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

Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> 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)

I think the UN has holdings that have a certain extraterritorial 
nature to them. Perhaps arcologies, some areas in antarctica (if they 
aren't held by the IAS), L5, maybe some on Luna, other Terra system 
holdings, and some stuff in the inner colonies and the like. UN 
citizens would tend to be mostly related to UN ventures - techs, 
scientists, diplomats, beauracrats, service industries, consultants, 
soldiers, doctors, etc. I think they would be drawn from two sources 
- previous UN citizens, and offers made to members of other nation 
states (brilliant scientists, soldiers, administrators). The lure 
would be working for the UN, getting to play with state of the art 
toys, and maybe some decently low taxation. A citizen of the UN could 
not longer be considered to be a citizen of his country (that is to 
say, some countries allow dual citizenship, some don't but in any 
case UN citizenship and service commitments take precedence).  

And yes, the UN is now a state. But I imagine it still gets money and 
recruits a decent chunk of the security council and many of its 
diplomatic, technological, and military personel from various member 
countries. It just has more independence (having its own holdings and 
military and capital assets). It still needs people like the NAC to 
back up real major operations, and its role is still peacekeeping, 
peacemaking, expanding the quality of life for the bulk of mankind, 
education, opposing human rights crimes, studying new technologies, 
studying new life forms, representing mankind to other races, 
protecting smaller countries from the larger, and leading any human 
conflict against an external threat. 

> 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?

Run by UN Peace Force Command under Chief Military Officer (like the 
head of the joint chiefs). He'd be advised by UN advisors and also by 
advisors from member countries on a rotating basis. 

Paid for by the UN (from their own income) and from contributions. 

Instructions are given to the CMO by the Secretary General who 
receives advise from his various chief officers (CMO, Chief 
Operations Officer, Chief  Intelligence Officer, Chief Financial 
Officer,  and the like). He also would receive advise from the 
Secruity council on the deployment of forces, and would ignore it at 
the peril of having members oppose him or of having them fail to 
contribute to his efforts. If the need was great, he'd defy the 
Security council, but only at a cost. 

So, they aren't totally outside the realm of influence of the major 
powers, but they aren't totally dependent on them either. 

> 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.

It would, ergo this is not it. The GZG official history seems to 
suggest that the UN has holdings and therefore a tax base. It also 
probably levies a tax on member nations and on interstellar commerce 
and explorations. So the UN probably has some money. Not enough to 
field a big enough army to rule everyone, but big enough to take on 
any one major power, and maybe two if you count tech advantages. If 
they get the world against them, they'd be toast, but they can back 
down single bully nations. 

  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.

Well, I suspect the later part may still hold, at least as far as the 
outer colonies. I suspect the UN polices the core with an iron fist, 
the inner colonies with some regularity, and the outer colonies once 
and a while when it can spare a ship or something really stinky or 
interesting occurs. 

  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.

Hmmm. I think you'd be allowed dual citizenship. That way people 
don't have the temptation to not give up their old citizenship. 

  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.

Hmm. I think the UN does not have diplomatic immunity now.... UNLESS 
acting in some sort of ambassadorial way. I think that some jobs 
mandate immunity, but just travelling does not. 

  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.

Well, they'd only try to increase their population by adding smart, 
capable people of the right mindset. 

> 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.

I'm assuming the UN would be VERY strict in dealing with such 
liberties.

  Then again, Canadian troops serving on
> UN duty get Canadian diplomatic status, I believe - so why not?

Exactly. And some nations won't respect this. Same as today. 
 
> 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?

I'd guess some. Say 50%. 

  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.

But the UN could (in the future) control the gates to space from 
Terra so therefore there is a REAL economic incentive to pay your 
bills promptly or be embargoed. 

I assume they get 50% from member nations, 20% from their tax base, 
5% from contributions, 10% from corporate donations (in exchange for 
certain rights to selective exploitation of some resources, or in 
exchange for UN support in trade dealings), and a further 15% from 
investments and other money making banking ventures. 

  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.

Sure. And this won't totally change. But if they hold the keys to 
space in the core sectors, and entertain the support of the other 
power blocks....

  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.

Note that in order to obtain the level of success of the 2183 UN, we 
must posit the following:
1) Better management
2) independent Income and Citizenship and holdings where people could 
live
3) Good relations with member powers and impartiality
4) Good scientific support and technical support 
5) Good intelligence gathering through the UNSIA (UN Special 
Intelligence Agency)
6) Good diplomacy skills
7) Good spec ops capability to back most of this up subtly
 
> 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).

Well, I'd say you are a little harsh. It has done (even lately) a lot 
of good in a lot of places. 

  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.

Makes sense. Sort of what I figured. 

  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 -

Oh, you mean the garden planet New Geneva (location to be determined 
once Winchell decides if the whole of known space needs realigned to 
position the NSL in line of the KraVak advance from the core)?

 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.

I don't entirely disagree, but in this case their mandate is far 
broader. Federal and provincial and Federal and State governments 
coexist. Think of it that way in part. It isn't like the UN is a 
totally external body, it is just the Human Federal government. 

  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...

Yep. And quietly its spec ops, intel guys, and diplomats are hard at 
work defusing the situation and lining up contingency plans to kick 
butt and take names....
 
> I was going to give some thoughts on the Security Council, but I've
run out
> of steam for today...

Wish I could say the same :) 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/