Arming the United Nations
By Charles Bloomer
web
posted September 11, 2000
Last week, in a speech to the United Nations Millennium Summit, President Clinton told world leaders that he supported a United Nations rapid reaction police force. World leaders, the president said, must provide the tools needed to prevent conflict. "We must provide those tools – with peacekeepers that can be rapidly deployed with the right training and equipment, missions well-defined, with the necessary civilian police."
The president’s speech indicates his support for HR4453, The United Nations Rapid Deployment and Security Act of 2000, introduced into the US House of Representatives by Reps. McGovern, Porter, and Morella. This act aims to "improve coordination of United States efforts and to enhance the ability of the other countries, the United Nations, and regional organizations to plan, mount, and sustain operations in support of the rule of law". The act directs the president to use the influence of the United States to urge the United Nations "to establish a rapid Deployment Police and Security Force that is rapidly deployable, under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, and trained to standardized objectives".
Before we support a standing armed force at the UN, there are some questions that need to be asked.
1. To whom is this force accountable?
· The Security Council? With each of the 5 permanent members holding
veto power, decisions regarding deployment and commitment could be problematic.
Two of those 5 members (Russia and China) could be considered hostile
to United States’ interests. China is also a communist dictatorship.
Do we want to contribute military resources to this group?
· The UN Secretary General? The Secretary General is a non-elected,
appointed official. He is essentially accountable to no one.
· The UN General Assembly? Why would anyone want to place any armed
forces under the direction of this ragtag collection of dictators, despots
and petty tyrants?
2. Whose version of the "Rule of Law" will this UN Army enforce?
· The Constitution of the United States?
· Islamic Law? The same Islamic law that now governs Iran and other
extremist states? The same Islamic law that requires women to dress in
purdah and prohibits them from driving cars?
· Napoleonic Law? With its concept of "guilty until proven
innocent"?
· International Law? As defined by whom?
3. From where does this force derive its legitimacy?
· From the "People"?
· From voters? Has anyone ever voted for their representative to
the UN?
· From governments? The same governments that are now the scourge
of their populations?
· From "elite globalists"? Do we want people like Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite and Ted Turner to run the world?
4. Where will the loyalty of this force lie?
· With the UN?
· With the Security Council?
· With the "People"?
· With the nationality of the force’s military leadership?
5. Exactly what are the "civilian police duties" that this
force will undertake?
· Disarming the local populace? Even if it meant violating the
US Constitution Second Amendment protection?
· Crime investigation?
· Pursuing local warlords and petty criminals? Does anyone remember
the fiasco that occurred in Somalia?
6. Where are the rights of citizens identified?
· What exactly are those rights?
· Are the rights delineated in the US Bill of Rights universally
acceptable?
7. Where are abuses of this force prosecuted?
· In the International Criminal Court? Would we want American soldiers
tried for crimes in a court where they may not have the rights guaranteed
in the US Constitution?
· In the World Court?
· In the target country?
· In the US?
8. What is the difference between an invading, occupying UN "Police
Force" and an invading, occupying foreign military force?
· Why should the local population treat them any differently?
· What if the local population resists? Does the UN plan to bomb
indiscriminately as NATO did in Kosovo?
9. Who defines "humanitarian crisis"?
· Are all civil wars humanitarian crises?
· Are "environmental" crises also humanitarian crises?
· Would riotous behavior of dissidents and subsequent misbehavior
of police warrant intervention by UN troops? How would US citizens react
if UN troops had intervened in Seattle? Should the UN intervene in France
to resolve the fuel crisis there?
10. In the face of recommended changes to the UN structure, such as elimination of the Security Council and veto powers, what checks will there be to prevent abuse of power? Or are we supposed to blindly trust the UN leadership?
With minimal effort, many more questions could be developed that would need to be answered satisfactorily before we could reasonably agree to arm the United Nations. Whether there are satisfactory answers is doubtful.
Since World War II, Americans have shed their resistance to the concept of a standing army. That resistance is due, in large part, by the fact that the US military has steadfastly remained subordinate to its civilian masters. This characteristic is nearly unique in the world, mirrored only by other modern western militaries. We would be foolish to believe that a standing army, whose leaders and members would likely be devoid of traditional Western values and steeped in socialist globalist dogma, would not need a strong system of checks and controls to prevent its abuse of power.
Our growing interdependence should not be an excuse for centralizing political power. History indicates that the centralization of power invariably leads to oppression and loss of freedom. Globalism need not mean that we allow power to move up yet another level away from its legitimate source – the people being governed.
Providing an unaccountable global government with a military empowered
to enforce compliance to arbitrary decrees would not lead to world peace
and prosperity. A monopoly of force given to the United Nations would
lead to global slavery. 
© 2000 Charles Bloomer Mr. Bloomer is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right. He can be contacted at clbloomer@enterstageright.com.
Other related stories: (open in a new window)
- Hi Ho, Hi Ho...We're off to Kosovo by William Westmiller (March 1999)
- What Bill should tell the U.N. by Henry Lamb (July 24, 2000)
- Globalists promise Utopia, ignore reality by Charles Bloomer (February 7, 2000)
- Helms vs. Albright at the United Nations by Charles Bloomer (January 31, 2000)