Sunday, June 29, 2003
11:52 am
A World Peacekeeping Force - 29th June 2003, 11.46
At a meeting with business leaders last week, Donald Rumsfeld floated the concept of a permanent peacekeeping force that could be used to stabilise nations undergoing civil conflicts. For some reason, the Guardian named this a "world peacekeeping force" and an"an apparent sharp reversal of the Bush administration's staunchly unilateralist stance". This sentence tells us more about the Guardian's inability to follow US diplomacy than it does about Rumsfeld's idea.
The postwar situation in Iraq has demonstrated that the US army has not been fully trained for peacekeeping duties and that the current 'overstretch' has led to appeals for troops from other NATO countries. Rumsfeld's view of a permanent peacekeeping force on standby has two goals: (i) to offset this weakness in the US armed forces whilst it attempts to meet the objectives of national security in stabilising failing regions; and (ii), to provide an institutional underpinning to the ad hoc 'coalition of the willing' brought together by the Iraq war. The Guardian does not note the notable omission of the United Nations in this regard.
At a dinner in Washington last week, Mr Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders: "I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking.
"I think it would be a good thing if our country was to provide some leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications [so] that they can work with each other."
From Rumsfeld's words, the other motive for setting up such "cadre" of peacekeeping troops is a pre-emptive strike to avoid the European Union or the United Nations gaining a diplomatic leadership role. Given the distrust of the Pentagon for the Franco-German policies on European defence, this could also be an opening for the United States to maintain an effective role in an area where European defence has a practical application.
At a meeting with business leaders last week, Donald Rumsfeld floated the concept of a permanent peacekeeping force that could be used to stabilise nations undergoing civil conflicts. For some reason, the Guardian named this a "world peacekeeping force" and an"an apparent sharp reversal of the Bush administration's staunchly unilateralist stance". This sentence tells us more about the Guardian's inability to follow US diplomacy than it does about Rumsfeld's idea.
The postwar situation in Iraq has demonstrated that the US army has not been fully trained for peacekeeping duties and that the current 'overstretch' has led to appeals for troops from other NATO countries. Rumsfeld's view of a permanent peacekeeping force on standby has two goals: (i) to offset this weakness in the US armed forces whilst it attempts to meet the objectives of national security in stabilising failing regions; and (ii), to provide an institutional underpinning to the ad hoc 'coalition of the willing' brought together by the Iraq war. The Guardian does not note the notable omission of the United Nations in this regard.
At a dinner in Washington last week, Mr Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders: "I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking.
"I think it would be a good thing if our country was to provide some leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications [so] that they can work with each other."
From Rumsfeld's words, the other motive for setting up such "cadre" of peacekeeping troops is a pre-emptive strike to avoid the European Union or the United Nations gaining a diplomatic leadership role. Given the distrust of the Pentagon for the Franco-German policies on European defence, this could also be an opening for the United States to maintain an effective role in an area where European defence has a practical application.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
June
(50)
- Basra: Just Another Manic Monday - 30th June 2003,...
- Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security...
- The Sin of Omission - 29th June 2003, 17.13 The u...
- A World Peacekeeping Force - 29th June 2003, 11.46...
- I do not remember the BBC being biased against the...
- Mini Me's Foreign Policy - 28th June 2003, 20.48 ...
- From Red to Green: The Common Agricultural Policy ...
- Our Reward Six more British troops die at the han...
- Cato on the Withholding Tax - 25th June 2003, 23.3...
- Ten Pence for a cup of Tea Is there any kind soul...
- Delian Delights John Laughland says that NATO is ...
- State Funding for Political Parties - 24th June 20...
- An Unequal Partnership - 23rd June 2003, 22.59 Th...
- A Common Policy on Space - 23rd June 2003, 22.49 ...
- Thanksgiving - 23rd June 2003, 22.41 One of the e...
- Catch the Pigeon - 22nd June 2003, 20.04 Tony Bla...
- United Nations: Reform - 22nd June 2003, 17.28 A ...
- The Government's Position on the Euro - 22nd June ...
- Thessalonika - 19th June 2003, 23.23 The EU leade...
- Sanity Prevails - 19th June 2003, 23.07 It appear...
- Zimwatch: Blair and Bush will be tried as war crim...
- HMV - 18th June 2003, 23.26 Peter Mandelson write...
- A Consensus on North Korea - 18th June 2003, 23.01...
- Emotional Over Europe. 18th June 2003. I find it...
- Most Reliable European Ally - 16th June 2003, 23.1...
- Festering Perry de Haviland mentions this website...
- Basic Benevolence - 15th June 2003, 22.07 One of ...
- Missile Defence: A Secret Agreement - 15th June 20...
- How successful was the Daily Mail referendum? - 15...
- A Technical Oversight - 14th June 2003, 23.43 It ...
- The Publication of the Constitution - 14th June 20...
- Rapprochement - 12th June 2003, 22.38 Having warn...
- Paying the Price - 12th June 2003, 22.33 Belgium'...
- Matthew Barganier makes the point that the antiwar...
- The Press Conference - 11th June 2003, 22.35 In a...
- Have you voted yet? The Daily Mail's referendum i...
- Best of the Blogs I've been avoiding other blogs ...
- Welcoming Party The Tory MEP Dan Hannan writes "S...
- Freedom ain't Free The Chronicles web-log "Winds ...
- The Neville Chamberlain Fan Club Those of us who ...
- Support from those that count - 10th June 2003, 22...
- Will this be ready in forty five minutes as well? ...
- What do the Europhiles think? - 9th June 2003, 22....
- No News - 9th June 2003, 20.07 The announcement b...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 106 Thursday, 5 ...
- New York: The Intrepid - 6th June 2003 (I Think) ...
- Zimwatch: Still There Although it's getting hot i...
- Tony Ulbricht? Srdja Trifkovic thinks that Britai...
- Zimwatch: Kicking Off? Both myself and Mr Chaston...
- Will the Tories oppose the war now it's over? Mic...
-
▼
June
(50)
0 comments:
Post a Comment