NationStates Jolt Archive

I am thinking of posting a proposal involving the following:
Please give me any feedback or concerns.

This is exactly what I posted on my region bulletin:

My proposal is for International Security.
I feel that an international organization stronger than interpol and etc. should be established. This organization should be strong enough to engage in medium to large conflicts (how about 10 million troops and personnel?) and backed by the UN. All UN nations should be asked to send troops(not mandatory) according to their relative populations and a council of leaders should be created with 1 representative from each nation large or small. It should closely work with the UN and follow all resolutions including eliminating bioweapons(resolution "Elimination of Bio Weapons). Its main purpose would be to crack down on terrorism and other deeds deemed wrong by the UN.

This organization would drastically decrease terrorism and help to relieve small conflicts. It would also help protect small nations unable to protect themselves from injustices. All countries would have the same number of leadership representatives and therefore would be represented equally.

For clarification on my proposal..
The soldiers would be completely voluntary. Most if not all would be already in their national military. Most of these soldiers would be stationed in their home countries until conflict arose. The purpose of the proposal is almost completely restricted to small racial or religious injustices or UN resolution breaches and terrorism.

Most of the action will be against rogue terrorists or non UN nations. However, if any conflicts occured between UN nations, none of the soldiers from those countries would be allowed in the action.

I wish that plan would be made a resolution, I really like the idea :)

if you are thinking of a peace keeping force/international law enforcement organization on the par of Interpol, the government of East Islandia will support it with aid and possibly manpower.

But we think that the main problem with your suggestion is the fact that many nations will be reluctant to send troops. OTherwise, we are interested in your suggestion.

East Islandian Politburo

I understand that nations will be reluctant to send troops. Any suggestions to fix that?

I think that if a nation doesn't send the troops asked, they should not be allowed to send a member of the council of leaders. Most countries will realize that without representation in such an important association, they will lose much ground to rival nations.

if you are thinking of a peace keeping force/international law enforcement organization on the par of Interpol, the government of East Islandia will support it with aid and possibly manpower.

But we think that the main problem with your suggestion is the fact that many nations will be reluctant to send troops. OTherwise, we are interested in your suggestion.

East Islandian Politburo

Just make everyone that votes 'yes' send troops.

I might vote for this, but I'd like to know how we're paying for it. We need a proposal to collect DUES fron nations. Not sure how it would be factored into the game, but it'd be nice to have anyway.

or perhaps you could give the nations choices to either 1) send troops, 2) provide extensive aid and money, or 3) not join. If it were something that could be passed as a resolution, then i can see how the UN could force its members into making either of the three choices.

If anything, however, East Islandia will stand behind any peacekeeping force, and we will commit our troops to any feasible operations.

However, there is another problem. The UNs operations in Serbia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, and SOmalia were all plagued by bad leadership; for example, when French peacekeepers surrendered to Serb forces, they were held hostage until French commandos acted against UN orders and retook their positions. (i may be wrong on that, but i think it is basically what happened).

Still, the most important part is having some form of bill passed, a bill that can leave weaker nations to opt out of this force but still contribute in some important way.

East Islandia Politburo

This organization will be much more structured than the UN. All nations will participate in decisions and operations will not commence until recon deems that we will have absolute control of the situation when we arrive. I believe that this organization will have the sheer numbers to avoid those situations.

Although in reality it is much more complicated than this, operations like Somalia will have a lot less chance of occuring.

still, if we do form a peacekeeping force on the scale that u suggest, i say that we have to also create an elite, rapid reaction unit that can be capable of deploying quickly and acting against the local warlords or agressors present in that area. However, if we move too drastically, it can undermine our credibility amongst the civilian population present. And we definitely need an abriged decision making proccess, one that may cut out representatives of many nations, but will be crucial for making drastic actions and deciding on the run in a hostile, free fire situation. After all, peacekeepers will be shot at, and they should be able to shoot bak without heavy regulations prohibiting retaliation.

That is a great idea and I will add that. In a rapid response situation, a much smaller council can be formed from previously elected candidates and black ops teams should be ready at all times.
However, I feel uncomfortable with such a large agency ever being truly "black ops". I feel that all actions should be revealed immediately after the incident.

or perhaps you could give the nations choices to either 1) send troops, 2) provide extensive aid and money, or 3) not join. If it were something that could be passed as a resolution, then i can see how the UN could force its members into making either of the three choices.

I kind of like that idea. You could make an Issue that asks if you want to send aid and money, send troops, or not join, but that will affect everyone, not just UN members. Is there any way to make an Issue for UN members only?

Perhaps we should get more nations in on this and get some more viewpoints and perspectives on how to better our project. Also, i think we should get more nations to support us.

will any other nations back this idea or have other suggestions?!?

Is this proposing forming an UN army?

