From: news@cc.swarthmore.edu (USENET News System)
Subject: A PROPOSAL: THE GLOBAL FORCE
Originator: vuksan@ginger
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:35:54 GMT

****************************************************
The following text has been written by:
Ivo Skoric, 103 St Marks pl, New York, NY 10009, USA
telephone:(212) 995-5601 e-mail: iskoric@igc.apc.org
****************************************************


THE GLOBAL FORCE
The UN/EC protectorate over Bosnia-Hercegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia,
Vojvodina, muslim areas in Serbia and Serb populated areas in
Croatia, would be a nice test for an eventual future world force
cooperation.
 
Because we live in the world where it is morally necessary to do
so, and because we live in the time when it is technically feasible
to do so, I propose:
1.
To abolish all national armies (it would, certainly, be done
gradually).
2.
To establish a Global Force, a U.N. army.
3.
Global Force troops would be professionals (like evry country has
a police, planet earth will have a police, too). People would join
voluntarily, would have to pass a test (not only physical, but also
test of acquintance of different cultures, etc.). All nationalities
would be eligible to fill soldiers and officers ranks. Individuals
with prejudices and bigotry would not be admitted to the Force.
4.
With abolishing of national armies and development of the Global
Force, eligible officers and professionals of different national
armies would join the Global Force. Also, a fraction of national
budget, formerly commited to military spending, countries would
contribute to pay the Global Force. The rest of their former
military budgets countries would be encouraged to apply to more
fruitful causes: health, education, housing, etc.
5.
The Global Force would be armed from vaste arsenals of NACC (North
Atlantic Cooperation Council that includes both NATO and Warszaw
pact).
6.
The Force would be stationed in abandoned military bases of the
U.S. and Soviet forces around the world (there is plenty of them).
7.
The Global Force would be responsible to the General Assembly of
the U.N. UN General Assembly would have the power to decide to
police any country in the world if necessary. The procedure would
be: 3/5 vote in General Assembly. Assembly would add executive
divisions, departments and branches to carry on Assemly's
decisions.
8.
The Force would not enforce the government in policed region, but
would enforce the system; would create the environment so that
troubled country might organize elections and establish the
government democratically.
9.
UN Security Council would change its role. Council would transfer
its executive role to the Assembly. Council would remain an
advisory board. Council would have to add Germany and Japan to
permanent membership. Veto rights would be stripped off from
Council's permanent members. Council would monitor how the
international law is respected among the countries, and would
accordingly advise General Assemably on different developments.
10.
International law would be based on sovereignty of an individual.
Sovereignty of a nation would be inferred from the sovereignty of
an individual. Sovereignty of a national state would be inferred
from the interaction between the sovereignty of a nation and the
sovereignty of an individual. International law must protect the
sovereignty of individuals, nations and national states in that
order. Governments of national states would be responsible to the
international law for human rights or civil liberties abuses.
Issues like peace, environment or human rights cannot be a matter
of inner affairs of a national state. If the peace is in danger,
if the environment is in danger, if human rights are in danger
anywhere - they are endangered everywhere. Tolerating the abuses
sets a wrong example.
11.
In cases of conflict between the Global Force and the remnants of
a national army, UN might: suspend the membership of that national
state; try to be flexible and inclusive enough in transition period
not to make enemies around.
12.
Deputies in General Assembly should NOT represent their national
governments, but their pertinent countries in whole. Deputies to
G.A. should be responsible to legislative and not to executive
bodies in their national states. So, to include both governmental
and opposition views in their representation. The "ambassador to
UN" should not be responsible to the Secretary of State and State
Department, or other national state foreign office, but should
instead answer to the Congress or Parliament. Also, those elected
to General Assembly should be chosen among prominent senior peace,
human rights and civil liberties activists in all the member
national states. So to make the General Assembly the conscience of
the world.
13.
All countries would also give up their nuclear weapons. The Global
Force would keep a small nuclear arsenal for two purposes:
deterrence reasons (in case some idiot asume power in some never-
heard-of-it country treatening people with nuclear weapon) and if
nuclear weapons would be necessary to protect the planet from, for
example, collision with a meteor.
14.
It will be considered that a UN member country loses its claim to
sovereignty once it loses the ability to govern itself: either if
there is no functioning legitimate elected government (as in case
of Somalia), or if the government is not able to excersise its role
any more (as in case of Bosnia). However, the UN will under no
circumstances take the status of an independent and sovereign
country - even in the case when such a status is lost in reality.
Instead, the UN have to superimpose themselves on the country in
question in order to restore what has been lost and in order to
provide the people of the country with the peaceful and stable
environment, so they can elect and establish their government, and
put their country back to life.
..
There are numerous things I didn't discuss here. This is just an
idea, not a definite and elaborate plan. I have no idea how many
troops would have to be stationary, and how many reserves would be
needed. But I do believe it would be much cheaper than to keep
national armies. And the world would be much safer place, too.
 
