[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 33 (Thursday, March 17, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE U.N. EMERGENCY PEACE SERVICE BILL INTRODUCTION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 2005

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have the comfort of knowing 
that in the event of an emergency, police, fire, and emergency services 
are just a phone call away. Unfortunately, in too much of the world 
today, there is no emergency telephone number to call in the event of a 
humanitarian crisis
  Today, Congressman Leach and I are introducing a resolution to 
encourage the creation of an international emergency service for the 
world community--The United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS). 
The service would consist of 15,000 expertly trained and equipped 
professionals, ready to respond immediately in the early stages of a 
crisis, be it caused by violent conflict or natural disaster. The 
Emergency Peace Service ranks would be made up of military 
peacekeepers, civilian police, military, humanitarian and judicial 
professionals, and other emergency response and relief personnel.
  The U.N. Emergency Peace Service would be a first in, first out, 
capability designed to supplement and fill the gaps of the current 
system whereby the United Nations and its member states respond to 
deadly emergencies.
  Too often, the U.N. does not have the capacity, personnel, or 
resources to act quickly in an emergency. If, for example, the U.N. 
Security Council made the decision today to send peacekeepers to a hot-
spot, it would take three to six months for troops to arrive and begin 
their work. That delay is a proverbial three-to-six month busy signal 
for people in need of immediate assistance.
  In a humanitarian emergency such as genocide, delay can be a death 
sentence for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. During the 
1994 genocide in Rwanda, for example, over 800,000 people 
were massacred in six weeks. The United Nations did not have the 
capability to respond quickly enough and stop the killings.

  At a time when Congress is paying serious attention to United Nations 
reform, we must not only look at the accountability and transparency of 
the U.N. but also to the international body's capacity to complete its 
mission.
  The U.N. Emergency Peace Service would have a rapid-response corps of 
professionals on constant alert. They could respond to crises within 
days or weeks, rather than months, thereby saving lives around the 
globe.
  Emergency Peace Service personnel would have standardized training 
and doctrine, designed specifically for rapid response. They would be 
schooled in how best to coordinate civilian and military responses to 
complex emergencies. This unit will help bring calm to an area of 
mayhem, confusion and tragedy.
  The service would have civilian police that could help reestablish 
the rule of law in post-conflict war zones. Such a system was 
unavailable in Kosovo. In fact, by the time enough international 
civilian police were recruited by the U.N. for the Kosovo mission, 
shadowy organized crime elements had already filled the void, causing 
further terror and lawlessness in an already ravaged community.
  Mr. Speaker, despite this administration's current focus on Iraq and 
terrorism, the U.S. cannot solve our security problems alone. 
Increasingly, being safe at home means making others feel secure in 
their homes.
  Failing states quickly become failed states. They provide breeding 
grounds for terrorism and international crime. It is, therefore, in the 
United States' security interests to prevent destabilizing events from 
causing the collapse of states.
  The creation of an Emergency Peace Service is also in our financial 
interest. The fact is: It is much cheaper to prevent an emergency by 
intervening early in its development than it is to respond after an 
emergency has reached its tipping point.
  According to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, 
the international community could have saved nearly $130 billion of the 
$200 billion it spent on managing conflicts in the 1990's by focusing 
on prevention rather than reconstruction.
  The United Nations Emergency Peace Service would be cost-effective 
`burden-sharing'. It would reduce the amount the U.N., and by extension 
the U.S., spends on post-conflict reconstruction.
  This would not solve all our global problems, and it will not put a 
stop to genocide and other atrocities worldwide. Rather, the Emergency 
Peace Service would supplement the U.N.'s capacity to provide 
stability, peace, and relief in deadly emergencies.
  Rwanda, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Kossovo, Liberia, the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, and now Darfur; these are just a few of 
the places where the U.N. and its member states should have responded 
more rapidly and robustly. As a result, more people died, and more 
people suffer. The world can do better.
  The United Nations Emergency Peace Service has the potential to save 
millions of lives and billions of dollars. This principle has been 
endorsed by organizations such as Citizens for Global Solutions and 
Human Rights Watch. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to join with Congressman Leach and me to support this important 
resolution.

                          ____________________