UN

I have to agree with Beth. Cannon history seems to indicate the UN is at least
partially independent and must hold a bit of territory (even if only for
research stations, military bases, and a few small enclaves) around human
space. And its obvious they've got enough teeth to prevent the big boys from
hashing it out in the Inner System.

I'd suggest the UN i) has ts own citizens ii) has its own sources of revenue
iii) receives donations (dues) from member states iv) has enough teeth to
patrol the Core very effectively and the inner colonies effectively enough v)
is limited by tacit agreement of the major powers from extending its power
into the Outer colonies though no doubt that is UN intention vi) acts by
diplomacy where it can, deterrence where it must, violence where nothing else
works vii) acts in the outer colonies by some diplomatic and humanitarian
extensions and by <it is suspected> covert action - intelligence
gathering and an operational capability
viii) might have some tech up their sleeve no one has seen yet - look at
their ships!;)

I suspect the UN has enough force to make any major player realize that
trying <insert activity> is a bad idea if the UN objects - maybe the
NAC, NSL and ESU could individually take out the UN, but they know not without
a mauling and that'd leave them prey to their other neighbours. Plus in a case
of one-bully, many bystanders the UN could go for help and get two or
three other powers to whack the crap out of the offender.

A structure like this would not allow the UN to mess with the outer colonies,
leaving the big boys and their smaller wannabees to settle who is the mui
macho hombre out in the fringes while the UN keeps the core worlds intact,
productive, and relatively peaceful. They're like the pressure cap that holds
things together and prevents the major powers from wrecking the Earth. This
can't be entirely done by an ineffectual organization with no resources of its
own.

YMMV.

Hi all,

My questions and comments are sprinkled in and among the words of Thomas

Barclay of the Clan Barclay below:

> I'd suggest the UN

So it is possible that many of the earth-locked have-not nations are not
so
earth-locked or have-not thanks to the UN.  Forgive me for asking, but
where is the canon UN HQ these days? Is it offworld? If this has not been
decided, may I suggest one of the ScanFed states? I don't have any particular
interest in where it is. This is just a curiosity thing. However, if UNHQ were
located on earth in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark, then its central location
relative to the major powers' traditional homelands

would seem to aid diplomacy. BTW does the UN own any earthly territory of its
own by this time? I do assume there are extraterrestrial possessions. Has
anyone assigned any of these on the 'pedia page?

> ii) has its own sources of revenue

Is there a comprehensive list of member states? Or do I smell a 'pedia project
that needs to be in the works? Are there any notables who are NOT members? Or
major powers who are delinquent members? Re: these donations,
has the UN of 2183+ devised a way of retrieving this tax on a regular
basis?

> iv) has enough teeth to patrol the Core very effectively and the

It is an odd relationship the UN has with the major powers. My guess is that
if the four major powers are still members of the UN (and it would be in

their best interests to be so) that the majority of the UN's funding comes
from these powers. The best way for them to limit the UN's expansion would be
to stay perpetually in delinquency. Which leads back to the question of
whether the UN has devised a way to deal with this.

> vi) acts by diplomacy where it can, deterrence where it must,

Is anyone working on the UN? I'd like to know the structure of the governing
body in 2183. Is there a Security Council? And if so, which powers have those
seats?

Bill

> At 10:49 AM 1/17/00 -0500, you wrote:

Looking over this list, the thought that occurs to me is this: what's the
difference between the UN and any other nation-state? If it has it's own
citizens, it has de facto sovereignty. Checking over the rest of the list the
UN seems just like every other nation in the GZG universe (or many nations
IRL). What makes it interesting is that an international organization has
(seemingly) gone from a forum of independant nations to being a nation in and
of itself. How long will it take for that nation to look out for it's own
interests, as opposed to the putative interests of its member states? Of
course, going by the "there are no good guys" rule we could say that this is
exactly what's going on. A Great Power claiming the moral high ground (working
for All Humanity) and cyniclly manipulating the diplomatic situation to
increase it's own power, at the expense if it's rivals... errr member states.
Hmmm, anyone else now suspicious of the
Kra'Vak incursion? Finally, GZG UN that I can believe in.  :-)

> I suspect the UN has enough force to make any major player realize that

Or, since there are no good guys, they are increasing their control over the
important centers of power in the Human Sphere, and the backwards colonials
can sod off, unless they can be used as a pretext for weaking the traditional
Great Powers.

> This can't be entirely done by an ineffectual organization with no

Well*that's* true.

> YMMV.

It sure does. :-)

Honestly, I don't believe in black helicopters.

