Following Thomas' suggestion, I thought I'd start a separate UN thread.
A whole bunch of questions spring to mind...
UN Citizenship - particularly relevant if the UN has it's own armed
forces: how do they offer it, what does it mean (do you give up your original
citizenship, are you protected from obligatory military service in your home
state if you have UN status, etc), what are the political implications of it
(does creating a class of citizenship independent of the member nations not
turn the UN into a defacto "state" of its own, which means it would then have
the interests of a state... what was that quote: "States do not have friends
or enemies, only interests" or something like that)
UN Soldiery - if you have permanent standing forces under UN control,
who runs them, organizes them, pays them, and decides when and how they are
used? If the UN is pushed around by a security council made up of
representatives of the big powers - what are the chances that UN forces
will be truely impatial?
More globally - what exactly is the UN in 2183 anyway? If it is still
organized as it is now, beholden to the rich nations to get anything
done -
and we arm it and give it citizenship rights - does it not (perception
wise at the very least) simply become an extension of the will of those who
pay the bills. Various nations have complained about the UN on those grounds
for the last 40 or 50 years - that it only flexes it's muscles when
something happens that directly affects one of the rich member nations who
swing the most weight in the security council OR when the rich member nations
get guilted into doing something. IE: Intervention in Somalia because fears of
that region of Africa destabilizing, drawing surrounding countries into
turmoil and threatening the security of strategic shipping
routes, etc VS. non-intervention in Rwanda despite specific warnings
of planned genocide from the UN commander on the ground in the best position
to know what was going on (Rwanda having much less strategic value than the
North East coasts of Africa)...
Some suggestions:
UN Citizenship - it exists by treaty (all the participating nations
agree in a joint declaration at some point). If you gain UN citizenship, you
lose your status as a national of the country you are from, as long as you
maintain UN citizenship, which can be for life. By treaty you are accorded the
rights and status equivalent to a citizen of a state when you are
within that state's borders (ie, you don't have diplomatic immunity -
you have the same status as any other "foreigner" even if you were originally
from there) but you are not obliged to fulfil national obligations such as
compulsory military service. I imagine that UN citizenship would be
something given out relatively rarely - to UN soldiers, the soldier's
immediate families, UN diplomats and bureaucrats and their families, etc. The
UN would act strongly to prevent it's citizens from abuse when visiting
other nations - and possibly bearing a UN passport, even if not a UN
diplomatic passport, would get the bearer more respect in most places
(particularly places where the treatment of their own citizens is suspect but
equivalent treatment of UN people would bring sanctions, etc). Maybe
ALL UN citizens would be treated equivalent to diplomats - but I can't
imagine the various powers agreeing to this if you are talking large
numbers of rowdy off-duty soldiers. Then again, Canadian troops serving
on
UN duty get Canadian diplomatic status, I believe - so why not?
For the UN to be truely independant and neutral, it's own forces would have
to be outside the influence of the major powers - not just in strictly
military terms (ie threatening to withdraw a troop contingent 'cause the
contributing nation doesn't like how they're being used or thinks it should be
in command, etc), but economic ones. It would cost a LOT to maintain an
independant space fleet, let alone ground forces, their advanced weaponry and
the support infrastructure needed for this. Does the UN get it's income from
financial contributions from the major powers? If so, it is tied to those
purse strings. Half of what the UN does now is hamstrung by the fact that
countries like the US refuse to pay their assigned dues 'cause they don't like
the way the UN conducts its business. The US does have some grounds for their
complaint, in that the UN bureaucracy is notoriously bloated and inefficient,
but the UN also does have a habit of doing things that the US finds counter to
its national interest and thereby finds it distasteful to fund. In the end,
there is much fairness in the complaints of many of the "unaligned" states
that the UN security council (and thereby the real power of the UN) is simply
a tool of the rich nations who pay the bigger bills.
My vision of the UN in the future is that it by necessity will have
changed, or it will have ceased to exist - certainly it can't go on for
much longer the way it is now (basically bankrupt and with ever decreasing
credibility). I think the UN would have to become, at least in part, self
supporting. Maybe it is granted the power of taxation, and each state is
levied a fee or tax to be allowed to use UN services and keep up membership in
good standing. Maybe if a state doesn't pay its dues, there is an automatic
sanction process of some kind, that directly impacts a state's foreign trade.
