, missions well-defined, with the necessary civilian police."
The presidents speech indicates his support for HR4453, The United Nations Rapid Deployment and Security Act of 2000, introduced into the US House of Representatives by Reps. McGovern, Porter, and Morella. This act aims to "improve coordination of United States efforts and to enhance the ability of the other countries, the United Nations, and regional organizations to plan, mount, and sustain operations in support of the rule of law". The act directs the president to use the influence of the United States to urge the United Nations "to establish a rapid Deployment Police and Security Force that is rapidly deployable, under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, and trained to standardized objectives".
Before we support a standing armed force at the UN, there are some questions that need to be asked.
1. To whom is this force accountable?
2. Whose version of the "Rule of Law" will this UN Army enforce?
3. From where does this force derive its legitimacy?
4. Where will the loyalty of this force lie?
5. Exactly what are the "civilian police duties" that this
force will undertake?
6. Where are the rights of citizens identified?
7. Where are abuses of this force prosecuted?
8. What is the difference between an invading, occupying UN "Police
Force" and an invading, occupying foreign military force?
9. Who defines "humanitarian crisis"?
10. In the face of recommended changes to the UN structure, such as elimination of the Security Council and veto powers, what checks will there be to prevent abuse of power? Or are we supposed to blindly trust the UN leadership?
With minimal effort, many more questions could be developed that would need to be answered satisfactorily before we could reasonably agree to arm the United Nations. Whether there are satisfactory answers is doubtful.
Since World War II, Americans have shed their resistance to the concept of a standing army. That resistance is due, in large part, by the fact that the US military has steadfastly remained subordinate to its civilian masters. This characteristic is nearly unique in the world, mirrored only by other modern western militaries. We would be foolish to believe that a standing army, whose leaders and members would likely be devoid of traditional Western values and steeped in socialist globalist dogma, would not need a strong system of checks and controls to prevent its abuse of power.
Our growing interdependence should not be an excuse for centralizing political power. History indicates that the centralization of power invariably leads to oppression and loss of freedom. Globalism need not mean that we allow power to move up yet another level away from its legitimate source the people being governed.
Providing an unaccountable global government with a military empowered to enforce compliance to arbitrary decrees would not lead to world peace and prosperity. A monopoly of force given to the United Nations would lead to global slavery.
© 2000 Charles Bloomer Mr. Bloomer is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Other related stories: (open in a new window)
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.