Who'd have thought Reagan advocated a standing UN Army of Conscience???
"Evil still stalks the planet," Ronald Reagan told the Oxford Union Society in 1992. "Its ideology may be nothing more than bloodlust; no program more complex than economic plunder or military aggrandizement. But it is evil all the same. And wherever there are forces that would destroy the human spirit and diminish human potential, they must be recognized and they must be countered."
"Reagan: 'Evil Still Stalks the Planet.'" The Washington Post, 5 December 1992, p. A19:3-4. (microfilm) Excerpts from speech presented at the Oxford Union in which Reagan calls for "an army of conscience," "a standing U.N. force."
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/jarroyo/Classnotes%20Web/ReaganSon.html''Evil still stalks the planet,'' he declared. At the time, the first President Bush was confounded by the horrors of failing states from Somalia to Yugoslavia. Al Qaeda's brand of stateless terrorism had not yet riveted the world's attention, but it was clear that some sort of ill-defined mayhem was replacing Communism as the main worry for Western civilization. Reagan had presided over the end of the cold war, but his successor, for all his talk of a new world order, had made little headway in defining what that would be. Now Reagan offered his answer: a great, humanitarian coalition in which America would stand alongside other civilized states.
Most of his life, Reagan conceded, he had seen international organizations like the United Nations as an encumbrance, as ''debating societies'' and hotbeds of hostility toward America. But the end of the cold war had liberated these organizations for a higher purpose. He proposed nothing less than a standing ''army of conscience,'' operated by the United Nations, to carve out humanitarian sanctuaries from evil.
A bit more:
http://www.vonsteuben.org/students/my/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=2532&forum=6&13"We must work toward a standing UN force an army of conscience that is fully equipped and prepared to carve out human sanctuaries through force if necessary. When the nations of the UN commit themselves to medical and food relief, they should also commit the resources and above all the will to deliver those supplies, regardless of roaming bandits or tinhorn dictators who would thwart the international consensus. Such a course is not without risk. Clearly governments that contribute troops to such efforts would face the possibility of casualties. But I can think of no more honorable mission for a soldier or his country. Indeed, I believe every soldier would eagerly volunteer to undertake so noble a duty.
As long as military power remains a necessary fact of modern existence, we should use it as a humanitarian tool.
At the same time I believe we should rely more on multilateral institutions to sanction the reasoned and concerted use of the power available. And to strengthen the UN I would strongly urge the admission of Japan and Germany as permanent members of the security council. These are superpowers, both economically and in their domestic influence, and it makes no sense to exclude them from the highest councils of international peacekeeping.
I did not always value international organisations, and for good reason. Their sole purpose seemed to be to blame the United States for the world's ills. In the past it was virtually impossible to achieve global cooperation on most subjects. But with the end of the cold war the UN was also liberated. With the fall of the Soviet Union, obstruction has been replaced by more co-operation. And with it, the noble vision of the UN's founders is now closer to realisation."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
