Say Jon(GZG)?
Have a question for you.
I was resently rereading the FT timelines. (in the books) And a thought struck
me...
How did the UN survive the colapse of the USA? Here and now, the USA
pays a substantial amount of the member dues. (My friend -- who knows
more about this than I do -- says it is in the area of 70%. There are a
lot of counties around the world that refuse to pay their member dues... The
US feels that if we pay their dues for them, they will stay involved, and we
can keep an eye on things...)
So what does the UN do to support itself? Does it "charge" a fee for colony
licenses? or what?
Just curious...Oviously the UN has survived, they do have a "space
force", and a research/exploration forces..
> Say Jon(GZG)?
Nope, your friend has it wrong. The USA isn't paying its dues while most other
countries do.
Enjoy,
> Tom Granvold wrote:
> > Say Jon(GZG)?
> Tom Granvold wrote:
> > Tom Granvold wrote:
There are a
> > > > lot of counties around the world that refuse to pay their member
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Tom Granvold wrote:
As usual the real situation is not as simple. I did a quick web search
and found a UN press release, GA/AB/3287, dated March 16, 1999. Here
are two quotes from the press release:
"As the Committee resumed considering its agenda item on improving the
financial situation of the United Nations, Mr.Connor said those changes were
due mainly to increased payments by the United States. While that country had
contributed an amount exceeding its assessed contribution for 1998, the amount
it still owed represented 76 per cent of all unpaid regular budget assessments
at the end of 1998."
"Speaking for the European Union and associated States, Germany's
representative
said that non-payment, particularly by the major debtor, caused
difficulties in achieving efficiency and reform. As a permanent member of the
Security Council, the United States had a special responsibility. Its higher
assessment
was in accord with its capacity to pay, as determined by agreed- upon
criteria. The United States was also the sole beneficiary of a "ceiling", or
maximum level of contributions.Speaking for the European Union and associated
States,
Germany's representative said that non-payment, particularly by the
major debtor, caused difficulties in achieving efficiency and reform. As a
permanent member of the Security Council, the United States had a special
responsibility. Its higher assessment was in accord with its capacity to pay,
as determined by
agreed-upon
criteria. The United States was also the sole beneficiary of a "ceiling", or
maximum level of contributions."
The full text of the press release can be found at
http://www.un.org/plweb-cgi/idoc.pl?305+unix+_free_user_+www.un.org..80+
un+un+pr1999+pr1999++dues
The main UN page is at http://www.un.org/.
Enjoy,
> Tom Granvold wrote:
> "As the Committee resumed considering its agenda item on improving the
Its higher
> assessment was in accord with its capacity to pay, as determined by
http://www.un.org/plweb-cgi/idoc.pl?305+unix+_free_user_+www.un.org..80+
un+un+pr1999+pr1999++dues
> The main UN page is at http://www.un.org/.
> Nope, your friend has it wrong. The USA isn't paying its dues
> At 04:23 PM 5/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
<snip>
Not to argue the usefulness of the UN or the way the US is paying (or not)
it's dues, but the following quote struck me as being, well, odd.
> "Speaking for the European Union and associated States, Germany's
Hmm, so efficency and reform can only be introduced with an infusion of cash??
I thought efficiency was making the best use of what was available. Seems
bizarre, no?
> As a permanent member of the Security
Its higher
> assessment was in accord with its capacity to pay, as determined by
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> This leaves me with a question...If everyone is paying their dues, the
You've misunderstood the quote, I think:
> [the USA] had contributed an amount exceeding its assessed
In 1998, the US paid more than it's annual contribution.
They still owe money from _previous_ contributions.
Of the money owed to the UN from previous years, 76% of that is unpaid US
dues. The remaining 24% is other nation's unpaid dues. Probably nations
like Serbia, Congo/Zimbabwe, etc. Isn't it nice that the US is in such
august company?
