/feedback
-reader mail
* The New UN: Global Peacekeeping X-treme *
Francis,
Shortly after writing you that previous letter of lukewarm politics
I read your posted article on the people of Liberia. At the end of the
article you wrote, "Ultimately, the situation begs the simple question:
is this really our business?" That is the question that sums up
the situation in Liberia, but it ties into a question that has been
in the air ever since the 9/11 attacks:
should America be the world's police?
Any intelligent
person can see that this not even a question. Of course the U.S. shouldn't
regulate all nations as it sees fit. Under its own principals America
can't justify taking on the role of an international Starsky and Hutch
(with England as its occasional Huggy Bear). America is based on the
idea that everyone gets a fair go. If America were the world's police
then it would act with its own special interests and those who happen
to be out of its favor would be forced to comply with any number of
demands before receiving assistance. From a world standpoint that circumstance
would be distinctly undemocratic.
But of course the world needs a governing body to slap some wrists when
a particularly audacious nation step out of line, an impartial judge
that includes all (or at least a lot of) nations. Setting up such a
body would take a huge effort, one that many nations would not be willing
to do. Fortunately there is already such a body in existence: the UN.
Now before anyone has a chance to send me a mail-bomb or anything, let
me say that I know that the UN, as it is now, has about as much balls
as a twelve-year-old girl. I'm saying that with some reform of the basic
structure of the UN we, as world citizens, could have a bitchin' international
force. The name itself is fine, sort of royal and commanding. The way
it enforces its policies, however, will have to be changed drastically.
First of all the UN gets its own army. Every nation would pick a certain
number of its best and brightest soldiers, then issue them a set of
UN uniforms along with those of the country the soldier is from. The
UN Army would have its own set of rules and way of marching (I imagine
something Korean-like). The soldiers would be just as loyal to the UN
as they are to their country of origin, in theory. As for the uniforms
themselves they'd have to be something
intimidating, like red and black (I'm sure there are some of those Republican
Guard uniforms still lying around). The flag has got to go. It needs
to be more catchy; nobody is going to sketch the current UN emblem on
the back of their notebook. I think it should resemble the Harley Davidson
logo, but I'm still thinking about it.
The first action of the reformed UN would have to be a well chosen one;
they would, of course, make it illegal to be both a prime minister and
named Tony Blair. What I should have mentioned first, for it needs the
most immediate change, are the jeeps. They look like they belong to
an eighth grader's benchmark project rather than the transportation
of a powerful governing authority. The inspectors might as well ride
around in mini-vans with soccer balls
printed on the back window. The obvious vehicles of powerful people
are black, tinted windowed, dangerously silent, SUV's. With guns. Big
ones.
Obviously there are some logistical problems. For example, how loyal
will soldiers stay to a newly formed and unstable military force, or
how do you construct that second sentence in the fifth paragraph so
that it doesn't end with a preposition? Such questions will forever
hinder decisive plans of action, but something must be done and now
is not the time for nay-saying. I would like say as a parting shot that,
though presented as a joke, behind all humor
there is some truth and not all ideas here should be discarded. Somewhat
Kidding,
Ben Townsend