To the establishing of the Global Force, it seems that the U.S.
will play that role. It is however expectable, that in future the
other countries with excessive military personnel will contribute
even more (countries like Ukraine, Russia, Balkan states, Syria,
China, etc.).
 
THE NEW IMAGE OF MILITARY: U.S. - CROATIA
Instead of jugglers and clowns, Somali children (and grown-ups) got
U.S. marines with their fancy weapons, camo paint on their faces,
bandanas around their head, macho uniforms; instead of elephants
that can atand on two legs, they got helicopters, big war-planes,
and other hi-tech flying or crawling gadgets. Sure, they got the
idea - so they've hidden their weapons and start living in perfect
peace (Americans would leave, they were here before and they left,
didn't they? So we'll come back to our war later.).
While marines were landing, there were about two reporters on each
marine. I got the feeling that Somalia was invaded by U.S. press
corps before marine corps even arrived.
The world got another piece of footage showing eficiency and
excellency of American military. American citizen finally got
something of their country to be proud off. And American military
got its first "politically correct" mission. Marines seem happy
with it. Yeah, finally peers at home will not hate them because
what they are doing. After all, if all military actions would be
like feeding the starving people of Somalia, I believe, a lot of
peaceniks would join the USMC, too.
 
So, that reminded me to think a bit about the "old military" image.
I was briefly in Yugoslav Army in 1982/83. I was drafted as any guy
was drafted after he reached his 18th birthday. Yugoslavia was a
country with mandatory draft. What I have expirienced was a dull,
stiff, boring, old-fashioned, hateful "I want you" army, a kind of
the army Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek described in "Good Soldier
Svejk."
When the war between Croatia and Serbian rest of Yugoslavia
started, pictures of Croatian soldiers suddenly filled the world's
magazines. Casual but efficient guys - who obviously overdosed on
Mad Max and Rambo series - organized in smaller tight-knit units,
armed with light weapons and encouraged to do things on their own,
were winning heavily armed and more numerous Yugoslav Army troops
burdened with hierarchy, protocol and bureaucracy. Lot of young
Croats prided themselves to be like U.S. Marines. However, their
training, armament and support was hardly a match for the marines.
 
But, we are talking about IMAGE. The rag-tag units of Crotian
forces (it would be overstatement to call it an army) looked like
they resemble the "be all you can be" idiom. Mad Max is popular.
So, let them look like him. Anarchy and casual image is what youth
loves the most, isn't it? So, let them have it. Of course, to the
certain extent: not to compromise efficiency or jeopardize safety.
 
Then, there is a thing for nineties: introducing military
interventions that can be recognized as "politically correct". Kind
of actions young people would go for anyway. Like in case we
observe now in Somalia. Can you imagine how much happier place this
planet might be if somebody got this idea in 1936, when the
republic of Spain was struggling against fascists?
 
In Croatia the idea of having a "politically correct" gung-ho
military action worked even better. It ended less desirable,
nevertheless. Croatian media created and spreaded a panic of the
massive Serbian agression; media found enough disgusting pictures
(like we now see Somali babies which eyes were covered by flies)
about actions of Yugoslav/Serbian units, that were promptly labeled
"inhumane". The government didn't really organize an army;
government just said: whoever wanna go to stop it, we'd give him
a weapon, and he'd go. The lack of organization in early stages
prooved to be advantegous in matters of response. Draft was
unnecessary. Almost like wild west or the wild east, more
accurately. So, where it failed?
 
Mad Max machismo may very easy end in an uncontrollable
slughterdome. Naive do-gooders may return home without limbs, eyes,
guts, or not return at all. It seems that Croatian government,
experimenting partially with the new image of the military, made
some of the fatal errors the U.S. did with the war in Vietnam.
Psychologists and propagandists that created the image of Croatian
army did a professionally well done job. However, intelligence,
strategic planning, communications and procurement mostly failed.
Croatian government didn't realize that the government's
responsibility for the war did not end with draft. By making the
fight justified and the service attractive, they got people. Then
they forgot about them. It was clear that Croatian forces would not
be able to defeat Yugoslav army without the international support,
but that does not explain why Croatian units had many times to
abandon strategic positions, or face death, simply because they
were left on frontline without ammunition or food...
 
So, I added this paragraph to reinforce my proposal for the global
force: I mean, if we as people of this planet are to have
situations like Somalia or tyrants like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan
Milosevic to deal with again and again, wouldn't it be much easier
and much safer to have a universal force for that purpose, than to
have each country organize its own shabby and unsafe national army,
that would lack necessary infrastructure? And there are obviously
people who would like to join. People join the police, too, aren't
they? There is a risk for somebody who joins police: however,
governments usually try to protect the police force (flak
vests,etc.). It is interesting how national governments were always
too damned contended with the grand loss of young lifes in their
armed forces. As it is normal to lose the life in the war. This is
a reason more for The Global Force and a world-wide prohibition of
national armies. 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia