In an interview with the U.N. Foundation's U.N. Wire published Monday, McGovern also said that "there's too much argument about whether we're going to intervene, and sometimes we've let the opportune time go by before a decision is made, and one of the reasons for that is that nobody wants to carry that responsibility."
McGovern, who was trounced as the Democrat nominee for U.S. president in 1972 and is considered the head of the left wing of that party, said he'd like to see "a stronger World Court to settle disputes – legally if we can, border disputes and matters of that kind – and where they can't be settled except by force, I think then there ought to be a U.N. 'peacekeeping' group that's ready to go that can step in to fill that breach."
In reference to the recent so-called Brahimi report on "peacekeeping" operations, the U.S. official said, "I don't care who gets credit for it or what specific plan it is, as long as it's a practical way of mobilizing a collective military force to deal with these problems that we know are going to occur at fairly frequent intervals.
"If we agreed in advance on an international peacekeeping capability, then they could make a judgment on each of these instances of what is required in the way of an appropriate response.
"It's the same way we deal with domestic quarrels. We have a trained police force that's in being and ready to respond to violations of the law or disturbances of the peace and we need the same thing internationally," he said.
The U.N. has been discussing for some time the formation of a standing army, which some countries oppose on the basis that it would infringe on national sovereignties. Secretary General Kofi Annan is in favor of the force.
McGovern said the standing army "wouldn't have to be huge, but it would have to be well-trained and well-equipped and with the authority to move."
Asked if the U.S. would support the formation of that army, he answered: "I think so. I think if it were explained that the alternative falls on the U.S. unilaterally, I think a lot of people would rally to the support of this effort. What I don't think there's support for is sending in American troops repeatedly to conflicts that are sometimes murky in origin and difficult of solution.
"I think that that's the kind of thing where American patience wears thin in a hurry, but I think the American public would support an international force of this kind if it were explained to them how it would work and why it's better than us trying to carry this burden alone," he indicated.
He suggested, also, that the United States' financial contribution to the standing army should be "somewhere between 22 and 25 percent," the American contribution to "peacekeeping" operations.
McGovern pointed out that, with the Cold War over, the problems around the world "require a multinational approach. For example, the global environment is a matter that Americans are interested in and rightfully so, and I think that we need to commit ourselves to a global approach to that problem.
"There again, I'd place it primarily under the U.N. It doesn't do any good for one nation to deal with global warming. We have to have agreed-upon standards that all countries abide by, and that's why I think a multinational approach is the way to deal with it."
Copyright 2000 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.