[SG][FT][DS] The UN in the GZG universe... (long)

Following Thomas' suggestion, I thought I'd start a separate UN thread.

A whole bunch of questions spring to mind...

UN Citizenship - particularly relevant if the UN has it's own armed
forces:
 how do they offer it, what does it mean (do you give up your original
citizenship, are you protected from obligatory military service in your
home state if you have UN status, etc), what are the political
implications
of it (does creating a class of citizenship independent of the member
nations not turn the UN into a defacto "state" of its own, which means
it
would then have the interests of a state... what was that quote: 
"States
do not have friends or enemies, only interests" or something like that)

UN Soldiery - if you have permanent standing forces under UN control,
who
runs them, organizes them, pays them, and decides when and how they are
used?  If the UN is pushed around by a security council made up of
representatives of the big powers - what are the chances that UN forces
will be truely impatial?

More globally - what exactly is the UN in 2183 anyway?	If it is still
organized as it is now, beholden to the rich nations to get anything
done -
and we arm it and give it citizenship rights - does it not (perception
wise
at the very least) simply become an extension of the will of those who
pay
the bills.  Various nations have complained about the UN on those
grounds
for the last 40 or 50 years - that it only flexes it's muscles when
something happens that directly affects one of the rich member nations
who
swing the most weight in the security council OR when the rich member
nations get guilted into doing something.  IE:	Intervention in Somalia
because fears of that region of Africa destabilizing, drawing
surrounding
countries into turmoil and threatening the security of strategic
shipping
routes, etc  VS.  non-intervention in Rwanda despite specific warnings
of
planned genocide from the UN commander on the ground in the best
position
to know what was going on (Rwanda having much less strategic value than
the
North East coasts of Africa)...

Some suggestions:

UN Citizenship - it exists by treaty (all the participating nations
agree
in a joint declaration at some point).	If you gain UN citizenship, you
lose your status as a national of the country you are from, as long as
you
maintain UN citizenship, which can be for life.  By treaty you are
accorded
the rights and status equivalent to a citizen of a state when you are
within that state's borders (ie, you don't have diplomatic immunity -
you
have the same status as any other "foreigner" even if you were
originally
from there) but you are not obliged to fulfil national obligations such
as
compulsory military service.  I imagine that UN citizenship would be
something given out relatively rarely - to UN soldiers, the soldier's
immediate families, UN diplomats and bureaucrats and their families,
etc.
The UN would act strongly to prevent it's citizens from abuse when
visiting
other nations - and possibly bearing a UN passport, even if not a UN
diplomatic passport, would get the bearer more respect in most places
(particularly places where the treatment of their own citizens is
suspect
but equivalent treatment of UN people would bring sanctions, etc). 
Maybe
ALL UN citizens would be treated equivalent to diplomats - but I can't
imagine the various powers agreeing to this if you are talking large
numbers of rowdy off-duty soldiers.  Then again, Canadian troops serving
on
UN duty get Canadian diplomatic status, I believe - so why not?

For the UN to be truely independant and neutral, it's own forces would
have
to be outside the influence of the major powers - not just in strictly
military terms (ie threatening to withdraw a troop contingent 'cause the
contributing nation doesn't like how they're being used or thinks it
should
be in command, etc), but economic ones.  It would cost a LOT to maintain
an
independant space fleet, let alone ground forces, their advanced
weaponry
and the support infrastructure needed for this.  Does the UN get it's
income from financial contributions from the major powers?  If so, it is
tied to those purse strings.  Half of what the UN does now is hamstrung
by
the fact that countries like the US refuse to pay their assigned dues
'cause they don't like the way the UN conducts its business.  The US
does
have some grounds for their complaint, in that the UN bureaucracy is
notoriously bloated and inefficient, but the UN also does have a habit
of
doing things that the US finds counter to its national interest and
thereby
finds it distasteful to fund.  In the end, there is much fairness in the
complaints of many of the "unaligned" states that the UN security
council
(and thereby the real power of the UN) is simply a tool of the rich
nations
who pay the bigger bills.