Allan said:

My understanding is that the organizations maintain their structure and
composition based on the nation they are pulled from. So, Canadian
peacekeepers follow the standard Canadian TO&E. This makes a certain amount of
sense, as it's simpler to send whole units (at what level, I'm not sure, but I
think it's at the regimental level) to a war zone than to send bits and
pieces.

==> Correct. Though sometimes the force sent resembles bits and pieces. Other
times, there are very small units sent for special purposes (RCMP for
example...).

There must be a certain amount of negotiation, but typically for peacekeeping
it's almost entirely ground forces and logistic support for the ground forces.
There isn't a lot of air support, other than transport. I think it's up to the
forces involved as to what is sent.

==> Often times, the logistics of who can get a force to a site has a lot to
do with who is on the mission... and the UN can ask for things, but
governments and militaries provide what they can or will...

I know when the US forces were in Somalia they had helicopter support, but I
think that was based on standard US Army organization. Canada has sent Special
Forces units into war zones, as has the US. A lot depends on the mission and
the area. Typically it's the army, though, that shoulders the burden.

==> Canadian SF have operated all over the Balkans at various times. But when
our "mainforce" (if that isn't an oxymoron up here...) army units went, they
shipped APCs in to let them truck around in some protection.

Well, now that's a really good question. Typically units are deployed in their
own nationality groups, but upper echelons can belong to another nation. For
instance, in Rwanda a number of Belgian peacekeepers were slaughtered by local
forces. The commander in chief in Rwanda was a Canadian.

==> Tends to be that each commander operates under UN ROE _plus_ his own
either from home government or as a product of his own judgement. For example,
the Canadians in Horn of Africa have recently stopped going out on the roads
due to mine incidents.

It would depend, I think, on the quality of the troops. Professional troops,
like the Canadians, would listen to whomever was in charge.

==> Ah, but in charge of them! If the UN commander gave an order that their
commander did not feel he should follow, and it was important enough, they'd
probably either refuse the order stating grounds (like their own ROE) or
they'd do things slowly to give channels a chance to sort out the questionable
order. Some UN missions have been plagued by the commander not having much
real authority.

US troops tend to be the "big boy" in the area, and as such tend to be able to
say, "Hey, I'm here in Somalia. I'm in charge."

==> More particularly, "We won't serve under a non US commander" (well, we
might think about taking something akin to direction from a Brit or a Canuck,
but that's about it...)

In this case, it's not much of a problem. Where you get problems are with less
professional armies. I remember hearing of an incident where peacekeepers of a
nation I won't mention did not obey orders from Canadians in charge.

==> Fairly common by all accounts (one of my buddies trains Peacekeepers and
does follow up work for the CF and other forces trained by Canada). Lots of it
doesn't make the media...

About the worst that could happen to them is getting shipped out of the area,
as punishment is meted out by nation that supplied the forces. Again,
Canadians have been pretty professional about it. There was an incident in
Somalia that was covered up, where by a local was beaten to death after being
found inside the compound of the Canadian airborne regiment. When it finally
came to light the entire regiment was disbanded and the offenders were
imprisoned.

==> The dumb part being it was entirely forseeable --> I've yet to meet
anyone who knew members or the Airborne Regiment of the time who were
shocked... and as for what the military did, it punished those involved, NOT
those responsible (the difference being if you had a high rank, you
evaded....).

So, you're pretty much able to do anything you want. Maybe you might want a
reaction test involved, somewhere, when one nationality in your UN force is
activated to represent whether or not they take orders from another
nationality.

==> That would be fair. Or if you want to give UN players some different
situations - give each his own subset ROE which he operates by (perhaps
even some details hidden from the "commander" of record) and watch the fun!

> --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:

> US troops tend to be the "big boy" in the area, and

Unless it's NATO--the KFOR commander is an Italian, or
at least was most of the time I was there.

As someone pointed out, most of the views on the UN espoused in this
discussion have been non-canonical because the UN appears in canon, but
is not really described in any detail.

My own (equally non-canon) view is that the UN, in order to do what it
does in the canon histories, must have a fair amount of clout. In order to be
a viable entity, it needs economic freedom. In order to prevent conflicts that
weaken the overall international polity, the UN must have good intelligence
and covert operation capabilities.

Now, I would say the relationships/views wrt the UN may be summed up as
follows:

NAC - Generally in favor of the idea of international cooperation and
international peace and security, annoyed by disadvantageous rulings, and
sometimes slow to pay their dues as a way to leverage UN administartion into
cooperation. Uses the UN to help extricate itself
from ugly political messes sometimes or to act as a front-man for NAC
operations.

ESU - Tolerates the UN, while not actively in favour of it. Aware of the
benefits of stability, but not found of outside meddlers. Pays its dues
primarily so it can influence the course of events to prevent close scrutiny
of its internal policies and external activities as well as to be a thorn in
the side of the NAC. Never happy to have its human rights records publicly
lambasted.

