Standing or Standby? Is a Standing Peacekeeping Force the Best Option for the United Nations
NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPT
Pagination or Media Count:
Since the end of the Cold War the world has experienced an increase in the number of intra-state conflicts and humanitarian crises. Genocides have caused the deaths of innocent thousands while the United Nations and the international community struggled to muster a response. This delay in action has been primarily due to a lack of sufficient political will for intervention by Member states and difficulties in recruiting peacekeeping forces by the UN. Furthermore, peace operations have shifted significantly from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement missions where the use of force is authorized and expected. A rapid reaction force accessible by the UN would alleviate most challenges of recruitment and political will. Some argue that a standing peacekeeping force is the best option to the UN for rapid reaction capability. It is the thesis of this paper that a standing peacekeeping force is not the optimal method for quick reaction, but rather the UN utilization of standby regional organizations around the globe. This paper explains why the need exists for a military force capable of rapid reaction, why a standing army is not the best method of providing that capability based on its limitations and constraints and why standby regional organizations offer increased benefits in fulfilling this role. Finally, the paper recommends improvements to the UNs current Standby Arrangement System and encourages international support to the further development and training of military forces from regional organizations.
- Government and Political Science