Fix the UN!

[Seggybop]

We all know the UN is currently worthless. There should be no dispute about that.

What would you do to desuckify it? Is the desuckification even possible? v_v

[Joe]

Wipe it from existence.

[Knife]

Wipe it from existence.

-Wipe them out. All of them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Eliminate it. Replace some of its functions with non-affiliated NGOs and regional forums.

[Stofsk]

The L20 idea promises to be more effective than an organisation that is paralysed with the use of Vetos for 5 permanent members. The L20 would do well to steer clear of such a stupid idea.

[Stormbringer]

What would you do to desuckify it? Is the desuckification even possible? v_v

It quite frankly is not possible. The problem is the UN is by it's very nature toothless with out nations voluntarily doing the grunt work and as soon as it's not it becomes a serious threat. And then it's ripped apart.

[SPOOFE]

People once thought the League of Nations would be the end-all, be-all to the world's problems.

Problem: It didn't uphold its own charter. So it disappeared. And the world wasn't worse off without it.

In my opinion, of course.

[Vympel]

We all know the UN is currently worthless. There should be no dispute about that.

I dispute it. Why is it that everyone focuses on the UN's worth only in terms of whenever there's some sort of huge, headline grabbing regional crisis, like the one the US outright manfucatured with Iraq last year? Many UN organizations are working their butts off with virtually no public recognition for years in all kinds of shit-holes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are they strictly necessary as part of the UN? The disgustingly pretensious idea of this group setting international law on nations is what's undesirable. Treaties do that just fine.

As for those organizations, they should be non-affiliated NGOs, like I said.

[Vympel]

The disgustingly pretensious idea of this group setting international law on nations is what's undesirable. Treaties do that just fine.

Well, nothing the UN does is binding on anyone. That's the countries own fault.

Are they strictly necessary as part of the UN?. As for those organizations, they should be non-affiliated NGOs, like I said.

No- I'm sure you could remove the UN Security Council/General Assembly "collective security" functions and just have an organization dedicated to humanitarian work and some such ... but will nations contribute funds?

[Illuminatus Primus]

No- I'm sure you could remove the UN Security Council/General Assembly "collective security" functions and just have an organization dedicated to humanitarian work and some such ... but will nations contribute funds?

I don't see why foreign aid of all types and forms would cease with the UN's demise.

[Coyote]

Actually I think Vympel's in the right track. The UN's best track record is acting as a coordination agency for a impresive number of worldwide relief efforts and medical missions that largely go unnoticed because they are not sexy or have enough explosions.

The UN's primary failure is in the very obvious realm of "Peacekeeping". Anything having to do with exerting force of will on another nation or group the UN has a very hard time of it because of the "herding of cats" nature of the member countries.

The UN should either admit that it cannot handle this function and remove it from the charter, or, if the nations of the world are serious about having the UN "do something about the situation" when something like Darfur or Rwanda crop up, then they need to give the UN a standing military force and right sto intervene in conflicts that meet certain criteria...

...and/or allow for a budget for the hiring of mercenary companies like "Executice Outcomes" to do the dirty work for them.

[Stofsk]

The UN's primary failure is in the very obvious realm of "Peacekeeping".

I think one of the problems is the RoE that Peacekeepers often get handcuffed with: the whole "You must only fire when fired upon!" thing. As I recall, that was one of the failings of the Somalia situation. In contrast, Australians in East Timor were given broader RoE, to the effect that if an Aussie soldier saw a militiaman aim at someone else ie the militiaman wasn't targeting the soldier, then that soldier was allowed and obligated to use force on the militiaman.

I'm not saying this will automatically solve the Peacekeeping problem, but it would be big start. If you put soldiers on the ground, you can't put them on a leash. Not a tight leash, at any rate.

...and/or allow for a budget for the hiring of mercenary companies like "Executice Outcomes" to do the dirty work for them.

Mercenaries are bad, mmmkay.

No, I don't believe that. It's just irritating to hear. Of course hiring mercs may be better than relying on a 'quota' from countires who have conscript armies. But there is a real stigma in using mercs, even if they're really just professional soldiers who fight for money.

[Coyote]

No, I don't believe that. It's just irritating to hear. Of course hiring mercs may be better than relying on a 'quota' from countires who have conscript armies. But there is a real stigma in using mercs, even if they're really just professional soldiers who fight for money.

Very true-- I understand that Sandline International, the parent corporation of EO, was hired to deal with the situation in... Ivory Coast, was it..? A few years ago. They had the place wrapped up tight in five months, under budget.

The UN gets called into brutal areas where "civilized" methods of dealing with armed conflict only leave people open for brutality-- and leave guerrillas with the impression that the world is only half-assed about its commitments.

