Mods, I know this isn't strictly a war thread, but the ideas discussed will be in that vein. A little latitude for the greater good?

*hopes his Mods are feeling generous today*

This thread maybe interesting or a complete dud, but it's worth a shot.

What would we need for a UN that could actually manage the World? We'll base this on our real world, but all members of IW are familiar with the concepts of fantasy and imagination so lets put together a UN with "teeth". Not necessarily talking about changing the real UN, but instead how in "our" alternate world such an organization would work.

Lets not immediately apply it to the current situation.

What would the powers be? Who would provide the enforcement? How would they be recruited? How would nations be punished? Could nations be forced to submit, if they don't want to join?

There are many different aspects we can look at this from, but as a starter, I will propose that a UN military force be a separate force from participating nation's standing armies. Not British or Swiss troops acting under the UN, but a separate force composed of citizens from member nations. Each country should have to offer a number of recruits based on population.

Also, each nation should have to contribute monitarily based on GNP with a sliding scale towards population.

I think this could prove enlightening or boring....which way will it go? (If we have enough fun with this, it may be turned into the idea for a new game and sell a zillion copies! :D )

OK people, calm down!

One at a time please :D

Sorry Ronn! I will get round to writing a big response to this later on, but I am a bit rushed right now.

Nice topic BTW - please don't close this Mods, it could get interesting once Skunk shows up. Seems like his kind of thing.

Interesting topic Ronn, I will consider it and if I think up a good response I shall post it.

Well, I already answered that question many times. But here we go again [img]smile.gif[/img]

1- Eliminate the Security Council. In an organisation where all are equal, it's counter productive to the image of the organisation if some are elevated with vetoe rights over others.

2- Have all nations recongnize that the UN as enforcement jurisdiction within all signatories boundries.

3- Give the UN a military force capable of enforcing it's will even against the strongest opponent (currently China, followed by the US)

4- Have all nations base their votes on the good of the world rather than the self-interest of a nation. No more of those concensus motions that are debated for days only to arrive to the perfect text that's adopted by all but that really is of no value.

5- Have all nations pay their full dues to the organisation.

Put in all those and you would have an organisation that not only has a bite but that can also positively work to make the world a better place!

I have seen this before, but explain #3. How will this force be organized? A conventional force to rival China's standing army? Who will control it?

Also, regarding #2, what about non-signatories? Will they be immune, or will they be forced to submit?

I'm not questioning the validity of your points but, instead, "brain storming". [img]smile.gif[/img]

The body should have the power to enforce arms embargos.

On the practical front, if a company from whatever country is caught selling arms to a country that abuses them, it would be put on trial, and if found guilty, have its assets taken into receivership, and its controlling executives imprisoned, and banned from ever setting up/working for an arms manufacturer/exporter again.

(I would like to see us work towards less weapons in the world. It'd need to be a very gradual thing. The above could be a first step?)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I have seen this before, but explain #3. How will this force be organized? A conventional force to rival China's standing army? Who will control it?

Also, regarding #2, what about non-signatories? Will they be immune, or will they be forced to submit?

I'm not questioning the validity of your points but, instead, "brain storming". [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

Regarding #2, I think the key word here is benefits. There would have to be clear benefits, quite aside from the prospect of peace, that would acrue to 'joiners'. Almost inevitably, they would be economic in nature.

This needs thinking about. None joiners pay more to sell their products in the world market? (Extra duty, and so on?? It's very hard cheese on the citizens of those countries that have obdurate governments, however. Like the citizens of Iraq at present, who suffer from Western embargoes which are imposed as a result of Saddam's actions.) Anyone got any other ideas on this one?

Interesting points, but I'm curious how the enforcement would work. You know me I like the military part :D

Volunteers? Quota's per country?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I have seen this before, but explain #3. How will this force be organized? A conventional force to rival China's standing army? Who will control it?

Also, regarding #2, what about non-signatories? Will they be immune, or will they be forced to submit?

