VITAL SIGNSrnFOREIGN AffAIRSrnSinging the U.N.rnBluesrnby Gary L. Bauer andrnRobert L. MaginnisrnThe operational philosophy and militaryrnrole of the United Nations havernradically changed. In the U.N.’s first fivernyears it launched only two peacekeepingrnmissions, but since the fall of the SovietrnUnion the U.N. has mounted 19 operationsrninvolving more than 70,000 bluehelmetedrnsoldiers. Last year these operationsrncost $3.6 billion. The UnitedrnStates was assessed $1.2 billion, and thernClinton administration spent anotherrn$1.7 billion for American military participationrnin U.N. missions. Today, thousandsrnof American soldiers wear U.N.-rnblue helmets in ten countries rangingrnfrom Haiti to Lebanon to the former Yugoslavrnrepublics. Indeed, the U.N. hasrnexperienced a renaissance with the unexpectedrnfall of the Soviet Union, risingrnfrom near impotence in the eariy 1980’srnto worldwide peacemaker in 1995.rnHarvard fellow Ronnie Dugger hasrncalled for the creation of a United Nationsrnmilitary force composed of volunteerrnpeacekeepers financed by global citizen-rnmembers who pay dues and carryrncitizen cards. If that doesn’t fly, Duggerrntold New York Times readers in June, perhapsrnnongovernmental organizationsrnlike Greenpeace could become citizenmembersrnof their own internationalrnagency and elect a world padiamcnt tornpass and enforce laws through a voluntaryrnmilitary force.rnFranklin D. Roosevelt envisioned thernU.N. as an organization dealing with traditionalrninterstate aggression rather thanrnthe type of internal conflicts that nowrndominate its agenda. But the 50-ycaroldrnorganization is adapting to the “NewrnWodd Order.” That change is echoedrnby U.N. Secretary-General BoutrosrnBoutros-Ghali, who has issued An Agendarnfor Peace suggesting a greatly expandedrnU.N. peacemaking role. He endorsesrnthe principle of “universal” sovereignty:rn”Underlying the rights of the individualrnand the rights of peoples is a dimensionrnof universal sovereignty that resides in allrnhumanity and provides all peoples withrnlegitimate involvement in issues affectingrnthe wodd as a whole.” He has usedrnthis concept to sanction U.N. efforts inrnSomalia: “The magnitude of the humanrntragedy constitutes a threat to internationalrnpeace and security.” This justifiedrnthe world body’s intervention in thernsovereign affairs of a nation-state withoutrninvitation. The same happened inrnIraq after the Gulf War.rnThe 1990 invasion of Kuwait posed arnclassic situation for the U.N., a case of aggressionrnin which the armies of one staterncrossed international borders to invadernanother. Desert Shield/Storm was a successfulrninternational effort to expel therninvaders and restore the sovereignty ofrnKuwait. The U.N.-sanctioned follow-uprnincursion into northern Iraq to protectrnthe Kurds (Operation Provide Gomfort)rnin 1991, however, was the first time thernSecurity Gouncil had authorized the usernof force to address strictly internal affairsrnof a member state. Thus began a dangerousrnnew era for U.N. “peacemaking.”rn”Loose constructions of the U.N.rnCharter believe the existence of suchrnproblems justifies expanding U.N. jurisdictionsrnto deal with them,” says formerrnAmerican ambassador to the U.N. JeanernKirkpatrick, who warns, “We arc slippingrninto practices which enhance only thernpower of the strongest. Is this what wernwant to do? Someone had better thinkrnthrough this question—and soon.” ButrnBoutros-Ghah awards supremacy ofrnrights to individuals and groups withinrncountries. He argues that “the centuriesoldrndoctrine of absolute and exclusivernsovereignty no longer stands.” Outsidernforces, then, do have a right to trump nationalrnsovereignty.rnThe U.N.’s “right” to intervene in thernsovereign affairs of a country leaves allrnmember countries, including the UnitedrnStates, vulnerable to having their ownrnsovereign territory compromised. For example,rnthe next time Korean-Americansrnbear the brunt of a Los Angeles riot, thernSouth Korean government could ask thernU.N. to intervene to protect its citizens’rnrights. It couldn’t happen now becausernthe United States would veto the movernprocedurally and militarily. But it couldrnhappen in the future, especially if thernU.N. has a standing military governed byrna liberal world community.rnThere is no shortage of potentialrnBosnia-like situations on the horizon.rnThe conscious choices that the internationalrncommunity makes about these situationsrnwill decide the new order. Werncan only hope that the U.N. will avoidrnthe temptation to resolve these problemsrnwith the sword.rnMeanwhile, the U.N.’s military focusrnhas been growing. The U.N. Departmentrnof Peacekeeping has expandedrnfrom a staff of 25 to more than 350 withrna modern situation center, staffed 24rnhours a day, linked electronically to allrnU.N. hot spots. It has a standby systemrnto tap troops and equipment from 185rnmember nations and has established arnbase in Italy to stockpile equipment,rnsuch as armored personnel carriers, forrnrapid deployment to peacekeeping missions.rnThere have been calls for a standingrnU.N. army. Former French PresidentrnFrangois Mitterrand endorsed the creationrnof a “U.N. Legion.” This brigadesizernunit of thousands would be availablernfor immediate deployment when the SecurityrnCouncil authorizes military action.rnThe legion has been discussed atrnthe U.S. Army Peacekeeping Institute,rnwhere representatives from variousrnAmerican government agencies metrnwith U.N. representatives in 1993 andrn1994. Anticipating future trends, thernU.S. Armv recently published a fieldrnmairual entitled “Peace Operations” outliningrnrelationships with the U.N. andrnincluding extracts from the U.N. Charter.rnLast year the Clinton administrationrnissued Presidential Decision Directive 2 5rnon reforming multilateral peacekeepingrnoperatiorrs. This was supposed to makernthem more selective and effective. Therndirective claims, “The U.S. does not supportrna standing U.N. Army, nor will wernearmark specific U.S. military units forrnparticipation in U.N. operations.” Despiternthis assurance. White House PressrnSecretary Michael McCurry said PresidentrnClinton supports America’s contin-rn42/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn