should UN be allowed to make a permanent multinational military force?

Question

should the u.n. security council and general assembly creat a permanent multinational military force with specific and expressed purpose of intervening in and ending conflicts that have been designated as genocidal.

Answer 1

No.
That'd be violating the sovereignty of the the nations the force goes into. The U.N can only send Peace Keepers into a nation.
Besides, the U.N doesn't have that power. All it can do is hope that participating nations (such as the USA or UK) will volunteer to send it's troops in.

Besides, who would lead the multinational military force?
The Security Council? That'd be too trick and the Council would probably never be able to decide on an action since there are the Big 5 in there can easily override any resolution in there.
A single commander? Can you trust a single man to decide the fate of the world?

No,
it's just not practical.

Answer 2

And who would lead it? The UN has proven over and over that military operations are beyond its capabilities. As an example, in Angola in the 1970s, the government was fighting a communist insurgency. They hired a group of mercenaries (50 or 60 guys) to put down the insurgency. These men successfully disarmed and dispersed the rebels. Then, the UN forced the Angolan government to expel the mercs and replaced them with 3000 peacekeepers. Within 2 years, the government had fallen to the communist rebels despite the presence of 3000 UN peacekeepers. Never, never rely on the UN for anything beyond economic sanctions and harsh criticism.

Answer 3

Interesting question. My problem is with the "permanent" part... I totally support the creation of multinational military forces to stop acts of genocide/agression on a case-by-case basis - but the idea of some sort of "world army" really doesn't appeal to me. I think the current approach is the best one. Whether or not these kinds of forces are used too often or too rarely is a matter of debate/opinion, but I think creating the forces as they are needed is the best way to do it.

Answer 4

It's a nice thought but since the UN military aren't really allowed to shoot at anyone offensively (in defense they can) they will never have any power to stop anyone who is committing the genocide. Only professional Armies can make any difference but that also can be a problem because it can lead to a wider war, regime changes, nation building, insurgencies....is that ringing a bell?

Answer 5

Absolutely not.

The UN showed just how effective it was when Saddam violated their terms of inspection - and when push came to shove - only the United States and a handful of true allies stepped up to the plate.
And the oil/food scandals show a definite pattern for the potential for corruption and abuse.
No, they don't need an army to reinforce their lame policies and sanctions.

Answer 6

If people will join that force for the purpose of keeping peace then it's a worthy cause. I don't have any faith in worldly governments, however. I think the U.N. will only support socialism and communism, fascism, and totalitarianism. choose your pick.

Answer 7

Yes, that's a great idea. But they should intervene in and end any conflict that violates the UN charter - not just genocide.

Answer 8

Lets hope not. The UN if full of tyrants, dictators, and despots that hate the US. We need to kick them out of this country and remove all funding. It will fall after that because we pay 80% of the bills for the UN.

Answer 9

NO! If there is one, the good guys will become the bad guys and God help the world.

Answer 10

In theory that sounds like a good idea. In practice, would it work?