I'm not questioning the validity of your points but, instead, "brain storming". [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

The military force would be to the command of the General Assembly and the Secretary General as the Supreme Commander. There would be absolutely no-loyalty to any nation or government. The loyalty should only be to the UN. As far as the strenght of this military body, it should be able to crush the strongest military on this planet. Right now, contrary to popular belief, it's China that has the strongest military (not the US).

About Non-Signatories. No, you don't enforce your rules to them and you don't coerce them into joining either... you just let them go by their business ever happy and should they "attack" you, you retaliate!

I'll go you one further. The UN force should be the only force. Individual nations will not need their own forces. The drawback is that we're talking about a huge standing army.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I'll go you one further. The UN force should be the only force. Individual nations will not need their own forces. The drawback is that we're talking about a huge standing army.<hr></blockquote>

I agree totally. Getting nations to agree to that would entail a very long diplomatic process, but worth it.

Quite an interesting thought provoking topic Ron. Would be a neat trick if that kind of thing could be actually created, but human nature has a way of imperfecting things. For instance, what do you imagine would be the next step if said UN "council" disagreed, a hung jury so to speak? Then what?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ladyzekke:
Quite an interesting thought provoking topic Ron. Would be a neat trick if that kind of thing could be actually created, but human nature has a way of imperfecting things. For instance, what do you imagine would be the next step if said UN "council" disagreed, a hung jury so to speak? Then what?<hr></blockquote>

Anarchy. Factions loyal to certain elements would revolt and begin to war amongst themselves.

DOH!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ladyzekke:
DOH!<hr></blockquote>


That was my realistic responce, but keep in mind, we're talking alternate reality here. The SC would have to be an odd number, so no ties. Also the SC would be positions voted on (in my opinion) by the 'huge' general assembly not preset members.

Well I guess I'm having a bit of trouble picturing a scenario in my head (fiction of course LOL)

So Ron, make up this "UN", what countries are involved?, how many people per each said country are representatives. In other words, frame it like this (sorry I'm stupid and simple, please indulge?)

UN:
Countries:

U.S. - How many?
England - "" ""
China - "" ""
etc. etc.

Let's form this "group" and picture them realistically first.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ladyzekke:
Well I guess I'm having a bit of trouble picturing a scenario in my head (fiction of course LOL)

So Ron, make up this "UN", what countries are involved?, how many people per each said country are representatives. In other words, frame it like this (sorry I'm stupid and simple, please indulge?)

UN:
Countries:

U.S. - How many?
England - "" ""
China - "" ""
etc. etc.

Let's form this "group" and picture them realistically first.<hr></blockquote>


In the utopian picture, all nations of the world would participate. Troops would be taken based on a percentage of population.

Ack, all nations of the world eh? Thats one BIG "UN"! Hard to see such a huge amount of different angles able to find an amicable "centerpoint."

Of course, on less controversial issues, it could work perhaps. Like if a certain region experiences drought and famine, the UN would provide for them right? Same for other disasters (tornados, earthquakes and such). But what about other issues like nature-earth related things? Like the Rainforest getting slowly obliterated, and pollution, and such.? I work in a patent law firm, and can confirm that there ARE technologies out there that use different types of energy that are less damaging to our planet, but are having trouble getting patented because of big companies that use traditional energies.

In other words, so MANY issues would have to be dealt with by this imagined "UN". A Great idea, well, in a perfect world I guess, which we do not live upon.

Of course, I believe in GOD, and so consider him the ultimate "UN" as I feel he created us, and knows best how to "handle" us, if that makes sense.

Love this topic Ron, very intriguing

The idea does get a bit "large" when you start really considering things on the global level. It the world could come together in this fashion, their would really be no need for different national governments.

Considering the uproar about national sovereignty that occured over here when the EU security force was proposed I think an internatinal army would have real problems in being established. We could make one - fine, but getting the other nations to basically give up the right to self defense should they disagree with the majority of the council will be very, very, tough!

I beleive that the proportion of the world who are American is 6% right? The current situation with the cuba blockade is that only the US and Israel regularly support it. If there was only one army and the council had majority control over it then both countries would have been attacked long ago. Just an example of how I don't think this will happen as long as politics continue to be conducted in the way that they are.

