...'cos Bangladesh is a rich, well-armed country ideally suited to preventing mass murder going on thousands of miles away. How silly of me to suppose otherwise.
It's awkward, though, isn't it? If we let the US with its hugely well-funded military do all the dirty work, they want to exercise disproportionate political control — in all sorts of places, all over the world. This is a bad thing.
But if we let countries like Bangladesh provide the resources to tackle a situation, we end up with an inadequate mess.
Off the top of my head, the only half-plausible solution would be to give the UN its own dedicated army rather than require it to draw troops from national miltias. Many countries would need to amend their laws on treason and mercenaries to permit this, but I'm guessing it could be done.
Then the only problem would be how to prevent the US from vetoing that army's use — either directly in the UN Security Council, or simply by not selling it any guns.
Other countries can make guns; what they can't make is the high-tech stuff. Even the US can barely afford what it does out of its $400bn military budget. I can't see the UN having that kind of money, and if it did there would be an outcry over it not spending it on poverty instead.
It's instructive to look at the history of the EU rapid reaction force, which is collaboration between a much closer group of countries. I believe they've got as far as procuring a headquarters.
If you want to read about the US and power, read http://newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-03 11:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-04 05:07 am (UTC)But if we let countries like Bangladesh provide the resources to tackle a situation, we end up with an inadequate mess.
Off the top of my head, the only half-plausible solution would be to give the UN its own dedicated army rather than require it to draw troops from national miltias. Many countries would need to amend their laws on treason and mercenaries to permit this, but I'm guessing it could be done.
Then the only problem would be how to prevent the US from vetoing that army's use — either directly in the UN Security Council, or simply by not selling it any guns.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-04 03:31 pm (UTC)Other countries can make guns; what they can't make is the high-tech stuff. Even the US can barely afford what it does out of its $400bn military budget. I can't see the UN having that kind of money, and if it did there would be an outcry over it not spending it on poverty instead.
It's instructive to look at the history of the EU rapid reaction force, which is collaboration between a much closer group of countries. I believe they've got as far as procuring a headquarters.
If you want to read about the US and power, read http://newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-04 04:22 pm (UTC)Europe [...] has become dependent on America’s willingness to use its military might
I'm reminded of the Roman habit of hiring barbarians to fight their external wars.