Re: [OT] [gzg hist] UN Covert Ops

>Last night Here in Aust a show called 'Foreign Correspondent' did a
special
>on 'Serra Lione'(?). It was discussing how despite having 13,000 UN
peace
>keepers with more on the way the UN can't do what a company of South
African
>Merc's hired through 'Executive outcomes' did back in 96. Before world
>opinion and pressure forced them out. They also showed and interviewed
the
>only Merc unit left opperating there (on the government side). A Mi24
>helecopter gunship crew.

I saw that special. Very interesting. I was quite impressed by the
Indian UN
CO, who was quite upfront about his feelings - that the UN troops under
his
command tend to do more questioning of orders than following, and it
makes
it very difficult to attain their objective. I also thought it
impressive
how the story covered the fact that while the First World provides the
money
and "the angst", the Third World end up providing the troops - the
"Mogadishu Line" determining that no Western country is willing to risk
their own troops in such operations.

>They also interviewed a british author who has written a book 'Deliver
us
>from Evil' on the possible use of 'Security Companies' in certain
situations
>as a cost effective way of doing what they obviously can't with the 3rd
>world troups they have too use.

That guy was the ex British Defence Attache to Sierra Leone (sp?), so it
was
quite interesting to listen to him - he knew what he was talking about.

The thing about the UN I guess is that they can't actively take the
fight to
the rebels - their peacekeepers, not peacemakers. The Executive Outcomes
mercenaries were hired to do that job, and obviously did it quite well.

I thought it interesting how both the British guy and the South African
mercenary leader/pilot said the same thing - all soldiers are paid to
fight,
just because some are in the employ of a private company shouldn't make
it
different. There's a big moral argument there, but the British guy made
the
point that the mercenary companies have to be transparent for them to
move
anywhere toward general acceptance.

Wasn't it Australia who was mixed up in the use of Sandline mercenaries
in
New Guinea?

>I doubt it will get anywhere but I won't go into chapter and verse as
to
why
>not. But it's food for thought.

To bring this back ON topic, this fuels some great ideas for the UN of
the
GZG universe. People speculate about how the UN is run, who provides
troops,
who provides money etc. Maybe the UN has been "privatised" - its
military
are primarily hired professionals, in the direct employ of the UN rather
than the troops of a provider nation. Maybe, some are employed on the
idea
of a "loftier" goal of working for a united Earth.

So perhaps the UN is run on "membership rates" - essentially taxes, paid
as
a percentage of GNP, by each member nation. This would lead to greater
influence on the part of higher GNP nations - but given how the UN is
supposed to work in the GZG universe, it must work mostly independantly
of
such influences.

As you say, food for thought.

Jeremy
---
Jeremy Sadler webmaster@stargrunt.com
stargrunt.com - unofficial stargrunt ii website