Maybe there is an "international" system of licencing space travel (similar to
present day maritime trade) so that each starship must
have a "UN Licence" to cover basic safety standards, etc etc - with an
emphasis on commercial transports??? The UN collects its income from
tariffs on interstellar trade? Maybe there is a combination of all of
these things - "taxes" or membership fees, tariffs, etc. Maybe the UN
has
a couple of planets for itself - reserved by UN exploratory vessels and
ratified by treaty early in the exploration process, so that the UN can
have an actual economy of it's own generating income - and as Thomas
pointed out they would have a ready-made recruiting base with
population, industrial infrastructure, etc etc. These could be designated
"neutral"
places - kind of like Geneva - where meetings take place, etc. One
impact of that, of course, is related to the comment I made earlier about the
UN
taking on the trappings of Statehood - once it goes too far down that
road, it would have a very difficult time maintaining true neutrality, because
of the interests of state putting it in conflict with other states. You can
imagine the UN having to have a portion of its fleet stationed at its
"homeworld(s)" because it just busted heads in a fight between the IF and
(anybody else), and now the IF is on the warpath and threatening holy wrath
and virus bombs...
I was going to give some thoughts on the Security Council, but I've run out of
steam for today...
> I thought that
You think you ramble... I guess I owe $5.00 :-)
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> A whole bunch of questions spring to mind...
"States
> do not have friends or enemies, only interests" or something like
I think the UN has holdings that have a certain extraterritorial nature to
them. Perhaps arcologies, some areas in antarctica (if they aren't held by the
IAS), L5, maybe some on Luna, other Terra system holdings, and some stuff in
the inner colonies and the like. UN
citizens would tend to be mostly related to UN ventures - techs,
scientists, diplomats, beauracrats, service industries, consultants, soldiers,
doctors, etc. I think they would be drawn from two sources
- previous UN citizens, and offers made to members of other nation
states (brilliant scientists, soldiers, administrators). The lure would be
working for the UN, getting to play with state of the art toys, and maybe some
decently low taxation. A citizen of the UN could not longer be considered to
be a citizen of his country (that is to say, some countries allow dual
citizenship, some don't but in any case UN citizenship and service commitments
take precedence).
And yes, the UN is now a state. But I imagine it still gets money and recruits
a decent chunk of the security council and many of its diplomatic,
technological, and military personel from various member countries. It just
has more independence (having its own holdings and military and capital
assets). It still needs people like the NAC to back up real major operations,
and its role is still peacekeeping, peacemaking, expanding the quality of life
for the bulk of mankind, education, opposing human rights crimes, studying new
technologies, studying new life forms, representing mankind to other races,
protecting smaller countries from the larger, and leading any human conflict
against an external threat.
> UN Soldiery - if you have permanent standing forces under UN control,
Run by UN Peace Force Command under Chief Military Officer (like the head of
the joint chiefs). He'd be advised by UN advisors and also by advisors from
member countries on a rotating basis.
Paid for by the UN (from their own income) and from contributions.
Instructions are given to the CMO by the Secretary General who receives advise
from his various chief officers (CMO, Chief Operations Officer, Chief
Intelligence Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and the like). He also would
receive advise from the Secruity council on the deployment of forces, and
would ignore it at the peril of having members oppose him or of having them
fail to contribute to his efforts. If the need was great, he'd defy the
Security council, but only at a cost.
So, they aren't totally outside the realm of influence of the major powers,
but they aren't totally dependent on them either.
> More globally - what exactly is the UN in 2183 anyway? If it is still
It would, ergo this is not it. The GZG official history seems to suggest that
the UN has holdings and therefore a tax base. It also probably levies a tax on
member nations and on interstellar commerce and explorations. So the UN
probably has some money. Not enough to field a big enough army to rule
everyone, but big enough to take on any one major power, and maybe two if you
count tech advantages. If they get the world against them, they'd be toast,
but they can back down single bully nations.
Various nations have complained about the UN on those grounds
> for the last 40 or 50 years - that it only flexes it's muscles when
Well, I suspect the later part may still hold, at least as far as the outer
colonies. I suspect the UN polices the core with an iron fist, the inner
colonies with some regularity, and the outer colonies once and a while when it
can spare a ship or something really stinky or interesting occurs.
