UN Standing Army (Proposition)

Plan of Action
Size: Military Capabilities: Recruiting: Funding: Location: The kick: Long term peacekeeping missions (for example, in Cyprus or Bosnia) might still be undertaken by detachments volunteered by individual states, while the UN Standing Army might be deployed to deal with short-term crises.

Arguments
Imposing a Balance between the Powerful and the Weak a. b. A strong, effective and impartial UN Standing army will stop powerful military states Denying the right to blackmail and bully (submission) For example, American Military intervention in Vietnam against the wishes of the majority of the population. i. Half a million civilians of South Vietnam died, Casualties of US, Viet Cong, and other countries involved ii. If there was a UN standing army, US will not go against a respected, well-trained, multinational force. The mere existence of such an military rival would provide disincentives to militarily powerful countries Peace will be more effectively maintained and UN standing army will be more beneficial.

c. d.

Ideally suitable to respond quickly a. The opposition will explain how its useless when there is disagreement within the SC i. But it will be more effective than the status quo when there is agreement b. Wars nowadays are not in trenches and defined enemy lines i. Therefore to prevent wars or to enforce ceasefires we need quick action (Help) ii. This is the main problem with current peacekeepers 1. Assembling Member states pledge fewer troops than requested 2. Gathering Cultural and linguistic barriers 3. Going in Action Takes months to put forces in the field 4. Funding Bureaucratic procedures 5. According to these confessions, U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda stood by as Hutu slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi.

6. In Bosnia, the U.N. declared safe areas for Muslims but did nothing to secure them, letting the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica. 7. Therefore, peacekeepers are no suitable to respond c. The new standing army would not face these problems, outlined in the Plan of Action d. Therefore, The standing army would be more suitable to respond More effective in operations themselves a. The current army is not an army, its a joke a. Supplied by developing nations who hope to make profits from payments i. Under equipped and badly trained b. Forces from major powers are provided sparingly unless there is an incentive for them b. A standing army would be better prepared a. Training & greater motivation because they apply b. Equipment c. Better command and control (No cultural and linguistic barriers) d. For example the French Foreign Legion and the Indian Army Sub Point: a. Would Be Cost Effective a. Collectively countries will reduce their military spending b. War disrupts trade and damages global economy c. If there is confidence that war can be avoided more long-term investment b. Modern Warfare is against Organization a. Terrorism is the new war b. Need to be quick and alert c. Always Prepared

UN Standing Army (Opposition)

Arguments
Not Cost-Effective at all Strong Argument but varies according to the POA a. Purchasing (Last time I checked an Apache Helicopter costs a lot) b. Maintaining these blank c. Air and sea Transportation to the theatres of operation d. This army would have to be ready for every terrain and any enemy e. The status quo allows one to overcome this problem as troops can drawn from whatever member states are best equipped. Impossible to form. Strong Argument but varies according to the POA a. Article 43 states that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide forces, assistance and facilities for the maintenance of international peace and security i. This has never been attempted because its impractical b. Flaws in their POA c. Whose voice will the standing army follow because The SC dictates these decisions and we all know that it is not a democracy i. China being a totalitarian state has veto power of key decisions d. Any Impartiality that the Proposition says is in theory and would never be in practice Reason to change the Status Quo (unnecessary) Strong Argument but varies according to their description of Peacekeeping troops a. If the UN reacts too slowly to a crisis, there are other methods to improve i. The formation of a Rapid Reaction Force ii. Reforms in the veto powers would stop dead locks in decision-making process iii. And Intelligence and analysis wing iv. Better training to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers b. UN missions are very successful. i. Guatemala, a UN Peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a long civil war in 1997. ii. The Inefficiency cause by the veto power or the absence of a proper peacekeeping comittee