My vision of the UN in the future is that it by necessity will have
changed, or it will have ceased to exist - certainly it can't go on for
much longer the way it is now (basically bankrupt and with ever
decreasing
credibility).  I think the UN would have to become, at least in part,
self
supporting.  Maybe it is granted the power of taxation, and each state
is
levied a fee or tax to be allowed to use UN services and keep up
membership
in good standing.  Maybe if a state doesn't pay its dues, there is an
automatic sanction process of some kind, that directly impacts a state's
foreign trade.	Maybe there is an "international" system of licencing
space
travel (similar to present day maritime trade) so that each starship
must
have a "UN Licence" to cover basic safety standards, etc etc - with an
emphasis on commercial transports???   The UN collects its income from
tariffs on interstellar trade?	Maybe there is a combination of all of
these things - "taxes" or membership fees, tariffs, etc.  Maybe the UN
has
a couple of planets for itself - reserved by UN exploratory vessels and
ratified by treaty early in the exploration process, so that the UN can
have an actual economy of it's own generating income - and as Thomas
pointed out they would have a ready-made recruiting base with
population,
industrial infrastructure, etc etc.  These could be designated "neutral"
places - kind of like Geneva - where meetings take place, etc.	One
impact
of that, of course, is related to the comment I made earlier about the
UN
taking on the trappings of Statehood - once it goes too far down that
road,
it would have a very difficult time maintaining true neutrality, because
of
the interests of state putting it in conflict with other states.  You
can
imagine the UN having to have a portion of its fleet stationed at its
"homeworld(s)" because it just busted heads in a fight between the IF
and
(anybody else), and now the IF is on the warpath and threatening holy
wrath
and virus bombs...

I was going to give some thoughts on the Security Council, but I've run
out
of steam for today...

>
>> I thought that
>> 
>> a) the UN recruits directly, kind of like the French Foreign Legion
now...
>> maintaing it's own standing forces the same way it maintains it's own
navy,
>
>Seems like what I'd imagine. I imagine they have in-system if not 
>on-planet holdings (perhaps the dreaded space habitats...) and 
>therefore had a tax base, an industrial base, and a base for 
>recruitment. But I bet they also offer UN citizenship to people they 
>want to recruit (maybe this comes with better benefits like state of 
>the art health tech and a good standard of living) from other nations 
>- such as elite forces, administrators, and scientists. 
> 
>> and 
>> 
>> b) the Indians were part of the ESU
>> 
>> Even if they weren't, would the UN like to draw the bulk of it's
forces
>> from one contributing nation?  And would the Indians like to be the
bulk
>> contributor unless they received complementary power at the Security
>> Council (or whatever the equivalent is in 2183+)
>
>I think it would be interesting to branch this discussion out on its 
>own - WHO is the security council in 2183? Given the UN has 
>pseudo-independence, how does that impact the power of the Security 
>council?
> 
>> Certainly now Canada maintains much of it's "integrity" as a major
>> contributor to the UN because of it's independance from US (and UK
for that
>> matter) foreign  policy.  When Canada becomes just a part of the NAC
>> political entity, we would lose that political independance and
thereby our
>> status as sort-of-neutral...
>
>True. Which is an interesting point - what did we get in exchange? 
>(That is to say, if we made this sacrifice to help the USA, I'm sure 
>we'd have been thrown a bone or two by the Crown). 
> 
>> If the UN draws much of it's general troop strength from the member
>> nations, it would inevitably end up with forces from the big power
blocks -
>> so I guess it would have to make sure that the forces it sends to a
given
>> area are from nations that aren't part of that fight.  Maybe the UN
sticks
>> to drawing troops from "neutral" countries - but then there'd be an
awfull
>> lot of Swiss and Dutch troops out there - they'd become a power in
their
>> own right by virtue of being involved all the time and the bigger
nations
>> might resent that.
>
>I imagine in small ops, small units of UN troops (as opposed to 
>UN-organized troops) are actually used. In larger conflicts, the UN 
>serves as cadre, command and control, and intelligence and special 
>ops capability to larger multi-national forces. The Dutch, the Swiss, 
>Mercs of various stripes, and the few other neutrals (maybe the IAS) 
>probably contribute many forces to this venture. If the operation 
>requires enough firepower, a major power would be asked to 
>contribute, but only if it was unaligned in the fight (ie in an 
>FSE/ESU conflict, the NAC may act as peacekeepers under UN leadership 
>or organization). Vs. threats like the KraVak, everyone would be 
>expected to take the UN lead in the fight.  
>
>My 0.04 (since I seem to ramble). 
>
>Tom.  

You think you ramble...  I guess I owe $5.00  :-)