Forming such a large army for the UN is alarming, indeed. While it can be reasonably argued that the need for a UN military presence exists, there is no need for such a large force. A UN military need only be large enough to safely enter a few areas of conflict simultaneously, so that, if the UN were to one day be controlled by those who would abuse their power, this force could not be brought to bear on member nations for purposes outside the original intent. That being said, deployment of UN forces should carry with it the threat of mobilization by member nations if the situation continues.

Our nation is not opposed to the principle of such a proposal, but will not be able to back the creation of the UN as a military power.

we dont believe that OUraneous is championing the formation of a UN army, only that of standing forces for the UN, forces which can be augmented by other nations' troops when needed. These forces will hopefully lend credibility to hunting down terrorists and criminals, as well as establishing order in war torn countries. In addition, they will have a rapid action element in order to act against warlords or human rights abusers in the area of their jurisdiction during a peacekeeping operation.

I do not propose a formation of a large UN army. I would refer to it more as a task force. It is used mostly for defense, recon, and response to all major breaches of UN regulations. It will be mostly on reserve and will only be called upon when it is necessary.

Philosophically, I believe we are on the same page. Ten million men, however, seems excessive to the people of my country. It is this figure that sounded the alarm bells within our borders, as we do not want to see a force large enough to overrun a member state. It is a balancing act, large enough to effectively bring order in areas where it is legitimately applied, but small enough not to threaten to bring order illegitimately in member or non-member states.

We believe the best way to accomplish this is to have a "token" force, unable to take and hold large tracts of ground as a full-scale combatant, though large enough not to unduly endanger those volunteers who are deployed, yet with the backing of the "regular" militaries of member states, to keep their presence from being viewed as a mere nuisance by warring factions/dictators/etc.

I have proposed something slightly different: United Security Provisions Act

I suggest a UN Warmaking Force.

we're never gonna do this idea will we?
i kinda dug it up from the past.

The people of the The United Socialist States of Cannibal penguins, Do not agree, we feel it could be used as on offencive force to our nation.
We will not support this proposal....

I am thinking of posting a proposal involving the following:
Please give me any feedback or concerns.

This is exactly what I posted on my region bulletin:

My proposal is for International Security.
I feel that an international organization stronger than interpol and etc. should be established. This organization should be strong enough to engage in medium to large conflicts (how about 10 million troops and personnel?) and backed by the UN. All UN nations should be asked to send troops(not mandatory) according to their relative populations and a council of leaders should be created with 1 representative from each nation large or small. It should closely work with the UN and follow all resolutions including eliminating bioweapons(resolution "Elimination of Bio Weapons). Its main purpose would be to crack down on terrorism and other deeds deemed wrong by the UN.

This organization would drastically decrease terrorism and help to relieve small conflicts. It would also help protect small nations unable to protect themselves from injustices. All countries would have the same number of leadership representatives and therefore would be represented equally.

For clarification on my proposal..
The soldiers would be completely voluntary. Most if not all would be already in their national military. Most of these soldiers would be stationed in their home countries until conflict arose. The purpose of the proposal is almost completely restricted to small racial or religious injustices or UN resolution breaches and terrorism.

Most of the action will be against rogue terrorists or non UN nations. However, if any conflicts occured between UN nations, none of the soldiers from those countries would be allowed in the action.

First of all this resolution should be broken in parts. Anyone approving the resolution completely would probably not have read it carefully. And too, this form this resolution would have such an impact that I think overwhelming isn't strong enough.

and a council of leaders should be created with 1 representative from each nation large or small. It should closely work with the UN and follow all resolutions including eliminating bioweapons(resolution "Elimination of Bio Weapons).
so you are suggesting a completely new governing body for the UN soly in charge of the army, which has the order to work together with the UN, but seems to be not under its command. But on the other hand has exactly the same make up? Grin, except for the security counsil, which sole purpose was to be able to act quicker because all nations together where just to slow to reach a decision to be able to quickly intervene? In other words making it fail at its primary task of fast intervention :P. That seems to me like creating a very large amount of addiotional burocrats with hardly any gain, maybe even counter productive. (I should check how the burocracy is in your country ;) )

It should closely work with the UN and follow all resolutions including eliminating bioweapons(resolution "Elimination of Bio Weapons).
It is that the governing body has exactly the same make up of the UN otherwise almost everbody gets pretty ichy knowing there is an army that has freedom to attack them if it perceves them as in voilation of something. Guess isreal is the first to go :P. No, at the current moment actual actions ask for additional resolutions. And that is not that strange. You see before a general is allowed to send his troops in an attack, the politicians kinda have to give approval first :P. Otherwise this army if it gets big enough might turn in to a miliary global hunta. Or was that your secret plan ;).

Its main purpose would be to crack down on terrorism and other deeds deemed wrong by the UN.