IE: Intervention in Somalia
> because fears of that region of Africa destabilizing, drawing
Hmmm. I think you'd be allowed dual citizenship. That way people don't have
the temptation to not give up their old citizenship.
By treaty you are accorded
> the rights and status equivalent to a citizen of a state when you are
Hmm. I think the UN does not have diplomatic immunity now.... UNLESS acting in
some sort of ambassadorial way. I think that some jobs mandate immunity, but
just travelling does not.
I imagine that UN citizenship would be
> something given out relatively rarely - to UN soldiers, the soldier's
Well, they'd only try to increase their population by adding smart, capable
people of the right mindset.
> The UN would act strongly to prevent it's citizens from abuse when
Maybe
> ALL UN citizens would be treated equivalent to diplomats - but I can't
I'm assuming the UN would be VERY strict in dealing with such liberties.
Then again, Canadian troops serving on
> UN duty get Canadian diplomatic status, I believe - so why not?
Exactly. And some nations won't respect this. Same as today.
> For the UN to be truely independant and neutral, it's own forces would
I'd guess some. Say 50%.
If so, it is
> tied to those purse strings. Half of what the UN does now is
But the UN could (in the future) control the gates to space from Terra so
therefore there is a REAL economic incentive to pay your bills promptly or be
embargoed.
I assume they get 50% from member nations, 20% from their tax base, 5% from
contributions, 10% from corporate donations (in exchange for certain rights to
selective exploitation of some resources, or in exchange for UN support in
trade dealings), and a further 15% from investments and other money making
banking ventures.
The US does
> have some grounds for their complaint, in that the UN bureaucracy is
Sure. And this won't totally change. But if they hold the keys to space in the
core sectors, and entertain the support of the other power blocks....
In the end, there is much fairness in the
> complaints of many of the "unaligned" states that the UN security
Note that in order to obtain the level of success of the 2183 UN, we must
posit the following: 1) Better management 2) independent Income and
Citizenship and holdings where people could live 3) Good relations with member
powers and impartiality 4) Good scientific support and technical support 5)
Good intelligence gathering through the UNSIA (UN Special Intelligence Agency)
6) Good diplomacy skills 7) Good spec ops capability to back most of this up
subtly
> My vision of the UN in the future is that it by necessity will have
Well, I'd say you are a little harsh. It has done (even lately) a lot of good
in a lot of places.
I think the UN would have to become, at least in part, self
> supporting. Maybe it is granted the power of taxation, and each state
Makes sense. Sort of what I figured.
Maybe there is an "international" system of licencing space
> travel (similar to present day maritime trade) so that each starship
Oh, you mean the garden planet New Geneva (location to be determined once
Winchell decides if the whole of known space needs realigned to position the
NSL in line of the KraVak advance from the core)?
where meetings take place, etc. One impact
> of that, of course, is related to the comment I made earlier about the
I don't entirely disagree, but in this case their mandate is far broader.
Federal and provincial and Federal and State governments coexist. Think of it
that way in part. It isn't like the UN is a totally external body, it is just
the Human Federal government.
You can
> imagine the UN having to have a portion of its fleet stationed at its
Yep. And quietly its spec ops, intel guys, and diplomats are hard at work
defusing the situation and lining up contingency plans to kick butt and take
names....
> I was going to give some thoughts on the Security Council, but I've
Wish I could say the same:)
/************************************************
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
"States
> > do not have friends or enemies, only interests" or something like
the oceans. 70% of the world is ocean, and most of that is outside territorial
waters. there is plenty of room to settle the continental shelves and build
floating settlements ('thalassarcologies'). think seaquest dsv! the first
millenial foundation (nutters on the web) have a
master plan called 'aquarius rising' to build some sort of ill-defined
colonies at sea. the plan then leads on to the colonisation of space. i don't
entirely understand it myself.
> Oh, you mean the garden planet New Geneva (location to be determined
what ever happened to the PAU? the first sighting of the kv inside human space
was in pau territory, as detailed in an MT microstory. surely the pau should
be first in the line of fire? perhaps there is a small tongue of pau territory
just outside the bulk of the nsl space.
Tom