I don't really know about the structure of UN peacekeeping forces, so maybe this is already being implemented or these ideas are old news and have been chewed up and spit out by many. But just in case not, here is my idea.
How about a volunteer corp of America soldiers that operates not as US forces, but as a contingent UN peacekeepers? This would entail comparative contingents from other nations as well. The forces would be bound by special limiting ROE, perhaps akin to the rules governing the Japanese SDF. They would be led by independent officers who reported to the UN security council. Volunteers could come from any segment of society, perhaps many choosing to contribute to this field following their military enlistment.
These forces would then cultivate an identity as a multilateral force, not beholden to a government. Essentially they would be military employees of the UN.
It would most definitely NOT be a UN military.
What kind of opposition would there be to this plan? It seems that firstly people would cry foul at the United Nations having a military force. It would be explicitly subordinate in kind to national armies. It would be called up to enforce UN resolutions and peacekeeping missions and aid. National military planners would no longer be upset at having their troops subjected to being led by generals from other nations and governments would not be subject to domestic complaints about international interventions. Deployment of the troops would (hopefully) be seen as less imperialistic than currently seen.
Within this force, troops from one nation would not be given any special consideration or treatment dependent on their national origin: they would be equal in this regard. Their deployment would be purely under the unanimous (this is important, so all members of the security council, not just the big guns, have veto, which gives greater legitimacy to the conclusions) decision of the security council.
It may be important to make regional and local considerations regarding the presence of regional and local troops in any deployed force. In some situations, it may be important to include as many local representatives as possible while in others it is best to avoid having particular nationalities involved. Some people may not feel comfortable enforcing their own nation in some cases, but in others it would be important for issues of national independence, avoidance of resentment from having non-local troops on the ground, or other reasons. To use Iraq as an example, some have suggested that the Kurdish forces deployed in security arrangements throughout the non-Kurdish regions are inflaming local tensions; regardless of if this specific example is true or not, this type of problem is counter-productive in general. In most cases, a multi-cultural force is more likely to defuse resentment than not.
It may also prove effective to include local leaders in the peacekeeping more than in the past. It isn't always possible to do this, but because the appearance of an internationally imposed security arrangement breeds embarrassment and resentment that linger and malignantly manifest later on, it is imperative to build a system where the peacekeeping forces of the UN operate subject to both international and local control. Their role should clearly as possible be a supporting role, and not just supporting the government most popular with the United States (or any other specific country).
It is the external imposition of power and associated deprivation of sovereignty that breeds resent, anger, and hostility to even the most well-intentioned and generous attempts to fix bad situations. For better or worse, it was Arab pride that rebelled against Western pressures and led them to support Saddam Hussein, a leader with many acknowledge flaws but who stood against external (in this case, non-Arab) pressures. These pressures were imposed on the region instead of nurtured and supported from within.
It may not be easy to support and nurture change from within, from the ground up, but that is the only viable solution. Even when effective top-down strategies are available, they most typically are only effective in the short term and end up drawing up debts that are cashed in the future at significant losses to the debtor, in this case, the imposer.
It is impossible to make people believe a particular way. It is only possible to persuade them of a better way and let them make the choice. Just as some people believe that God gives us free will in order to impart value on the decision to have faith in him, the same pattern operates in the wholly temporal world.
Feel free to post anonymous or registered comments to the post in our forum
Posted by Nutrimentia at May 14, 2004 05:28 PM | TrackBack