Short Paper

Title: Should the Scope of the UN Peace Operations be Broadened to Address International Crime, Natural Disasters, the Gross Violation of Human Rights, or Nuclear Weapons Development by States Not Party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

United Nations peacekeeping has become a routine and intricate role in international peace and conflict resolution. Since its conception in 1945 following World War II and its active peacekeeping role in 1948, the United Nations has participated in forty-six peacekeeping operations worldwide. It is believed that because of the make-up of the organization and the fact that the organization was created in the midst of the Cold War and retains its cold war setup and organization, its role in world politics today is not enough to take on and properly resolve new and emerging issues of the 21st century and the post-cold war era. As the worlds most established and efficient international body to which virtually every nation in the world is member of, the United Nations must have the ability to adapt to new global issues and conflicts in order to maintain world peace. Let’s explore how the scope of the United Nations should be increased so as to effectively handle a new global political climate, and more importantly, its role as an effective peacekeeping organization.

Since the early to mid 1990’s, individuals within the United Nations have conducted studies on how best to increase the UN’s peacekeeping ability. As it stands, the UN joint peacekeeping force is used in a passive manner. All contributing nations who “donate” forces to the peacekeeping force retain control of their own forces and direct them per directive from the UN Security Council, thus acting more as a coalition force operating under the United Nations banner. As was stated earlier, a committee was created in 1948, designed specifically for the purpose of overseeing operation of the peacekeeping force; however, it was only used once in the history of the UN. Since then, the committee (the Military Staff Committee) has remained dormant and unused, questioning the need for the committee and the articles within the United Nations Charter (Section VII) giving the committee its power to oversee military peacekeeping operations involving the UN peacekeeping force.

Per Article 47 Clause 1 of the UN Charter the role of the Military Staff Committee (heretofore named the MSC) us to “advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.” It is also “responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council” as further stated in Article 47 Clause 3. These two clauses grants the MSC the ability to maintain centralized control of peacekeeping operations utilizing multinational forces “donated” by member nations. A more centralized military command and control structure is essential in carrying out peacekeeping operations through a third party organization using multinational forces.

In order to effectively conduct peacekeeping operations through the use of the MSC, the United Nations Security Council would have to formally grant explicit UN Peacekeeping Forces Command and Control (C2) authority for the sole purpose of enforcing UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and decisions. The United Nations would also need to grant the MSC the inherent right to create standard operating procedures, adequate and standardized rules of engagement for peacekeeping missions, allow each country to retain control of their forces through their appointed representative within the MSC who coordinated his nation’s military efforts within the conflict with a Security Council appointed Supreme Commander who would be overall in charge of UN Peacekeeping forces. The MSC would also be responsible for developing standards for integrated training of the peacekeeping force to ensure that all forces have a standard set of tactics to employ on the battlefield, whether conducting passive “Observe and Guard” operations to enforcement operations. The responsibility to train the forces would be left to each individual nation and they would need to conform to United Nations Standards.

How would this help broaden peacekeeping operations in issues such as nuclear weapons development by non-signatory states of the Non-proliferation Treaty or gross violations of human rights? It would help because it allows the United Nations as a whole bypass the burden and unnecessary waste of time in determining which country would lead the effort in taking necessary military actions. It also sends a signal to nations in violation of international law that the international community opposes that nations actions and it would prevent individual nations from taking unilateral or bi-lateral actions that could have negative international impact. It also puts more pressure on nations in violation of international law and allows them to think twice before continuing on its path of law violating, giving credibility back to the United Nations as an effective global peacekeeping organization and force.

So to sum it up, allowing increased peacekeeping force activity by allowing the C2 to be centralized and placed in the hands of the MSC, the United Nations Security Council gives more credibility to the UN and the international community as a viable peacekeeping organization and eliminates most needs for countries to take unilateral and bilateral actions towards nations in violation of international law. It allows the international community to put unprecedented amounts of pressure on nations in violation of the law, hopefully forcing them to cease and desist before any real military actions occur. The introduction of a more active and centralized UN peacekeeping force also allows the organization to take an even greater pro-active role in issues such as human rights violations and nuclear weapon development violations even for nations not signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Sources:
iCharter of the United Nations http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html Last Accessed: 23 Mar 2007
ii“Sword and Olive Branch Proposal” Project on Defense Alternatives- Review of Selected Un Staff Reform Proposals http://www.comw.org/pda/weburevu.htm Last Accessed: 23 mar 2007

What Problems for Nuclear Deterrence does the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Create?

Since the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945, the United States has steadily enforced its policies of strategic nuclear deterrence. The strategy of deterrence was vital during the Cold War Era because of the increased threats by the Soviet Union spreading communism around the world while increasing its stock of nuclear weapons. Today we live in a post cold war era where the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is no longer as prevalent as it were during the Cold War. After almost two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States retains its Cold War sentiment and strategic nuclear policies. Such policies pose grave problems in the pursuit of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The United States has maintained its Cold War strategic military strategy, making deterrence the forefront of its nuclear policies. In an ever-changing post cold war world, this policy and strategy has backfired due to the lack of an opposing world super power. Nations view the United States, the only remaining super power to emerge from the Cold War, as a nation that due to its power, take it upon itself to force its views and beliefs and way of thinking upon the world, much like the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. With every military action that is taken, the world views them as an act of “classic American imperialism”. Many nations view the unchecked, unrestricted power of the United States as a threat to their own national security and well-being. Other nations view America’s power as a pretext to build up arms, stating that if American can have as many weapons as it does and be as powerful as it is, then all other nations are justified to have equal or greater power so as to tip the balance of power in their favor.
One classic example of a nation that uses the United States’ policies of nuclear deterrence as a pretext to build its own nuclear weapons is North Korea. North Korea for years deceived the United States and the world by signing an agreement in 1991 stating that it would cease its nuclear weapons development program in exchange for goods for its citizens from the US. North Korea had no such intention to truthfully honor that agreement and continued to pursue its illegal research. When it was discovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that North Korea was not adhering to the agreement in 1995,m it finally admitted that it had been producing weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons research. They even took it a step further a few years later in saying that it possessed at least one nuclear weapon. Years later, after the discovery of North Koreas active nuclear program, it began production of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This new missile was named the Taep’o Dong-2 ICBM. It’s predicted range is 12,000 km. It has the capability to hit the United States, west-coast direct and was predicted to be able to strike as far as Washington D.C. On October 6, 2006, North Korea detonated an underground nuclear device, further destabilizing the global balance of power and global peace as it issued threats of war against Japan and the United States.
A second problem that proliferation of nuclear weapons creates for deterrence is that rogue nations who proliferate nuclear weapons have the capability to provide such technology and materials needed to produce nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. The biggest threat would come from the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization because of its size and sheer complex make-up, and its ability to conduct terrorist operations virtually anywhere in the world.
Nuclear deterrence is a good strategy today against nations who already have nuclear weapons as it gives aggressive nations willing to use the bomb a moment of pause before making the decision to wage all-out nuclear war, however, militarily aggressive nations who wish to develop nuclear weapons can justify the proliferation of such weapons by stating that if other nations are allowed to keep an inventory of nuclear weapons whose existence poses a threat to the national defense of their nation, are inherently justified to do everything within its power to counter all external threats and protect its citizens as it is the nations sovereign right to do so. It is the responsibility of the international community to do all in its power to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to discuss ways of eliminating such weapons, leading to the decreased need for nuclear deterrence, creating a more personal and less dangerous world. If we as a civilized race fail to do so, we so at our own peril.

Sources:
i North Korea Nuclear Weapons Program – Current Status Fas.org http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html (Accessed 01 Mar 2007)