The Case for a UN Military

I was international relations the other day, and the professor mentioned that some people have made the case for a UN military. I agree with those people, and here ill make my case for why/how. (I think Ill start with the how)

There should be a new prerequisite for joining the UN Security council: you have to give 1,000 soldiers and a certain, but small, amount of money annually to the council's activities. Each nation that meets these two requirements will have an equal vote in oversight of how the military funds are used, and where/how/why the military force is deployed. There are 192 members in the UN, and i think a membership spot on the security council with it's voting rights is enough of an incentive for nearly all the nations to join. That would make an army of 192,000 soldiers (can also accept volunteers from throughout the world) with a certain annual amount of funds for acquiring supplies, weapons, and vehicles. Their commanders could either be volunteers from various nations, promoted from within their 192,000 men, or given from different nations. Also, these soldiers would be stationed at bases throughout the world; deliberately stationed in areas not relevant to their native country.

All of the soldiers would swear allegiance to the UN, and be retrained so that their skill levels and tactics are uniform, and so that theyd be re-socialized into being UN soldiers, not soldiers of wherever doing a short stint in the UN army. The Secretary General would have the ability to deploy his troops where ever and for whatever reason for 30 days, upon which their deployment time can only be extended upon a resolution from and only from the members of the security council. If they dont pass a resolution, the troops would be recalled. Perhaps a 3/4 vote of the council would be necessary for such a resolution.

Thats the how. Heres the why.

Such forces can be used for humanitarian missions all over the world, not just military ones. It would essentially solve the problem of western nations hemming and hawing over whether to send peace keepers somewhere or not. The 30 days power would allow help to be sent to wherever it is needed, immediately. A 192,000 man army could do wonders in relieving the problems of tsunamis, famines, and genocides around the world. National armies can then be solely for the purpose of national defense. The UN army has no such nation to defend: their purpose is to defend and help others. Domestic politicians are totally relieved of the burden of intervening in foreign civil wars or disasters, although they still may want to help. Its the job of the UN army.

The force would be small enough to never pose a threat to a nation's sovereignty, but large enough to protect ethnic groups from slaughter and to make a difference in disaster relief.

If UN forces are deployed to a civil war-ridden area, it presents an incentive for other nations to intervene as well to aid their 1,000 soldiers. Even if they are UN soldiers, they're still US nationals being shot at, and the public would want to move toward their aid.

It's a huge symbolic step forward in international cooperation and world peace, even if it costs each nation involved very little.

With security council oversight and equal voting rights for all members, such a force could never be misused in a way that could not be rectified.

I think i had other reasons in mind earlier, but for the life of me I cant remember them now, so I'll leave this post like this.