The Charter of the United Nations states it will “ensure,
by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods,
that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest.” But as it stands now, armed force is not used save
in U.S. interests.
Because it does not have a standing military of its own, the
United Nations is largely powerless. It can issue resolutions, but
when it comes time to enforce them, it relies on member states to
voluntarily provide the manpower needed to enforce its decisions.
In many cases, this means it turns to the United States to provide
the bulk of its firepower and relies on other nations to fill in
any gaps.
If the United Nations plans to impose the promised
“serious consequences” on Iraq for continuing to refuse
weapons inspectors through Friday, for example, it will be reliant
on U.S. forces to provide any militaristic component of these
consequences. A few other countries would likely provide some
assistance, but because the United States holds a
disproportionately large share of the world’s military power,
it will always have to be the primary contributor to major U.N.
missions.
This dependence on the United States is detrimental to the
United Nations. It results in a U.S. hegemony over what should be a
democratic, independent entity. Indeed, the only reason the recent
Iraqi weapons inspection resolution was passed was because of the
United States’ wishes. France, Russia, and China ““
permanent U.N. Security Council members with veto powers ““
had originally opposed an attack on Iraq, but they gave President
Bush the justification he needs for doing just that by passing this
resolution. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the
United States made it apparent they would attack with or without
the support of the United Nations. And when the United States says
it will attack regardless, Security Council members only stand to
gain damaged diplomatic relations by opposing it.
Implementing a standing army for the United Nations would free
it from many of these binds to the United States. First of all, it
could pursue peacekeeping missions and intervene in international
conflicts in which the United States does not hold any particular
interest. All nations would be able to vote for or against the
deployment of troops based on the moral integrity of the individual
issue, instead of also considering how many men they will have to
commit to the project.
Secondly, a U.N. standing army would lift at least part of the
responsibility of “policing the world” off of the
United States and place it where it belongs ““ in an objective
international entity. The United States usually pursues
humanitarian causes where there is also economic or political gain
to be had. The United Nations would not be directly subject to
these ulterior motives, though, because it does not stand to make
any personal gain.
In the United States, Supreme Court justices are elected for
life so they can vote independently of pressures from U.S. citizens
or government. Politicians may try to dictate the decisions the
court makes by appointing members of their own political party to
the court, but they cannot fire the justices if they do not vote
the way they wish.
By the same logic, the United Nations should be given its own
army so it can pick its fights based on the common good. While the
United States may still try to control the actions undertaken by a
U.N. army, its ability to do so would be balanced by the votes of
the other permanent members of the Security Council.
Until the United Nations has an army of its own, it will be
forever subjected to the United States’ militaristic wishes
and fiscal interests.