Originally published on the CGS blog on September 24, 2014.
Almost the whole world community agrees that the barbaric Islamic State (ISIL) terrorists should be resisted by everyone. Even the often veto-plagued UN Security Council has unanimously passed two relevant resolutions. Resolution 2170 (Aug. 15) aims to cut off financial assistance to that group and sanctions its leaders. Resolution 2171 (Sep. 19) expresses outrage at ISIL’s brutal activities and urges international support for the Iraqi government’s efforts against ISIL.
The UN Security Council could also help to deal with the civil war in Syria by resolving to send humanitarian aid to the nations sheltering Syrian refugees; putting Assad’s chemical weapons under UN control; and referring the situation to the International Criminal Court to hold accountable those who have committed atrocities.
To confront ISIL in Syria, however, the view of the US Administration and others is that more support must be given to the moderate rebels in that country. But precisely which rebel groups should be helped, and can we be sure that they won’t become enemies in the future?
How will the various national governments in the area which are on opposite sides be encouraged to participate in the international effort against ISIL? Will any national governments provide the needed “boots on the ground” and might they eventually start fighting one another?
This situation, as well as others such as the conflict in Ukraine, shows that the United Nations needs its own standing, globally-recruited, all-volunteer, highly-trained Peace Corps under direct UN command that can respond robustly to recognized threats, as was recommended in the 2000 Panel on UN Peace Operations (the Brahimi Report).
The world community desperately needs a neutral UN-controlled rapid-response force. It can’t be created overnight, so now is the time to start.
