Hi all
For anyone who wants an interesting view of the UN (and of some US views on it
and China), Art of War (the new Wesley Snipes action flick) certainly presents
an interesting view of a UN that is in part effective due to its covert
intelligence and operations teams. I myself posit a similar capability in the
UN of 218x (otherwise it couldn't do what it does in the game history IMO).
This is another interesting look at a potential
justifier-style vision of the UN that helps explain how it might be the
entity that St.Jon^3 has described it as in the GZGverse future histories.
This movie was not the best I've ever seen, but it wasn't terrible.
<Disclaimer: I like action movies>. And for presenting the UN in an
interesting way, it gets the nod.
Everyone's heard of the UNDIA (a publicly known intelligence branch of the
UN).... but has anyone heard of the UNSIA? Darn few, and fewer still can (or
will) talk about it... <grin>
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.
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.
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.
> Last night Here in Aust a show called 'Foreign Correspondent' did a
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
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 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.
> I also thought it impressive
Unless they go in *before* the UN, and under somewhat more liberal rules of
engagement. As in East Timor recently.
(Anyone know of any other occasion in recent memory when a country of 20
million was willing to take on one of 180 million? No? OK, that proves it, we
*are* stupid barbarians. Of course, that reputation is useful sometimes.)
> Wasn't it Australia who was mixed up in the use of Sandline
Only peripherally. We intercepted the arms that were going to be used, as the
Government of the day rather disapproved of the whole concept. The ordnance
was disposed of as a public danger ( some of those 70mm rockets were actually
rusty... )
I believe it wasn't until late 20th century that mercenaries were considered
evil. But with the almost universal use of private security
forces (rent-a-cops) the reintroduction of mercenaries in conflicts is
not unexpected.
> I believe it wasn't until late 20th century that mercenaries were
The reputation of mercenaries has varied widely throughout history.
Landsknechts and 30-Year's war mercenaries had a particularly evil name
for plunder, rape, murder and wanton mayhem. In the 18th century more or less
all European were technically mercenaries and very strictly disciplined.
During the American Revolution Hessian Mercenaries got painted black by
American propaganda.
It's mainly due to the predominance of national armies and nationalistic
politics in the 19th and 20th century that (foreign) mercenaries
declined in importance and reputation. Non-foreign mercenaries are
called
professional soldiers instead - If you define a mercenary as somebody
who
is a full-time soldier (as opposed to a militiaman) and gets paid for it
(instead of being conscripted to the task).
No offense to any professional soldiers on the list intended.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On Thu, 31 August 2000, oldecoot@webtv.net wrote:
> I believe it wasn't until late 20th century that mercenaries were
No, mercenaries were considered "evil" throughout time. Some just less evil
than others. They were usually (with some exceptions) considered less reliable
and since they got paid better than local levies they were usually frowned
upon.
Note that modern First World mercenary forces supply weapons, training, NCOs
and officers. You don't get a lot of line troops in mercenary forces. Those
usually come from local people hired by the mercenaries. They get paid very
well by local standards, but nowhere near what the "advisors" get paid.
The reason the mercenaries worked in Sierra Leone was that they were guarding
a small defensible area, namely the diamond mines. They weren't trying to put
down the entire insurrection, just keep it away from the local area. I also
suspect there was a fair bit of bribery going on, too.
The mercenaries were ruthless and could shoot first. They had good firepower.
And they were willing to pass on some money to the "enemy" to stay away.
"Here, take this, keep away. If I see you around here, I'll shoot your head
off." It was easy to "keep the peace" in the local areas. The difference is
analogous to that of hiring a bodyguard or relying on the police.
> The reason the mercenaries worked in Sierra Leone was that they were
The difference is analogous to that of hiring a bodyguard or relying on the
police.
To add to this - they were willing to take casualties, and they were
very good.
A couple of years back, I attended a dinner-presentation at the Royal
Canadian Military Institute in Toronto (the after-dinner presentation
was by a former SAS member who was discussing in some detail SAS ops in the
Falklands - very interesting stuff - and as an aside, it was a wonderful
example of the way the world is changing to see as one of the main guests
at the head table sitting next to the SAS guy, a Ukranian Colonel -
former
member of Soviet Spetznaz who fought in Afghanistan - who was here in
Toronto attending a NATO staff course!).
Two of the guests were the South African military Atache to Canada and his
son, who was another S.African officer (attending McGill - doing a
Masters'). I had a long chat with the son, who was a paratroop Captain. Very
interesting guy, lots to say about how the S.African military operated against
the Cubans in Angola. Anyway, he was saying that a bunch of his buddies joined
Executive Outcomes when they mustered out of the military
after their national service. They were all ex-paras so had lots of
experience, and EO was paying well. Out of the four or five who joined
together, all but one were killed on contract.
Very dangerous, because EO isn't afraid of using force... They hire only
the best of the S.African army - lots of para vets and guys from the
Angolan conflict, and they also hired a whole bunch of black S.Africans
-
fighters from the ex-rebels/now-government ANC and etc. So when they
went to Sierra Lione, it was with a bunch of very well trained, veteran troops
who were well financed and well equipped.
The troubling thing about using mercenaries on this kind of operation is their
motivation, I think. EO was seriously motivated, because they negotiated for
control of diamond mines as their payment...
I saw an Executive Outcomes promotional video - it was funny, in a sick
kind of way. Tried to be very slick, with heroic sounding songs and video
footage of EO soldiers doing good deeds. Creepy.
Anyway - good food for SG scenarios...