| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| Envoy backs a US-led world army |
| 2003-06-30 |
| Bwahahahaha! EFL: A United States-led international military force was needed because the United Nations was too focused on process to effectively counter the post-September 11 terrorist threat, US ambassador Tom Schieffer has said. Sticking in the knife.... Mr Schieffer's comments came after reports that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to create a standing force of peacekeeping troops that would cement America's role as the world's dominant military power and policeman. The ambassador insisted that the US was not against the UN, but said it was outdated and too focused on process rather than outcomes to meet contemporary security challenges. ....and twist. Mr Schieffer said September 11 had sparked a review in the US about how best to meet the new security challenges. It changed our world view, forever. Security threats now emanated from three types of entities: non-state organisations such as terrorist networks, rogue states (such as North Korea) and failed states, he said. Challenges from these entities did not conform to the traditional threats from hostile states. Instead of having military forces focused on the Cold War targets of the former Soviet Union and China with US forces based in Germany and Japan, the post-September 11 security threats demanded greater flexibility, Mr Schieffer said. The US-led international force could be one way of providing such flexibility, although at this stage not much is known about Mr Rumsfeld's plans, he said. A US-led force could really do something, which is why it'll never happen. |
| Posted by:Steve |