Time to explore new routes to give peace another chance

Might this be a good time to pause and consider the options before jumping on the bandwagon of more military spending and more weapons for war? After all, this is 2022 and we’re all still vulnerable to a system of mutually assured destruction. It’s claimed that the threat systems of nuclear and conventional deterrence are the best that can be done, despite a risk of species annihilation if anything goes wrong in what Lester B. Pearson described as a “balance of terror.” Since then, “national security” has been twisted toward systems that cause destruction and death at ever-higher costs and risks, but most can do little to defend, prevent, or protect. Former senator Doug Roche writes that “the present political system that relies so heavily on seeking peace through military strength has failed—again—tragically.” Wars, from Korea to Ukraine, have shown there are no winners anymore. War has become little more than the ultimate form of organized bullying. Militarism, with constant preparation for more war, is the problem, not the solution. But it’s hardly a surprise that major interests always want more, as that’s their business and their preferred system. Just months after the world heard then-U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell warning of a military-industrial complex—with unwarranted influence over every sector and the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power—people heard of another option. In the U.S. State Department’s 1961 publication Freedom From War, President John F. Kennedy and officials pointed to the process and one crucial requirement—American officials determined that preventing war and encouraging wider disarmament “can only be achieved” by a more effective UN, with a UN Peace Force to safeguard legitimate interests. This dysfunctional, war-prone system does not need to be anarchic, nor does it need to be ruled and selectively enforced by the strongest or the western military alliance, NATO. Who else considered a standing UN Peace Force to fulfill assigned tasks? A former Canadian Liberal government revived the process, with what was to be an in-depth, joint Department of National Defence and Foreign Affairs study and an official report, Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability For The United Nations, submitted to the UN General Assembly in 1995. Despite being announced by the prime minister, Canada’s study stood little, if any, chance of adequately addressing the subject. Northern member states, including Canada, were already under pressure to ditch the UN and return to NATO; a move welcomed within national defence establishments. But Sir Brian Urquhart, a pioneer of UN peacekeeping and a former UN under-secretary general, insisted on another attempt to mobilize civil society with a more appealing concept and plan. A proposal for a United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), a more sophisticated option than a UN standing force, promptly attracted wider interest. With this one development—effectively a “UN 911 first-responder” for complex emergencies—the UN would finally have capacity to address four of its tougher assigned tasks: to help prevent armed conflict and genocide; to protect civilians at extreme risk; to ensure prompt startup of demanding peace operations; and to provide human needs where others either cannot or will not. The focus on prevention, protection, and rapid deployment is crucial as the current UN system is devoid of sufficient capacity for each. Without a UN capacity to act, the world has long witnessed humanitarian crises—from Rwanda and Srebrenica to Afghanistan and now Ukraine—simply spread and escalate into far worse. Despite the promise of “never again,” mass atrocities repeat again and again. With our interdependence in what’s now a global neighbourhood, a UNEPS is to encourage a second overdue shift: to provide security universally, with prompt care and help. It’s also designed to address a wider spectrum of emergencies with a variety of useful services. By helping others, we enhance our own security. Equally important, a UNEPS is not simply about improved UN peace operations; the third advantage of this option is in its potential as a UN “emergency security provider”; a crucial step toward "freedom from war." Brian Urquhart, a pioneer of UN peacekeeping and a former UN under-secretary general, insisted on another attempt to mobilize civil society, with a new concept for a United Nations Emergency Peace Service. Photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress In this capacity, its likely roles would be similar to that of a first responder: a trip-wire, a vanguard, and a standing presence to dissuade, deter, and respond rapidly, if necessary. The minimal deterrent and modest military capacity within are appropriate and likely to be adequate. As a security provider, a UNEPS does not require heavy military elements nor a capacity for mid- to high-intensity war fighting. In representing the international community, it’s unlikely to encounter violent resistance from any national armed force. If needed, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will continue to have too much military capacity in the near term. Understandably, many governments will not stop preparing for more war until they see a universal commitment to ensure security backed up by UN capacity that’s rapid and reliable. Progress in wider disarmament, and even the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, depends on a coherent alternative to nuclear and conventional deterrence. The alternative need not be similar to what exists, large, or powerfully destructive. It needs to be credible, respected, and widely valued. A more legitimate UN “911 first responder” service would provide security, with prompt care and help appeals widely. Aside from its potential as a life saver, a UNEPS would also be a cost saver. Its development will entail approximately $3.5-billion in startup costs, with annual recurring costs of $1.5-billion, shared proportionally among 193 member states. This service should help to prevent the escalation of volatile conflicts; deter groups from violence; and cut the size, length, cost and frequency of UN operations. Success in just one of these areas would provide a real return on the investment. Clearly, the larger bonus in developing a UNEPS is that it starts an overdue co-operative process; a step toward a global peace system; one to encourage military build-down and disarmament; one urgently needed to free up vast resources to help with a climate emergency, pandemic recovery and a looming social crisis; one that might save trillions. Of course, for many, a UNEPS may seem rather naïve just after a long war in Afghanistan and another war in Ukraine. After all, who doesn’t want more, bigger, and heavier kill capacity now? Sorry—the future, if there is to be one, will depend on far deeper co-operation, not confrontation. A forthcoming UN Agenda for Peace presents a unique opportunity. In elaborating on his priorities, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres accorded a similar emphasis to prevention and protection, reducing violence, and placing women at the centre of security policies. And, the People’s Declaration of June 2020 explicitly called for more standing capacities available on short notice for UN peace operations. With two encouraging precedents calling for a UNEPS in the U.S. House of Representatives (H-Res 180 and H-Res 213) as a way to “save millions of lives and billions of dollars,” efforts are underway for a third. This is when viable policy options are needed most. It’s only in the aftermath of tragic wars and/or genocides when governments consider the options under public pressure to shift approaches, even systems. It’s when the need is urgent and evident to most, that the prior preparation of coherent plans usually isn’t. And, very seldom have widely appealing plans been supported by a global constituency. So, once the pressure subsides, governments tend to fall back on dubious familiar approaches that serve powerful interests. A UNEPS is an attempt to get ahead of this pattern. It’s no panacea or cure all, but an option to help solve an array of pressing problems. And, it might be the elusive game-changer to give peace a chance. Dr. Peter Langille specializes in peace and conflict studies. He wrote the initial proposals for converting CFB Cornwallis into a Canadian-multinational peacekeeping training centre, subsequently developed as the Pearson Peacekeeping Training Centre, and is the primary author of the plans for a United Nations Emergency Peace Service. The Hill Times