Scandinavia's Peace-Keeping Forces for U.N.
It is a major aim of the Danish Government and the Danish people to do everything within their power to strengthen the United Nations. Small countries have a vital stake in supporting the development of the United Nations so that it becomes an effective instrument of the international rule of law. Obviously, this is not an aim that can be achieved at once. But by helping to preserve and strengthen the United Nations as an effective instrument for peace in the current international situation, we can help in the longer run to bring about conditions which foster gradual progress toward the distant but all-important goal.
It is a major aim of the Danish Government and the Danish people to do everything within their power to strengthen the United Nations. Small countries have a vital stake in supporting the development of the United Nations so that it becomes an effective instrument of the international rule of law. Obviously, this is not an aim that can be achieved at once. But by helping to preserve and strengthen the United Nations as an effective instrument for peace in the current international situation, we can help in the longer run to bring about conditions which foster gradual progress toward the distant but all-important goal.
Such is the general background of the initiative taken by Denmark, together with Norway and Sweden, to set up separate national military forces which are to be kept in permanent readiness and which can be made available to the United Nations at short notice. Let me begin with a short account of the way in which this idea developed.
II
The deliberations go back to the Suez crisis in 1956. Previous international conflicts had shown that by bringing the United Nations into the picture-by creating a "U.N. presence"-it was possible to alleviate the tensions of a dangerous situation. During the Suez crisis we saw the United Nations intervene with military forces. By taking direct military action the organization succeeded in bringing the military conflict to an end and in keeping the peace. Since then, similar United Nations peace-keeping forces have been used in other areas, for instance in the Congo and Cyprus. In these cases the U.N. forces were provided by certain member countries which, in an acute situation and in response to U.N. requests, made military units available for peace-keeping activities.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The world's newest country has become the U.N.'s pet project: an experiment in "nation-building." With its resilient political culture, East Timor is unusually well suited to the project. But the U.N. is finding that governing is harder than separating warring parties -- especially when the country has been razed to the ground. And popular resentment is mounting. Rebuilding East Timor physically will be the easy part. Creating a democracy from scratch will be far more difficult.
William Shawcross shows how U.N. peacekeeping has failed but does not draw the obvious conclusion: the world's hot spots need U.S. intervention, and plenty of it.
The intervention in Somalia was not an abject failure; an estimated 100,000 lives were saved. But its mismanagement should be an object lesson for peacekeepers in Bosnia and on other such missions. No large intervention, military or humanitarian, can remain neutral or assuredly brief in a strife-torn failed state. Nation-building, the rebuilding of a state's basic civil institutions, is required in fashioning a self-sustaining body politic out of anarchy. In the future, the United States, the United Nations, and other intervenors should be able to declare a state "bankrupt" and go in to restore civic order and foster reconciliation.