FSE - Not terribly fond of the UN. Often subject to unpleasantly
accurate judgements regarding its human rights record or its methods of
conducting foreign policy. OTOH, finds the UN rather convenient for helping it
sort out colonial problems (since the FSE itself has a spotty diplomatic
record). Pays its dues and participates as much to keep an eye on the other
major players and to help prevent the UN paying too much attention to it as
for any other reason.

NSL - Ambivalent or cautiously favorable towards the UN. Well aware of
the benefits of a secure core for trade. Interested in some of the UNs
scientific advancements. Actively participates in UN operations, although
tends to be a difficult operational partner when forced to work with the FSE.

UN - Sometimes its own worst enemy. Has many directors and many
directorates. Has a pretty bang up covert operations and intelligence
gathering mechanism in UNSIA, an agency which does not exist and is staffed by
invisible men who use black VTOLs. Has some ideologs who want
to govern everything "for the good of man" and a few hard-edged realists
who just want to "keep the lid on". Has initatives in just about every
facet of human existence - governance, human rights, technology,
transportation, disaster relief, education, women's rights, animal rights,
environmental causes, etc. Has a military dedicated to peace enforcement in
the core areas and in trying its best to patrol the inner colonies. Outer
colonies and outposts are visited much more rarely, but are the province of
some black ops. Some ideologs in the UN are very careful to do things in an
officious but honourable way, while many pragmatic operators (and a lot of
ambitious bureaucrats) are willing to "do what it takes" to acheive their
ends. Providing both the protection from outside threats and the constraint of
internal animosities, but also providing the encroaching hand of a massive
paternalistic government, the UN is both the last best hope of humanity and
the boogeyman feared by anyone with a grain of independent spirit.

Many smaller nations support the UN because it gives them some sort of
cumulative voice, and because they get a chance to serve in prestigious
positions. The UN is a key to visibility and involvement for many of them. But
quite a few of them also have their own spotty records to cover up and try to
use their influence to move their own
self-interested agendas forward.

It's pretty much a mixed bag.... even the UN itself has a mix of honourable
men trying to save humanity and self interested civil servants out to exert
their control and authority for their own gain. The UN is (as most major
powers in the GZGverse) neither entirely heroic and laudable nor entirely
morally bankrupt and authoritarian in nature. It contains both the best and
worst intentions of humanity and perhaps also the best and worst
implementations of those intentions simultaneously.

G'day,

> My own (equally non-canon) view is that the UN, in order to do what it

Especially considering their kick a$$ ships!!!

> Many smaller nations support the UN because it gives them some sort of

I also see them using smaller nations on commission basis - e.g. IAS got
its homeworld as "payment" for doing exploration for the UN (i.e. got to keep
x% of what they explored for them).

Just my slant

> UN - Sometimes its own worst enemy. Has many directors and many

I think "UNBOSS" fits a little better than "UNSIA". No credit to me, it was
(to the best of my knowledge) invented by the GM of a Traveller

> As someone pointed out, most of the views on the UN espoused in this

The very name of the United Nations is an anagram for “Tainted Unions”. Mere
coincidence? I think not.

No, the UN has been an Illuminati tool since day one, precisely as crazed
militia groups have feared all along. Of course, they’ve all been afraid that
the UN was out to create a
one-world (or, in the Tuffleyverse one galaxy) government that would
crush individual liberties and personal freedoms.

Yeah, right.

Actually, the UN has been part of the infamous Illuminati program known as
Operation: Mindf**k. All along, the UN has been designed to make the idea of a
single unifying human government as unattractive as possible...even absurd.
The last thing that the Illuminati wants is such a powerful force of Order.

No, the Illuminati wants chaos, discord, and confusion...exactly what the
human race is best at.

So, as long as the Illuminati has any say in the matter, the UN is doomed to
be an ineffectual bureaucracy. And trust me on this: they’ll ALWAYS have a say
in the matter.

But at least they have really cool ships, right?

> The last thing that the Illuminati

Wait a minute; which of the illuminated conspiracies are we talking about
anyways? And the real question is, who'se pulling their strings?

> > The last thing that the Illuminati

I speak, of course, of the Ancient and Illuminati Seers of Bavaria....

http://www.users.voicenet.com/~johncrim/Bavaria.html

..whose pages are embarassingly out of date. The ship designs are from FTII,
and I haven't even written up the dreaded Illuminati Stealth System (based on
the Mimbari ECM system from the "Earthforce Sourcebook").

Maybe over the holidays.

Hey, I've also found the perfect figures to use for my Illuminati SGII troops!

http://www.geocities.com/gisby.geo/fw24.htm