Re: The GZGverse UN

--- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:

> The UN in the TombVerse(TM)

I basically like this take. . . 

> The UN of 2000 is a bureaucratic, politically
> fragmented, fiscally embarassing and often
> poorly supported entity. It is subject to 
> corruption, incompetence, and amazing 
> laggardliness when responding to international 
> crises. OTOH, it does do some good (bringing
> relief, keeping the peace, etc) around the world.

One word for you:  WHO.  I've yet to hear anything
negative about WHO (other than the gripes common to
all large organization).

> All in all, a very mixed bag. There are profound
> reservations about its overtones as "the One
> World Government" and these primarily from 
> large, rich countries with much to fear from 
> giving a bunch of small poor countries who 
> might have a memory of slights (or invent one). 

Go ahead, say "This is mostly the US, who is currently
The Great Power on the planet and is leery of giving
it up, because we saw what happened to the Brits when
they lost their hegemony."
 
> In 2183, things are fairly different. In order
> to understand the UN of this period, one must
> see some of the key distinctions between the 
> UN of 2000 and that of 2183. 
> 
> - UN of 2000 has no independent tax base.
> The UN of 2183 does have an independent tax
> base through research patents, international
> taxes (levies for peace enforcement), monies
> generated by various UN research and think 
> tank services, and from UN taxpayers living in 
> land (or space) claimed by the UN directly and 
> paying income taxes directly to the UN. The 
> significance of this independent funding base 
> should be lost on no one. 

True, but how big would the UN tax base be?  I don't
see many people giving up their nationality that
easily.

On the other hand, I once met a very nice Serb couple
living in Louisiana (met 'em at church, actually) who,
when I mentioned I'd been to Serbia expressed their
complete and total lack of any enthusiasm for anything
to do with the "Old Country".  There would be a
portion of rational people from a variety of crummy
little countries who are sick of the old problems, as
well as some egghead idealists with romantic notions
about being a "Citizen of Humanity".
 
> - UN of 2000 has no independent military. It 
> has forces contributed to UN missions (after a 
> big palaver) by member nations. The UN of 
> 2183 has its own independent military. That 
> military is medium sized but composed of 
> long service professionals. The UN also overseas
> the arms length corporation used as the
> primary bonding and regulatory agency for
> mercenary operations throughout human space,
> and as a consequence makes money there. They

I see this.

> also directly employ a number of mercenary 
> units for peacekeeping (professional soldiers
> being a better choice than national forces with
> potential cultural clash issues). This means that

True.  In fact, as mercenary troops are primarily
interested in low-risk, high-pay operations that
regular troops have no love for (who really likes
peacekeeping ops?  Not me, that's for sure) I can
really buy that idea.

> in a crunch they can bring to bear (at the cost
> of some of those operations) a fair number of
> hired guns too. Add to this a number of 
> customs, quarantine, system patrol, and other
> paramilitary forces, and the UN can muster 
> quite a punch when it needs to. And the core
> elements (UNSC Navy and Marines) are equiped 
> with state of the art kit, some of it fresh out of 
> UN-funded Research Stations (think Traveller
> Imperial Research Stations). I rate the UN 
> militarily as larger than any 1 power (even the 
> ESU or the NAC) but smaller than any two of 
> the big ones (or a big one plus some small 
> ones) combined. They have enough might even 

I don't buy that.  Not that many bodies to recruit
from, and while they have an independant tax base,
it's not bigger than the NAC or ESU.

> to cow the big boys on the block, but not to 
> enforce their will on a mass of unhappy nations. 
> 
> - The UN of 2000 has no independent 
> intelligence arm (well, not a formal one). The UN 
> of 2183 has the several intelligence gathering 
> directorates (including, it is rumored, a black 
> arm that performs direct action operations to 
> "chill out" hot sectors and keep the enemies of 
> mankind off-balance). I cannot see a power with 

And looking after their own interests as well.

> an in-your-face fashion). The UN of 2183 DOES 
> have immediate external threats from non-
> humans. This offers them a much more solid 
> common plank to speak to the vast bulk of 
> humanity and to enforce, cajole, or legislate 
> their cooperation in the fight. 

Except for those in independant off-Terra nations who
got torqued off when the UN recalled all Human
starships to the Core.	That's when the NRE breaks
diplomatic relations, PNGed every UN diplomat in the
Empire, and gave all UN citizens 48 hours to get off
planet.
 
> and long service military people from other 
> nations. So although the UN suffers from these 

No.  Long service military personnel are by definition
patriotic (what, you think we're in this for the
money?) and not likely to give up citizenship in the
nation they spent 20+ years defending.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better