RE: The GZGverse UN

>> ... but how big would the UN tax base be?

From: ~ On Behalf Of Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
Sent: 28 July 2002 09:40
Subject: RE: The GZGverse UN

> If they really do have iron control of the coreworlds maybe they
> impose shipping taxes etc. You want to fly it in or out you pay
> the tax.

I don't believe any power controls the core worlds; the map of
Earth still holds good, with the Great Powers controlling various
chunks of the map. Both they and the remaining smaller sovereign
states are "UN members", and therefore notionally control what
the UN can do and not do.

The same pattern may also extend to the other core worlds. The
earliest colonisation efforts would have been before the first
interstellar warships, so there would be little to prevent a
rival power from founding a colony at a distance from the
discovering power. In time, the core worlds would become a
patchwork of colonies, independent states and industrial
fiefdoms. I believe this was the niche the Japanese were
originally intended to fit into, but the launch of the FT-13xx
range forces us to reappraise their place in the GZGverse.

Some of these colonies will have, by one means or another,
found their way into the UN fold. It's possible that some of
them were UN-founded and others became UN protectorates as a
result of various crises. Prejudice and self-interest may
prevent these entities from being recognised as UN member
states, so the UN umbrella remains their only refuge.

By 2180 the UN has both a significant tax base and access to
sophisticated technologies, viz FT-11xx. 

UN power is based on the veto; if any member (or even the vast
majority of members) proposes a resolution that any one other
member does not care for, the resolution is blocked. However,
once a resolution is passed it remains in effect, protected by
the same mechanism. The resolutions protecting the core systems
are over 100 years old and unlikely to ever be repealed.

This protection isn't unlimited; if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick
wishes to uphold its claim on some obscure but valuable M-class
system, the offended power can still make life difficult for
the upstart state. It can't bring a dozen regimental assault
carriers into terrestrial orbit and simply drop on the offending
nation, but there are numerous other pressures that can be
brought to bear, including simply seizing the territory. The UN
isn't going to intervene in every case where it might have a
mandate; just those where the gains reasonably outweigh the
potential losses.

>> 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".

I've previously attributed the rise of the UN to political
unrest at the events of the 21st and 22nd centuries; the
peace of Freisland (2142) can't be written off as a "breathing
space" treaty (even though that was all it gave to the major
powers) because it led directly to the foundation of the UNSC.
The only reason I can see for this move is to take the heat
away from a rising pan-global pacifist movement.

Idealism may inspire some generations to lend their support
to the UN, but it won't last indefinitely. To survive as an
ongoing power, the UN needs population both to work in its
own yards and to provide the revenue to run them. A "space
tax" isn't going to provide the former.

> Given how big space is (and thus what rewards there could be
> to dish out) my version of the UN has small nations (all
> nations if you like) doing service so that they can get a cut
> of what they find/develop etc.

But would they bring their own vessels or simply add resources
to the pool available for patrol and exploration? 

-- ===========================================================

Nathan "better a citizen of humanity than someone else's