EO is a company made up of former South African Defense Forces, mostly their special ops and other combat field troops. Not like "man-in-the-street" merc companies that hire through muscle-bound adventure mags for untrained young men looking for "adventure and exceitement".

Merc companies exist that are respectable. These companies should be vetted by the UN and kept on call. That way, concerned nations can fork over cash or equipment and not have to get their hands dirty... or bloody.

Mercs signing a UN contract would have to agree to certain rules of engagement and standards of conduct for prisoners, but otherwise let them adapt their techniques to the situation...

A UN "foreign legion" (based on the French model perhaps) would also be appropriate. Not too big to actually threaten any nation's sovereignty-- and smaller, poorer nations could offer to host bases in exchange for protection-- so the host nation gets a small rent subsidy and they don't have to pay for costly defense forces and (theoretically) divert more money to social needs.

UN battalion Combat Engineers could also lend a hand in building up infrastructure (roads, etc) in host nations.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Well I don't know, maybe someday we would see an unassuming politican who, through deceitful political maneuver, eventually rise to the position of United Nation's General Secretary, establishing New Order, crowning himself Emperor, then start building Star Destroyers....

[Gustav32Vasa]

Remove the veto's.

[Andrew J.]

The UN needs its own military, one which doesn't have to answer to any one country.

Member nations pay dues to the UN, right? Maybe they should start paying the UN in soldiers, too.

[Stofsk]

The UN needs its own military, one which doesn't have to answer to any one country.

Member nations pay dues to the UN, right? Maybe they should start paying the UN in soldiers, too.

No. Using mercenary companies is the best bet. Forcing a 'quota' isn't really a solution, and who would volunteer to serve the UN ahead of their own country, unless they were already private soldiers?

[Coyote]

Merc companies or a small standing army of volunteers. Or a mix of both. Volunteers would have to sign a contract for a certain period of years, because lets face it, for some third world recruits they'll need to be taught some basic literacy before they can move into other skills.

In an ideal world, the UN could sign a person up to be a soldier-- in the case of a Third World person, they'd be given a crash language course and basic training, maybe a year on their contract. THey'd get decent pay, guaranteed food and housing and shelter-- for someone from. say, the Sudan it would be a ticket to a better life.

Recruits from Western countries and recruits from poor countries would be rubbing elbows and find out they're different but not intolerably so.

Probably weapons systems would be Russian-- they are simple and rugged, and cheaper to maintain, and don't require the high degree of specialized training that Western technological systems do. The Russians could use the cash, too. They'd get a discount on their UN dues for the value of the equipment provided.

Bases could be had in a few small countries that could rely on the prescence of a UN division to guarantee security. A country like, say, Senegal could then divert needed funds to social programs.

When a regional conflict erupted, the UN would be able to get boots on the ground within a couple days. Follow-on divisions from other member nations could arrive later.

That's an ideal world.

In truth it would bog down to bickering, the funds would get misappropriated, tinpot dictators would try to use the UN troops to prop up coups or juntas, there'd be rampant drug use and red-light districts near base towns, countries that promise to deliver spare parts and fuel or ammo will dither and demand more money... the scandals would feed the media for decades.

And no one would be able to even agree on a common language to begin with.

No... if people could get along well enough to make a multi-cultural / multi-national military integrate enough to achieve operational competence, then we wouldn't need a force like that in the beginning. We'd all already be best pals.

[frigidmagi]

Member nations pay dues to the UN, right? Maybe they should start paying the UN in soldiers, too.

Expect we volunteered to be American troops, not UN troops. I would not serve has a UN peacekeeper and neither would a vast majority of my fellows.

I do think Coyote's idea a good one, but who decides the deployment of the UN troops? The security counsil? The Securitary General? Can it be vetoed?

[MKSheppard]

What would you do to desuckify it? Is the desuckification even possible? v_v

Expel every fucking Turd World Nation.

[DocHorror]

Are Mercs covered by the Geneva Convention? I know most of the hairy place about the world don't give a shit about it anyway, but whats the story?

[Enforcer Talen]

withdraw and start a new organization that abides by the un charter. no police states need apply.

[Stormbringer]

withdraw and start a new organization that abides by the un charter. no police states need apply.

Which would work if the UN's problems weren't inherent to the system as setup in the charter.

[Knife]

Are Mercs covered by the Geneva Convention? I know most of the hairy place about the world don't give a shit about it anyway, but whats the story?

Not sure, but I would imagine that as long as they are uniformed, they would fall under regular troops of what ever faction they were fighting for and thus be under the protection of the Conventions. But they'd have to follow the rules too.

All in all, the UN couldn't do anything militarily on its own. Even if it had mercs, it would need a shit load of them for alot of the missions the UN would like to take on. The UN having a large mercenary military would be a threat to many a nation. Destructive politics to follow.