Creating a Capability to Protect
The 2005 World Summit promoted an international responsibility to protect—that is, when a state is brutalizing its own people, the international community should act to stop that brutality regardless of that state’s claim to sovereignty. But the notion that there is a responsibility to stop genocide is empty rhetoric without an international capability to intervene with the force necessary to stop the violence and end the suffering.
In short, the current UN system cannot provide what is needed to stop genocide. Troops of uneven quality from a multitude of countries—thrown together for possibly the first time—simply do not have the cohesion necessary for success. The UN does not have a proper command and control system, intelligence capabilities, or the logistical support system for an effective and coherent fighting force. If diplomacy and less intrusive solutions fail, stopping genocide may require a military response. However, an intervention force has to have “military superiority,” or be capable of fighting better and more effectively than the enemy. NATO offers such a model. It maintains minimal permanent military capabilities, but has understandings, agreed standards, and well-tuned procedures in place to mobilize forces quickly following a political decision to act. Consequently, NATO can more easily create a coherent multilateral force out of earmarked national units.
It is clear that the world is not ready for a standing UN army—at the very least there is no political will for it. It is equally clear that the current UN peacekeeping system fails miserably at preventing genocide and mass atrocities. It is time to think outside the box to create a capability to protect. Peter H. Gantz, Peacekeeping Advocate Refugees International
|



