Just playing around with scenario ideas and asking for a "reality check" on some of them...

 

Generally, what has to happen for the UN to go beyond saying “We are not amused” and to actually do something like putting an armed coalition together?

 

I’m guessing that the reasons include:

 

* A country invades another country without having a good reason for doing so—it cannot just make one or two attacks, it has to be an invasion or an ongoing assault that is causing large numbers of casualties and the attacking country shows no sign of letting up on its enemy

 

* A country invades another country and, even if it has a good reason for the initial invasion, it starts doing horrible things to civilians, foreign nationals, etc.

 

* A country responds to an internal crisis (rebellion, unrest, etc.) by doing really horrible things to large numbers of its own civilians, foreign nationals, or anyone else it holds responsible for the trouble

 

* A country’s government is clearly guilty of sponsoring terrorism or piracy or drug cartels, secretly building weapons of mass destruction, trying to bring back disco, or something equally hideous and unspeakable

 

* A country has a coup and the new government starts doing really horrible things to large numbers of its own civilians, foreign nationals, etc.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

Also, does anyone know anything about the way countries are selected to help in these coalition? Does the UN just ask for help and wait to see who says, "Yeah, sure, I'll put in a squadron," etc.?

 

Thoughts? Observations? Suggestions?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

Participation to the UN missions is on the free will basis. There was supposed to be a "UN army" in the origins, but Cold War made this unrealistic. Except in the case of Gulf War II (1990-91), where the most powerful members were involved, most of the UN peacekeeping forces are made up with Indian subcontinent or Nigerian troops, since a force-sending country receives money for its involvement.

 

FG

Participation to the UN missions is on the free will basis. There was supposed to be a "UN army" in the origins, but Cold War made this unrealistic. Except in the case of Gulf War II (1990-91), where the most powerful members were involved, most of the UN peacekeeping forces are made up with Indian subcontinent or Nigerian troops, since a force-sending country receives money for its involvement.

 

FG

 

Yes, it's basically free will. The Swedes have got quite a bit of peacekeeping experience under their belts as well.

 

Article 45 of the UN Charter has this bit in it:

 

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

 

However, the relevant agreements in Article 43 were never actually concluded due to the Cold War starting. The UN used to have a high readiness peacekeeping force called SHIRBRIG (Standby High-Readiness Brigade), but it closed down in 2009.