LESTER B. PEARSON, Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada; Ambassador to the United States, 1944-45; President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1952-53
PEACE, one might think, is not the sort of human occupation which should normally require supervision. Yet the United Nations, instead of concentrating on more positive and progressive activities, has ever since its inception been engaged in supervising a kind of peace which has been not much more than the absence of fighting--and not always even that. Now policing a peace--or an armistice--can be an essential international function, at times a dramatic one. It cannot be denied that the United Nations has been successful in this function in some important cases. However, action in this field has been largely pragmatic and ad hoc. I believe--and recent events have strengthened my belief--that the time has come when we should seek ways to enable the United Nations to pursue this work in a more organized and permanent way.
The world's alarm last November over events in Egypt--intensified, if that were possible, by the frustrating situation in Hungary--galvanized the General Assembly into establishing a United Nations Emergency Force, an action which until then had not been thought practicable or probable. We must now do everything possible to ensure that this action is successful in achieving the desired results. If we fail in this, a damaging blow--perhaps a fatal one--will be dealt to the whole concept of supervising the peace and avoiding hostilities through the United Nations Assembly. If we succeed, then we must build on that success so that when we are faced in the future with similarly complicated and dangerous situations we can avoid the hasty improvisations of last autumn.
The United Nations was brought into being primarily as a cooperative endeavor on the part of many nations to seek in collective action the security for which mankind hungered and which the facts of life in the modern world denied to each nation individually. To achieve this the founders of the United Nations recognized the necessity of having military forces at its disposal and they wrote into the Charter provisions which they hoped would bring them into being. Over the years, however, these provisions have developed in ways far removed from the intentions of their authors...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Too often guerrillas pretend to be refugees and siphon off aid to continue their fight. The humanitarians whose help they count on should halt this abuse.
Some threats to international security are so potentially damaging that preventing them in advance is preferable to remedying their effects. In such cases, states should judge preventive actions by a standard of legitimacy, not strict legality.
The UN's need for means of military enforcement was foreseen by the Charter, and the post-Cold War international scene is likely, as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait showed, to require such means to be available. However, the lack of a standing force means that enforcement has always had to be improvised. However, in cases involving major commitment, such as the Gulf war, such an approach "is not likely to be viable unless the vital interests of one or more major military powers is at risk", a limitation which detracts from the global security missions of the UN. A more promising alternative is to create a system for the provision of forces under contract between member states and the UN. A discussion of the contractual and operational command issues involved in such a proposal.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.