In other words, the US has been shorting the UN for years. Being a bit more
generous in 1998 is nice, but they still owe the cash from all those previous
shortings!
> This leaves me with a question...If everyone is paying their dues, the
For the same reason we have a gradated income tax--"It's not fair that
they HAVE more, so let's make them PAY more."
> Not to argue the usefulness of the UN or the way the US is paying (or
Quite a few things the UN does are bizarre.
> Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 07:14:15 -0400
> >Not to argue the usefulness of the UN or the way the US is paying (or
I'm tempted to change that last comment from UN to US but that would be just
another can of worms..
Whatever the problems with the UN it seems to be the only organisation which
is accepted worldwide for things such as humanitarian aid and human rights
which seems to be areas most governments aren't very interested in. Its also
one of the few which isn't entirely focussed on one or two member states
goals.
Although I'm biased since I fly one of the UN's black helicopters.
(Oops..Nobody tell the secretary general!)
Joking aside, with regard to how the UN survived in the FT universe I suspect
it didn't survive the collapse of the US and general madness which would have
ensued. Its more likely it was reformed later as a new body just like what
happened to the old League of Nations. Its possible they may have some UN
colonies which support it too. Possibly admin centres which grew up into
colonies.
> On Sun, 2 May 1999 ngilsena@mail.indigo.ie wrote:
> Whatever the problems with the UN it seems to be the only
But the problem is that it's one of the only organizations that can do this
without engendering cries of "imperialism" or "interference in the sovereignty
of other nations". This would happen to most western nations (the only ones
truly capable of doing this sort of thing)
> Brian Burger wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
G'day Donald,
> Ok...How about this question then:
Or are
> their space forces (as of 2183) "borrowed" like their modern forces?
Can't give you dates on when UNSC got its fleet etc, but as to who owns it, in
my reading of the GZGverse the UN has a fleet of its own which is supplemented
in times of crisis (e.g. Kra'vak war), or during certain missions, with other
forces from other nations. For instance, in my
crack-pot timeline, the IAS not only supply the UN with personnel to
stick on UNSC ships, but also let the UNSC "borrow" their ships too (e.g. IAS
fleet would be part of a joint UNSC force out to get Kra'vak etc.). The IAS do
all this because they still need UNSC support and this is how they repay that,
this may not be true of other nations (especially the major powers).
At least that's my take on the UN in space.
Beth
> G'day Donald,
IAS
> fleet would be part of a joint UNSC force out to get Kra'vak etc.).
The IAS
> do all this because they still need UNSC support and this is how they
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable way of giving the UN a "punch" in
times of crisis. There is one article I remember reading in Ragnarok about the
UN in FT. It seemed to say that the UN originally was drawn from member
nations militaries but after a NAC captain divulged UN military secrets (pulse
torpedoes in this case) to the NAC it was decided to have its own organic
membership rather than draw them in from other militaries.
The idea of using minor nations uninvolved in local conflicts to police
hotspots seems perfectly reasonable. Oddly enough it has a parralell with the
Kosovo crisis as apparently Milosevic is said to be prepared to accept UN
peacekeepers from nations not involved with NATO like Ireland (I wasn't all
that sure he'd even heard of us).
> > Quite a few things the UN does are bizarre.
Hmm, for some reason that made me think of of Ken Macleod's wonderful
'The Star Faction' in which the US/UN is always referred to as a
single entity.
> Hmm, for some reason that made me think of of Ken Macleod's wonderful
Rob
The way I see the UN is that during the collapse, they actually "pacificed"
several key areas to restrict conflict. When everything stopped, they didn't
give them back. I tend to think of the UN being a minor nation with a nasty
fleet rather than the targets that we have now.
Slim
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 99-05-01 19:10:05 EDT, you write:
<< > Where do you get info on this? So I can read it too.
The radio, not exactly the most reliable source, but it is something I've
heard a few times over the past couple of years. >>
Check with the MUN co-ord at a high school, or goto the UN web page.
-Stephen