Ok, this is a good one, I promise. What I have done is to present the point of views of four bloggers/journalists, break down the essence of their posts, and try to find some middle ground with their points of view. Then I will end it with my views about what the UN could do to create an ‘army of conscience and practicality’.
The first article written by Gideon Rachman describes the necessity of creating a more professional and permanent UN Army.
“Over the longer term, the growing demand for international peacekeeping forces means that it is time finally to bite the bullet and give the UN a permanent, standing military capacity”
This is Gideon’s solution for making that happen.
“All of this points to the need to create a proper UN force on permanent stand-by. Such a force need not be a conventional army, with its own barracks and personnel. It would be better to get countries to give the UN first call on a certain number of their troops, for a specific period of time. National sovereignty could still be respected by allowing countries to opt out of missions, if they inflame national sensitivities.”
Gideon then mentions that conservatives in America would show horror at the idea of a UN standing army. This is where he brings in the Reagan quote about the UN.
“They might be surprised and enlightened to learn that the hero of the conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, once spoke approvingly of the idea of “a standing UN force – an army of conscience – that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out human sanctuaries through force”.
The second article is by Max Boot and he makes the argument that conservatives on the far right might be a little miffed with a UN standing army, but that is only because the UN has a terrible track record of handling armies. Max does agree with Gideon about creating a more professional UN force, but they both disagree on the how.