The UN should have a Standing Military Force

Thanks 9spaceking. I'll now begin with presenting my own case. The UN is not a NationThe first argument against the UN having a "standing" army is based on the fact that throughout history--and this is lasting into the present day--only countries and nations are really eligible to have their own permanent army. The UN is an organization that has no specific sovereignty or form of "government".As an organization created to both maintain and promote "peace", the UN, in having its own standing military force, would also contradict its own foundational basis and existing purpose in the international community. The UN forces would not only be able to defend a populace or an area, as an army they could also attack. The UN stands as an organization that deals with matters of conflict through diplomatic efforts, not fully-involved military action itself. With its own specific army with soldiers deployed from all over the world, the UN would be largely compromising on its own upheld democratic values, a full-standing army would significantly damage the presentation of the UN as being an impartial organization that supposedly represents neutrality. I'll reiterate once more that essentially, only actual governments can (and should) be enabled to have a standing military army. Conflict of Interest If the UN was to have its own permanently standing army, it would undoubtedly lead to a conflict of interest between all 193 member states. While some may support military action somewhere; others may not. On the contrary to reducing military involvement, nations such as the U.S would be obliged to enter conflicts that the UN categorizes as action worthy and this, instead of furthering "peace efforts", would considerably undermine and prolong them. This alludes again to the point that not every conflict is in the interest of every country. Many nations would have very little to gain from sending out individual soldiers to assist in international conflicts. Historically, this has only been something that nations with direct involvement have ever done. More to the point: it would also be expensive for each country with soldiers deployed. It would require the consistent investment of more military, and other important resources such as food. Getting full cooperation from all involved nations would be an almost impossible task. To expound further, the vast majority of countries would all take issue with the prospect of funding military forces that have long been upheld as rivals--and with working consistently alongside them. Another issue that relates to the soldiers themselves would be the very realistic probability is major difference in cultural understanding, both in approach to conflict and communication through language. For example, each solider from each nation will speak a different language, and not every one (including the locals in the populace that soldiers are sent to) will have the ability to speak English, or at least even some of it. Such issues would seriously impair the operational effectiveness--cases could also very well arise with soldiers from entirely different cultural backgrounds (I.E, Muslim Sunni/Shiite, Christian, etc.) being accused of taking sides with the enemy and not providing the required collaboration. To summarize: (1.) Who would finance the military? As previously stated, a standing UN army would essentially be without any adequate financial provider, primarily because of the expensive of military equipment and other necessary commodities. Another contributing factor is that most nations would not be prepared to finance a military that is not its own, and that it cannot control. (2.) Who would train the soldiers? It's likely that the hiring of expensive contractors would be the most effective option. Moreover, a UN army would not just be about having soldiers that have experience within their own borders, the matter of training them to work in dangerous conflicts alongside other international soldiers is likewise a reality. Once again highlighting the fact that the issue of cultural difference and lingual challenge also arises. (3.) Who would lead them? The question of who actually commands the soldiers is also an important one. Whether that commander would be completely impartial and able to work with soldiers from all over the international community, including countries his own may have had previous or current difficulties with is also highly debatable. The question also remains on as to whether a permanent UN army would actually be any more efficient than the current peacekeeping system referenced in your own argument. Rather than expanding military warfare and involvement, the UN should focus its resources on prevention of war and the maintaining of diplomatic relations.