The United States, the United Nations and Military Intervention

I favor intervention under the auspices of the United Nations when national governments perpetrate or allow gross violations of human rights, genocide, or other major crimes against humanity to be inflicted upon their own citizens.

When military intervention is required to prevent and repel aggression or to protect human rights, I favor U.S. multilateral engagement under U.N. Security Council authorization, in contrast to the U.S. "going it alone".

I support legislation that would allow the creation of a rapid-reaction U.N. peacekeeping brigade composed of individually recruited members?

Background:  
(The following information is provided by the Campaign for United Nations Reform)

Since the end of World War II the international community has reiterated the message that people can and will be held accountable for genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. The international community has also accepted the principle that there is an obligation to prevent such violations of our common humanity. While these obligations are codified in the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and other treaties, the response of the international community to actual cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes aganst humanity has been widely inconsistent. In the cases of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, and East Timor, many in the international community would have responded differently with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

For example, in 1994 the ethnic Hutu government of Rwanda led a genocidal campaign to eliminate the Tutsi minority, resulting in approximately 800,000 deaths. A 2,500 man U.N. peacekeeping force was in Rwanda before the killings began. Its commander, General Romeo Dallaire of Canada, asked the Security Council to give him the means to prevent the genocide. However, the Clinton administration, recently stung the the well-publicized loss of U.S. troops in Somalia, quietly blocked action by the U.N. Security Council. With no other nations offering reinforcements, and after Hutu forces deliberately killed Belgian peacekeepers, the Belgian government requested the mission be withdrawn.

The Security Council ordered the peacekeepers out of Rwanda, giving free reign to the state-sponsored genocide. General Dallaire believes a force of 5,000 trained and equipped peacekeepers could have prevented the slaughter.

Only the United States has the military capability to quickly react to crises anywhere in the world. However, the American people and most of the world are against the United States acting as a "global police force." The thought of spending money and risking U.S. military personnel when there is no direct threat to national security does not appeal to most Americans.

Yet the majority of Americans also feel that "something should be done" about genocide and other human rights atrocities. In fact, 89% of Americans believe the U.S. should "do its fair share" as part of a U.N. or multilateral force when action is required. (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 1997)

Americans feel that when a crisis does not threaten the U.S., it would be more appropriate for the United Nations to respond, rather than the U.S. military or even NATO. However, as the U.N. now stands, it is very difficult for an effective peacekeeping force to be quickly deployed. 

First, the Security Council must vote to initiate a peacekeeping mission. This can be a difficult process, especially if a conflict occurs within the borders of a single state. Then the Secretary General must ask for soldiers and supplies from member nations who must then decide if they have the available resources to participate. This slow and complicated process prevents timely deployment of peacekeeping forces.

Once the operation is finally on the ground, troops with varying degrees of training, different languages, procedures, communication equipment, and weapons systems operate in what is often a demanding political environment. This results in the inefficient use of manpower and supplies and the loss of human life.

The current method of coalition and/or regional peacekeeping falls prey to the selective will of member nations and results in the inefficiencies described previously. The atrocities in Kosovo and East Timor stand as horrific examples of the consequences of not being able to mount a timely response to such crises. Peacekeepers must be able to do more than keep a conflict from spreading or simply putting out the remaining "hot spots" after a conflagration has burned itself out. They must be able to prevent and/or halt violent conflict before widespread civilian casualties occur.

One solution to the unique problems posed by peacekeeping is the creation of rapid reaction forces consisting of units from national armies earmarked for peacekeeping operations. The Canadians, Dutch, and Danes have established such forces. However, these units suffer from the same logistical problems experienced by the coalition forces and remain dependent on the national political dynamics of their countries.

A standing U.N. rapid deployment brigade operating under the Security Council's authority would eliminate many of the problems hindering current peacekeeping missions. This brigade would consist of individual volunteers from all over the world. They could be specifically trained for peacekeeping and learn how to use common techniques and equipment.

No one country would bear the burden of sacrificing lives and resources or risk souring national sentiment. The selective political will of nations would not limit the deployment of the brigade, making its reaction time and efficiency far superior to current peacekeeping units. This brigade would drastically reduce humanitarian atrocities which occur because the U.N. cannot quickly commit a properly trained and organized peace force. In fact 64% of Americans are in support of the development of a "truly international army, with troops from many countries that can be used in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Rwanda." (Harris Poll, 1999)

In order to create this force negotiators would need to determine, in advance, the rules of engagement, size (approximately 5,000 to 10,000 troops), funding, and under what circumstances the U.N. Security Council could initiate an operation.

.Return to Rick Hubbard on the Issues