Okay, I threatened a new thread and I'm following through with it. This one might appeal more to the dreamers out there, of which I am one.
Inspired by James' critiques of the UN, and the book "The Lords of Poverty", a sickening look at nepotism and corruption in the UN bureacracy, I thought I'd start a discussion about reforming the UN.
I don't want to tackle the corruption question here, rather, the question of authority and enforcement. The security council is set up so that the national interest of a few nations (not even necessarily the most powerful any more) can always scuttle the will of the majority of nations.
I recently read Ben Bova's novel Peacekeepers. Bova imagines someone actually enacting Chapter 7 of the UN charter that calls for the UN to have its own multinational military force. It can respond only to cases of cross-border agression (traditional definition of war). The peacekeepers declare war on war.
Their power comes from control over ABM satellites, which of course, do not really exist, and a small dedicated force of internationals with hi-tech weapons and surveillance satellites. When they spot one country about to attack another (like the large troop movements etc that were visible before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 91), they attack the infrastructure and weapons of the agressive force in order to dissuade the attack.
In the book many are scared that the Peacekeepers will lead to a world government. Others critisize it that it won't intervene in cases like Rwanda. It's unclear if there are provisions for internal interventions by other multinational forces.
Anyway, could a force like this actually be created? What would work against it? What would the dangers be? Obviously the framers of the UN saw a role for it, but the security council ensured it never was enacted out of fear of encroachment of sovereignty. But it seems clear that a higher authority than sovereignty must be found if humanity is ever to unite. Does Mr. Bova have a piece of the puzzle?
Inspired by James' critiques of the UN, and the book "The Lords of Poverty", a sickening look at nepotism and corruption in the UN bureacracy, I thought I'd start a discussion about reforming the UN.
I don't want to tackle the corruption question here, rather, the question of authority and enforcement. The security council is set up so that the national interest of a few nations (not even necessarily the most powerful any more) can always scuttle the will of the majority of nations.
I recently read Ben Bova's novel Peacekeepers. Bova imagines someone actually enacting Chapter 7 of the UN charter that calls for the UN to have its own multinational military force. It can respond only to cases of cross-border agression (traditional definition of war). The peacekeepers declare war on war.
Their power comes from control over ABM satellites, which of course, do not really exist, and a small dedicated force of internationals with hi-tech weapons and surveillance satellites. When they spot one country about to attack another (like the large troop movements etc that were visible before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 91), they attack the infrastructure and weapons of the agressive force in order to dissuade the attack.
In the book many are scared that the Peacekeepers will lead to a world government. Others critisize it that it won't intervene in cases like Rwanda. It's unclear if there are provisions for internal interventions by other multinational forces.
Anyway, could a force like this actually be created? What would work against it? What would the dangers be? Obviously the framers of the UN saw a role for it, but the security council ensured it never was enacted out of fear of encroachment of sovereignty. But it seems clear that a higher authority than sovereignty must be found if humanity is ever to unite. Does Mr. Bova have a piece of the puzzle?
