Goodwill missions - danger of sole dependence on the US military in international relief and humanitarian efforts and operations - Editorial

THE U.S. has now taken a decisive role in the relief effort in Rwanda. Three thousand U.S. troops have set up a logistics chain to the Rwandan capitol, Kigali, and the Zairean refugee center at Goma; U.S. Air Force C-5As are shipping in food, medical supplies, and water-purification equipment. Private citizens have offered their own contributions. In view of the heart-rending pictures and stories from the scene, most Americans don't begrudge these expressions of American generosity, which seem to have made a major difference on the ground. It is fair to ask, however, whether this dependence on the United States is going to be a permanent characteristic of the new world order and whether our military forces will find themselves stretched thin doing charitable work when other, more strategic threats loom (like North Korea and the Persian Gulf).

The U.S. military now find themselves fighting forest fires in the Pacific Northwest and blocking refugee flows in the Caribbean, as well as delivering food to Rwanda. Meanwhile, our defense budget has been slashed by the Democratic Administration and Congress, to the point where our secretary of defense admits we don't have the forces to carry out our official military strategy (which is to be able to handle two major regional military crises simultaneously). The expanded peacekeeping role inevitably comes at the expense of other operational military needs.

In cases where no single major country has a strong national interest in taking responsibility for a humanitarian emergency, the world community should be prepared to step in. It cannot be an American responsibility every time. Skeptical as NR has been about the Administration's "multilateralism," there are cases--like Rwanda--where stronger multilateral action is appropriate.

The question then is: How can we strengthen the UN's capability in this area without creating a monster? The last thing the world needs is a standing army that the UN could order around without close U.S. control. No Foreign Legion for Boutros-Ghali. A few ideas come to mind.

First, for the more politically important foreign crises, and those which might involve military combat, it is best that they be handled ad hoc, under Security Council authority, so that the U.S. can keep a tight rein on UN activities. But for truly humanitarian emergencies, a stronger permanent UN capability would be desirable, especially to coordinate rapid responses by national governments. There should be UN contingency plans for different regions, with lists of needed equipment that could be sought from nearby countries, and with key countries (including the U.S.) earmarking certain units for the purpose. A UN Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Emergencies might be created, to do some of this planning, under the Security Council's aegis. Our allies, the Europeans and Japanese, should be doing more here.

The Clinton Administration has been expansive in proposing new civic missions for the U.S. military, while gutting our defense capability. If humanitarian missions are to bulk larger in our role in the world, then that should strengthen the arguments for strengthening our defenses. Some coherence from the Administration would be a welcome part of this debate.

COPYRIGHT 1994 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group