Conviction 3 - Military/Defense

>> Formation of a humanitarian armed force capable of unilaterally policing human rights abuses

The What

A global humanitarian force that receives its mandates from a responsible and democratically accountable international regulatory organization. National states and governments do not hold command or political influence over this peacemaking force and national interests cannot control where humanitarian interventions are directed. Rather, these missions must be decided by a council of planetary citizens with expertise in the field.

Such missions will not be determined by political interest because ideological parties will be banned from functioning in the council that determines the use of these armed forces and the broader humanitarian organization from which the council is drawn. Logistical, tactical, and strategic considerations are to take precedence over the politics of party interest and squabbling state diplomacy. There exists inalienable rights that must be protected by armed forces if the situation necessitates their intervention. In principle, all humanity is entitled to such a force according under the express will of several signed and binding international documents. There is, however, no enforcement of these ideals and this is what the third conviction makes provisions for.

It is only natural for advocates of humanitarianism to be somewhat tentative when it comes to the subject of a military. After all, the objective of peace is what governs most humanitarian action. There exists, however, a powerful necessity to bring armed forces into the equation in order to protect humanitarian efforts in conflict zones and overthrow those powers that disregard the precepts governing human rights and humane governance. To ensure enforcement, there must be the threat of force and the ability to follow through. We cannot have any illusions about the ill-intentions of the tyrants and abusers. If criminal power structures could be eradicated without the use of armed forces, the United Nations would have met with more success in enforcing its principles as national interest dictates states contribute the bare minimum amount of troops possible to peacekeeping missions. As a result, even when the bureaucracy and negotiating are done with, at best only skeletal forces are contributed but only after "diplomatic" solutions have been exhausted. These diplomatic solutions are often not economic sanctions or diplomatic retribution but the UN's member states squabbling over how the mission should be put together and how reprimands should be enforced. By the time the process of humanitarian intervention culminates in troops being sent, the genocides have happened, the towns have been burnt, and the society has been destroyed beyond all short term repair. Then their comes the issue of creating provisions for that repair and no outside intervention is known to the effected society other than the listless trickles of NGO intervention. Two fundamental modifications need to be made: First, a permanent standing humanitarian army must be convened under impartial leadership of an institution of the nature outlined in conviction one. Second, NGOs must be unified and organized under a central authority to provide cogent relief for affected areas after the humanitarian troops have secured the area militarily.

The Why

IIn almost every genocide and atrocity in which international forces have been called upon to intervene nothing but failure follows. Peacekeepers are sent out ill-equipped into the jaws of death. Even in the most clear-cut of situations, where strong military intervention is obviously a necessity, the United Nations and the national states running it adopt a policy of cowardice and indifference. These afflictions are systemic and will not subside with a change in leadership within the United Nations or the national states that participate within it. Humanitarian action must be universal in orientation. To entrust a universal responsibility for the human race to self-interested factions of it makes an effective humanitarian ethos impossible to form. Thus the United Nations and its national states must be circumvented in the process of intervention.  Clearly, nations cannot be relied upon to contribute forces where they are needed and enough to make a difference therefore a supranational humanitarian force must be organized, equipped, and trained. NGO workers and civilian organizations providing relief in violent conditions need protection by peacemakers so their work can continue without the threat of massacre, intimidation, and kidnapping. International order is unattainable without an armed formation ready and willing to police abuses of human rights and stop atrocities before they happen. Continue >