ABSTRACT
If it can, in effect, be considered a potential solution to a real problem, why is the idea so controversial? Why is it not being implemented? Enthusiastically supported by some as a solution, the most recent versions of the idea of a UN ‘Legion’ have been rejected by others as Utopian. When it has not been seen as ‘refreshingly candid’,1 the proposal has been seen as ‘self-defeating’, a ‘contradiction in terms’,2 fraught with ‘dangerous complications’,3 the implementation of which would eventually be ‘counterproductive’.4 Roberts, for his part, came to the conclusion that a standing military force directly under the Security Council ‘may not be the best way to approach the difficult problem of maintaining respect for the United Nations, or even enhancing rapid reaction capability’.5 Others have seen proposals for a UN ‘Legion’ a ‘fiction’ whose long-term feasibility remains unclear.6 Morrisson clearly rejected the idea as ‘attractive but untenable’.7 For Australian Minister Gareth Evans, ‘it would be great if the idea could fly, but I fear it will be as grounded as its 1948 predecessor’.8 Although ‘eminently desirable as a concept’, it would not ‘not appear feasible in the present context’.9 BoutrosGhali, while not rejecting the concept of a UN ‘Legion’ as such, saw in the Member States’ unwillingness to support the idea at the present time a compelling obstacle. Asked why he did not follow Urquhart’s suggestion to create a United Nations permanent military volunteer force, he once replied: ‘I am not against the idea of a Foreign Legion, but the problem is that you must obtain the agreement of the Member States, and for the time being the
Member States are ready to agree to earmark forces in their national armies, rather than to have a special army for the United Nations.’10
