Debate: United Nations Standing Army

Should the United Nations have its own permanent standing army?

Background and Context of Debate:

A standing army is a permanent military force, entirely under the command of a single authority. This is almost always a national government, although in the past European colonial companies sometimes maintained their own private military forces, as did feudal barons and warlords (for example, in China in the 1920s). At present the UN has no military force of its own to send on peacekeeping or peacemaking missions, instead it has to gather together troops and equipment volunteered by member states on an ad hoc basis for each individual crisis.It is important for the Proposition to define the motion effectively. They need to ensure that their proposal would deliver an army fully under the control of the UN; if individual states could pull troops out of it when they chose to (for example because they disagreed with the objective of a particular mission), then it is not really a UN standing army. Issues to be considered include how large the force would be, what military capabilities it would have (e.g. would it have air and sea power?), how it would be recruited, how it would be funded and where it might be based. To what extent it would add to or replace the existing methods of raising troops should also be considered; long term peacekeeping missions (for example, in Cyprus or Bosnia) might still be undertaken by detachments volunteered by individual states, while the UN Standing Army would be largely deployed to deal with short-term crises and could thus be relatively small.

Argument #1

Yes

There is a pressing need for reform of the way the UN raises military missions. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to react rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters.

No

A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful; when there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together.Once a standing army exists, it provides the UN with an easy way out in any crisis, so force may be more likely to be used, often inappropriately. A very rapid response time may also worsen problems - currently the time it takes to gather and insert a UN force may provide a period in which the warring groups feel compelled to negotiate before outside intervention becomes a reality.

Argument #2

Yes

A UN standing army would be independent of the great powers and so more likely to be respected as a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper; contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would also be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions).

No

Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements.

Argument #3

Yes

A UN standing army would be more effective than the troops staffing many missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. A UN standing army would be better prepared in both respects and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situation, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations.

No

Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force?A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to sell it their best arms and armour.

Argument #4

Yes

A UN standing army would bring benefits to the world economy through avoiding the costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system.

No

The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. At present the UN can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.

Argument #5

Yes

Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result.

No

If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.

References:

Motions

• This House would create a UN standing army
• This House would give the watchdog some teeth

This debate in legislation, policy, and elsewhere

See also on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

• UN (United Nations)
• UN: Peacekeeping
• UN: Report on the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations
• UN: An Agenda for Peace Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping
• UN: Supplement to an Agenda for Peace
• UN: Preventive Action and Peacemaking
• The Phyllis Schlafly Report: United Nations Plans for America's Future
• Cato Insitute: The UN's Role in Post-War Iraq
• The National Interest-The Nixon Center: Privatized Peacekeeping
• Citizens for Global Solutions: The Responsibility to Protect (on War and Conflict resource page)

Books

• The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security : Danesh Sarooshi
• Presiding Over a Divided World : Adam Roberts
• Deliver Us from Evil : William Shawcross
• UN Peacekeeping, American Policy and the Uncivil Wars of the 1990s : William Durch
• UN Peacekeeping in Trouble: Lessons Learned from the Former Yugoslavia : Wolfgang Biermann
• Aspects of Peacekeeping : Stuart Gordon
• Peacekeeping and UN Agencies : Jim Whitman