Chapter 6 missions deal with “the pacificrnsettlement of disputes.” In them,rnU.N. soldiers do not use force except inrnself-defense, all parties to the conflictrnconsent to U.N. involvement, and thernU.N. force is completely impartial.rn(When MacKenzie first went to Zagreb,rnhe was welcomed bv a former Torontornresident who was then Croatia’s Ministerrnof Communications and who greetedrnhim with the news that he had called thernCroatian communitv in Toronto thernnight before to say that they were now inrngood hands; there was a Canadian generalrnm UNPROFOR. MacKenzie recallsrnsaying, “Thanks, I’ll be as fair as possible,”rnwhile reflecting that it would bernhard to persuade the belligerents that thernU.N. forces were U.N. first, and Canadian,rnRussian, Nigerian, or whatever, a distantrnsecond.)rnChapter 7 missions come under “actionrnwith respect to the peace, breachesrnof the peace, and acts of aggression,” examplesrnbeing the Korean War, the GulfrnWar, and the Coalition Force/Lf.N. operationrnin Somalia, where U.N. forces takernsides and use as much force as necessaryrnto win while keeping their own casualtiesrnto a minimum.rnIn MacKenzie’s view, the UnitedrnStates has the opportunity to harmonizernits political misgivings about the U.N.’srnusefulness with its traditional instinct tornserve the cause of peace. The misgivingsrnstem legitimately from evidence of bureaucraticrnbunglings at the United Nations,rnand a resulting reluctance to getrnenmeshed in them or to help subsidizernthe perpetrators. On the other hand, thernUnited States military is superbly capablernof mounting and executing at shortrnnotice precisely the kind of mobile operationrnwhich could fill gaps in U.N. peacekeepingrnmissions that now are bleedingrnthe U.N.’s effectiveness.rnFor example, logistical support. Manyrncountries fail, or are unable, to send theirrncomponents self-contained. With UNPROPX)rnR, Nepal’s battalion arrived withrnno vehicles. Eventuallv these were suppliedrnbv Germany, but without the necessaryrnspare parts and maintenance personnel.rnWithin UNPROFOR, therernwere six different headquarters, all ofrnthem deficient for months in items theyrnneeded to function. Then again, whilernthe role of officer observers became increasinglyrnimportant, they lacked the vehiclesrnand radios that were critical to thernjob. As MacKenzie wrote: “Lives werernput at risk as the observers were forced torngo on patrol one vehicle at a time, whenrnpairs of vehicles were absolutely necessaryrnfor safety.”rnAnother serious gap in logistical supportrnis caused by the U.N.’s obligation tornrent ships and aircraft as cheaply as itrncan, which makes anv coordinated—rnand militarily effective—effort almostrnimpossible. Often, UNPROFOR hadrntroops and equipment arriving unannouncedrnat places up to 300 kilometersrnapart.rnIntelligence gathering also, especiallyrnfrom satellite imagery and monitoringrndata and voice transmissions, is a muchrnneeded, but sadly neglected, function.rnFor the first three months at Sarajevo,rnUNPROFOR had to depend on thernBBC’s World Service for intelligence!rnIn short, if it chose to, the UnitedrnStates could give the U.N.’s peacekeepingrnefforts the logistical muscle they lackrnnow by supplying it in kind rather than inrncash and at the same time keeping whatrnMacKenzie calls “an audit trail” to ensurernthat operations were carried outrnwith the economy of effort which shouldrngovern all military endeavors. He concludes:rn”It is not the United States’ responsibilityrnto police the world for thernU.N. when the going gets rough. But, regrettably,rnit could become America’srndestiny by default if the U.N. does notrnadapt to its new and challenging role.”rnKenneth McDonald writes from Toronto.rnHis fourth book on Canadian politics,rnHis Pride, Our Fall: Recovering from thernTrudeau Revolution, was published byrnKey Porter in September.rnLAW blN^UKCbMblN 1rnThe Mark ofrnthe Beastrnby Larry PrattrnOne aspect of America that mostrnimpressed Alexis de Tocquevillernwas how individuals could often accomplishrnwhat the most “energetic centralizedrnadministration” could not. Thisrnabilitv was well demonstrated, accordingrnto Tocqueville, in how efficiently Americarndealt with crime and criminals:rnA state police does not exist, andrnpassports are unknown. The criminalrnpolice of the United Statesrncannot be compared with that ofrnFrance; the magistrates and publicrnagents are not numerous; they dornnot always initiate the measures forrnarresting the guilty; and the examinationsrnof prisoners are rapid andrnoral. Yet I belie’e that in no countryrndoes crime more rarely eludernpunishment. The reason is thatrneveryone conceives himself to berninterested in furnishing evidence ofrnthe crime and in seizing the delinquent.rnDuring my stay in thernUnited States I witnessed the spontaneousrnformation of committeesrnin a county for a great crime. InrnEurope a criminal is an unhappyrnman who is struggling for his lifernagainst the agents of power, whilernthe people are merely a spectatorrnof the conflict; in America he isrnlooked upon as an enemy of thernhuman race, and the whole ofrnmankind is against him.rnWe should pause to consider Toqueville’srnobservations in light of thern”Europeanization” of America’s policingrnfunction. Could we give the same reportrntoday after the centralization, professionalization,rnand bureaucratization of ourrnlaw enforcement? Have we really benefitedrnfrom straying away from our originalrnmodel?rnWhen government ceased being thernpeople’s servant and became the people’srnmaster, the role of law enforcementrnpersonnel changed as well. Rather thanrnkeeping the peace by apprehendingrnmalefactors who have allegedly brokenrnthe peace, federal law enforcement personnelrnnow tell people what they mustrndo—or else. The use of military forcernagainst the Weaver family in Idaho andrnDavid Koresh in Waco are violent examplesrnof the extremes to which governmentrnpresumes to assert its power.rnWorse still, the government is increasinglyrnunconcerned about laws prohibitingrnits choice of methods.rnThe recent debate over House Resolutionrn666 is a prime example. H.R. 666 isrna bipartisan move to eliminate the exclusionaryrnrule. This rule, in existence forrnmost of the 20th century, is widely re-rnDECEMBER 1995/43rnrnrn