United Nations 'army' proposed
International rapid reaction force could be deployed within 48
hours of a UN green light
Jun. 15, 2006. 09:03 AM
OLIVIA WARD
FEATURE WRITER
When emergencies strike, Canadians dial 911.
But in countries racked by crisis, such a call for help by
civilians or government officials is out of the question. So
conflicts escalate, wounded and traumatized people go untreated and
the survivors wait agonizing weeks or months for aid and shelter,
as happened in strife-torn Darfur.
This week, a group of academics, former officials and security
experts are tabling a proposal they hope will change that by
creating an international rapid reaction force that could be
deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United
Nations.
Composed of up to 15,000 military, police and civilian staff,
including medics and conflict transformation experts, it would be
recruited from professionals hired by the UN from many countries,
and based at designated UN sites. Its actions would be authorized
by the UN Security Council.
"It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own," says Peter
Langille of University of Western Ontario, an expert in conflict
resolution, and one of the major contributors to the book entitled,
A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and
Crimes Against Humanity, which will be presented tomorrow at the
UN.
"With countries moving away from UN peacekeeping, and troops
overstretched in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, (the rapid
reaction force) has new appeal."
The idea of a UN emergency force first surfaced after World War II,
when hopes for an activist world body were at their highest. But it
wasn't until 1994, in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide, that it
was considered seriously.
At that time, the United States worried that it would become an
out-of-control "UN army," and developing countries felt threatened
by what they saw as an interventionist force directed by the
West.
A combination of lack of enthusiasm from the rich and opposition
from poor countries resulted in the shelving of the project.
Wealthy countries were also reluctant to commit their resources to
an emergency force, and funding of peacekeeping operations was
already lagging.
But, says University of Notre Dame political scientist Robert
Johansen, the book's chief writer, reservations could now be
overcome: the emergency peace service would be a professional force
that would not sap national military resources, or leave countries
in doubt about how long their troops might be involved in new
conflicts.
And, he says, a UN force could help to head off horrendous
massacres such as the Rwanda genocide and the current crisis in
Darfur. It would also counter the widespread belief that "too
little too late has become the rule, not the exception" for
international peacekeeping.
"The international community could prevent many of these crimes if
it would act quickly and send a professional security force to
enforce the law."
With an independent force at their disposal, and no obligation to
send in their own troops, the Security Council's often squabbling
members would have less reason to drag out debates about when to
intervene in crises.
`It's not a new idea, but it has now come into its own.'
Peter Langille, conflict resolution expert
"We can demonstrate that it's a more cost effective and sound
investment than the alternative (of war)," says Langille. "That
means not only dealing with genocide, but preventing armed conflict
and protecting civilians, ensuring the prompt start of peace
operations and addressing human needs."
The new emergency force could cost $2 billion to establish, much
less than the costly wars that have flared across Africa and Asia
in recent years.
It would complement the UN's recently endorsed "responsibility to
protect," a Canadian-backed doctrine that makes the world body's
members responsible for intervening when a conflict threatens the
lives of civilians.
The proposed force would have UN-designated bases, with mobile
field headquarters staffed by personnel with a wide range of
professional training.
"A UN agency would for the first time in history offer a rapid,
comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis,
enabling it to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of
dollars through early and often preventive action," the book says.
The new force could be built on the framework of existing UN
peacekeeping initiatives, such as a "Standby High Readiness
Brigade" for peace operations, it adds.
Peacekeeping professionals are in favour of the rapid reaction
proposal in principle. But, they say, there are hurdles to surmount
before such a force could be viable.
"The concept is sound but it would depend on who was willing to
join up and ante up," says Canadian Col. Pat Strogan,
vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. "If there
weren't reluctance on the part of countries to contribute in the
past it might have taken root by now."
Speeding up intervention is a "significant step forward," said
Strogan, who was commended for courage under fire in Bosnia.
Sunil Ram, a peacekeeping expert and professor at the American
Military University, said serious questions remain for the proposed
UN emergency force.
"Security and logistics are two of the most important," he says.
"It's good to fly people off to wherever they are needed, but it
takes a lot of planning. First you have to get hold of the
equipment. And if you ship in heavy equipment it could take 30 days
if you're lucky. You could send in troops with rifles, but would
they be able to create the kind of secure environment that's needed
to protect people in conflict zones?"
In spite of difficulties, a UN emergency force would give people in
crisis new hope and help to re-establish the UN's credibility, says
Langille.
"There are too many looming challenges in the world for us to
continue as we have. If we don't get around to better ways of
co-operating we as a species will be challenged."
