The events in Kosovo reflect, among other things, an inadequate system for resolving conflicts among and within nations, and there is little sign of any change. PNS commentator Sanford Gottlieb suggests that thoughtful implementation of a section of the U.N. Charter might be one solution to this problem. Gottlieb is author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?" published by Westview Press, and has worked for over 30 years for private organizations in the field of international arms control.

When the agony in Kosovo is finally over, will we live in a world where there is respect for minimal standards of behavior?

Hardly. There will likely be other instances of "ethnic cleansing," even full-scale genocide, as well as the more traditional cross-border moves.

We live in a world with few laws, no global police, and the barest embryo of a court system -- and the events in Kosovo will not change that.

What should be done in the future to resolve bloody conflicts among and within nations when peaceful means fail?

The world community needs muscle to enforce rules. That muscle could come from armed forces on standby status, contributed by U.N. member nations for operations authorized by the Security Council. If a sufficient number of governments commit to such a system, long-standing obstacles to collective action could be overcome.

At present, even when the U.N. Security Council shows the political will to act, it lacks the means to enforce its decisions. The Security Council has no armed forces, so each crisis can only lead to a different "pick-up team" of reluctant players. During the Cold War, lightly-armed U.N. teams were largely limited to policing cease-fires only when warring governments or factions agreed.

Some would like NATO to fill the enforcement vacuum. But NATO, now bombing Yugoslavia, has a mandate limited to Europe. It does not operate, for example, in Africa, where at least 500,000 Rwandans were slaughtered and over a million fled in 1994 as NATO member nations averted their eyes.

Furthermore, other countries rely excessively on the United States. Although we are the world's single superpower, many countries are prosperous and well armed, and should expect to share the burden more equitably when the world community decides to use military force.

Finally, when curbing massacres and deportations requires a forceful international response, the United States is reluctant to exploit its military might. Avoiding casualties has come to dominate American military thinking. This, despite a strategy that assumes the ability to fight two major regional wars simultaneously, over 1.4 million active-duty troops, 11,000 combat aircraft and 8,200 tanks, and a military budget topping $280 billion a year.

There is no simple way to overcome these obstacles. But one measure that could help prepare for future crises is found in the U.N. Charter. All members, Article 43 says, should "undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities including rights of passage."

In other words, in 1945, U.N. members were asked to designate trained and equipped military units that would be on standby for use by the Security Council in crisis situations. The five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China -- discussed this proposal, but Cold War divisions finally buried it.

It's time to implement Article 43. Designated units on standby in their own countries would not form a U.N. standing army. They would, however, enable the Security Council -- if the five permanent members are in agreement -- to organize a rapid response without having to cobble together last-minute, grudging, temporary coalitions.

Under Article 43, the United States could place on standby some of its unsurpassed airlift and sea lift units and bomber forces, while other nations could contribute ground forces.

In addition, the U.N. would need a permanent military command structure. Once in place it could plan for joint training separate national units.

Canada recently tried to move in that direction by proposing the creation of mobile headquarters units at the U.N. Lack of funds, and the active opposition of Jesse Helms, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, killed that proposal.

We are a long way from strengthening the U.N.'s power to curb future Kosovos. The United States, held hostage by congressional disputes over family planning programs abroad and beset by isolationist legislators is the U.N.'s biggest debtor. Seven former secretaries of state recently told Congress in a newspaper ad, "We urge you: honor our international commitments and pay America's debt to the United Nations. Great nations pay their bills."

Great nations are also measured by how well they prepare for the future. Will the United States help fashion a long-term international response -- including but not limited to a possible use of military force -- or will we be doomed to watching other miserable survivors on our TV screens?