A replacement for the UN? Wow! This is ambitious. OK, the UN isn't perfect, but it is the best we've got and reforming it will be a problem.

Ryanamur actually posted most of the real issues here and I should point out why they exist and why (therefore) the 'imperfect' UN will probably always remain.

"1- Eliminate the Security Council. In an organisation where all are equal, it's counter productive to the image of the organisation if some are elevated with vetoe rights over others."
Not without good reason, those countries whose troops will be deployed the most are going to want to have the biggest say. If the average field deployment numbers are say, for the UK, around 3000 men and for Pakistan around 50, the UK will feel that it ought to have more to say on the issue. If it doesn't feel that it has enough say over how sooo many of its own citizens are placed in possible mortal peril then it will pull out of the organisation.

"Have all nations recongnize that the UN as enforcement jurisdiction within all signatories boundries."
Already done![/i]

"Give the UN a military force capable of enforcing it's will even against the strongest opponent (currently China, followed by the US"
Nuclear weapons and all? And these troops will come from which 'rich-enough' nations to field a modern, fully trained and cohesive army of 6-8 million troops, several fleets of the most technology packed warships and a few hundred squadrons of technically advanced fighters...?

"Have all nations base their votes on the good of the world rather than the self-interest of a nation. No more of those concensus motions that are debated for days only to arrive to the perfect text that's adopted by all but that really is of no value."
You should meet my mate, Karl Marx... But seriously, in a democracy, we vote to put people in power who are aligned with our interests. If they fail to serve those interests, we kick them out. No politician will put the needs of his country behind those of others. Imagine if you have high unemployment in your country and the 'greater good' resolution will create even greater unemployment, will you as a politician go for higher unemployment because 'it's the right thing to do'? If you do, you will have a short political career and your successor will soon overturn things...

"Have all nations pay their full dues to the organisation"
99% of all countries already pay their full contributions to the UN and only one country has defaulted for non-economic reasons.


Then of course, there is the more 'pro-active' methods of enforcing the new organisation's resolutions.
Lets see now - economic sanctions, preferential trade to signatories etc were mentioned here. This wouldn't work because you will wind up with a rich poor divide and those outside the UN will blame them for their pains and so rises a new reign of terrorism....
A new world army is created.... We have this already and it has one main problem - and no it's not language. The problem is about each nation providing highly trained, well equipped service personnel. It's no problem for the UK to spend $1 million training one SAS guy. It's no problem for the UK to lose a couple of $25 million dollar fighter jets in action or to move a couple of war ships from one place to another at the cost of a couple of million dollars - but how do you ask this of Romania (for example?). And when its only US or 'western' planes that make those bomb runs, who do the 'victims' blame, the UN or the US/UK?
No, percentage particpation ain't gonna work there...

I agree that the UN has it's problems, but it does have some uses and its courts of law do have teeth - you just have to know which tooth to use and when.
Example. Currently, the UK is upgrading one of its Nuclear plants to handle and reprocess nuclear waste from other countries. This plant is located on the west coast of England. Ireland is furious about this - they are worried about possible terrorist scenarios and what might happen in the event of an accident. Would the poison blow over the Irish sea to them? Would the Irish sea become contaminated in the event of an accident? The Irish government is currently taking action against the UK in the International Maritime Court in Hambourg, Germany and are seeking a ban on the reprocessing of materials in that particular plant.

No, the UN doesn't solve everything but it tries hard. It was behind the original global warming agreements and tries hard to bring nations together to discuss important world issues - but I don't think that any nation is that happy about releasing sovereignty over its territories or troops. It will be a few hundred years before we are ready for that.

Europe has come a long way in trying to bring nations together - but national interests remain sticking points and both money (in the form of subsidies) and prestige count in the European parliament above and beyond all else. If such a small and closely related (economically, idelogically and historically) group of countries can't agree on such basic issues and are unwillng to set relatively minor national interests aside, how the hell can the rest of the world?