This organization would drastically decrease terrorism and help to relieve small conflicts.
I can assure you one thing it will not remove terrorism. No more than armies have been able to remove it internally. It will however be used by whom ever controls the UN to take out its enemies. Pleasant thought isn't :P. Any attempt to make that as effect is a completely unrealistic person who has been fed to much crap by some leaders and have been unable to spit it out. If you look closer to the the world I think you might up agreeing with me. Though I am not completely disagreeing with some politicians claim, it is just that they know what they are doing. And the effects are very indirect, and sometimes a bit different from what they claim.
Non the less it will be able to take out hostile governments. But grin, there is the catch, it seems that terrorists are no governments, they are small independ groups that have no land and hide between people. So having an army go after it would end up killing a lot of civilians and almost no terrorists.
But still, it would would be very successfull in take out governments that support the terrorists, but almost no nation uses that. They know it is a freaking ineffective way. And they are far to vulnerable to counter actions. KGB and CIA spies worked with a greet deal of deniability, so do governemt supported groups. And thank god the hacker attacks between chinese and americans is also not done by the governement. But the first group don't end up blowing needlessly killing civilians so not to urge the other nations militairy to action. And those support groups, well be happy. That is like a small limited skirmish warfare, which we are really glad because that means the nations haven't escaled it yet, because they decided full war was less desirable. And if it is done by private citizens it will not go away when you take the american or chinese governemt down, no it gets only worse. The real terrorist, those done on private initiative, don't worry about those. They will do just fine without government backing :P. They only need to support the people. Are you suggesting to give this army atomic bombs too, just to elimate there support ;) :P.

The purpose of the proposal is almost completely restricted to small racial or religious injustices or UN resolution breaches and terrorism.
Like what, the choice of a nation to have a state religeon? Better pass that resolution first that forbids that :P.

against Most of the action will be against rogue terrorists or non UN nations.
JOIN OR BE CONQUERED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Actually the legal idea of the UN, or originally the lague of nations, was that its power extents to its volutairy members. It cannot order nations around that are not members. Though technically ordering your troops to invade is not ordering the other nation around. But I doubt if a lot of people would be happy with this militairy dictatorship over the world.
Luckily almost everbody is a member, but some people feel a bit more secure knowing that they can withdraw. This was possible in the lague of nations, don't know the details of the UN though. Though at least someone can say outloud it withdraws and stops following its mandates without having to fear immidiate miliairy invasion. About the terrorist, I have said enough.

What I suggest is you cut it back to the formation of an UN army under UN army command which is already assembled so it can quicker response. He am I following IRL now ;).

Second what needs to be done seperatly is adding more missions to what un-peacekeepers are allowed to do. You see, the type of missions UN soldiers may follow is very limited at the moment. I think it is better to increase it resolution by resolution. For example going at war is not something peace keepers are allowed to do right now, though the UN can, I think, order nations to do a militairy intervention. Being allowed to invade nations is a serious influence increase of the UN.

Further a clearification (and seperation) of militairy functions and police functions should be clarified as well. Police functions are a scary thing. 10 milion policemen on your door step is a scary thing. Especially because policemen have frighting more rights than soldiers have. Resolutions like that turn the UN almost in a real government that has to power to intervere with you internal politics, probably arrest people and do all kinds of intresting things that ruin civil rights, just because the rest of the world agrees with it. To many police functions is mainly what changes the effect into overwhelming. Better clearify them and deal with them one by one :).

Actually I am thinking of what effect it exactly would have, and I have to say it is a tough one. Even just creating a fast respons army is difficult because it influences the UN, not the nations. I know you would like to say it makes a better and safer world but I think that is not how it actually is going to work. That is wishfull thinking, assuming the UN is the supreme symbol of justice, honor and ethics. It kinda increases the military strength and reduces the political freedom ior civil rights in the UN. You know to catch criminal nations.

You could assume this would work down to finally the citizens, though it is a far assumpution. So then it would reduce some form of political freedom in nations. The freedom to disagree with the world instead of just the nations government ;).

You could also assume that it reduces the amount of militairy strength of the nations. Which it would do if the army is large enough with you suggest. First of all, note that the soldiers would come out of nations armies. And second, in comparison. There is now a huge army (large enough to deal with small nations and medium conflicts) that poses an outside threat to nations, making there own armies comparative smaller.

If it had police functions it would afcourse reduces the civil rights of people in nations. You know, to crack down terrorists and stuff. This actually helps better than sending in soldiers :P. Huge buff of interpol. But it would quite reduce civil liberty. Because not only to government is on your back as criminal, the world is now too.
On one extend it would very much reduce it, especially as you can see in the world to the extent as citizens of other countries are treatend, compared to citizens of your own country. Mainly because we have in lots of countries lots of rules that protect our own citizens from police harassment, but there are non for people who fall between nations.
On the other hand the degrees of civil rights would be less, because the world is a big place, and those coppers can't be everywhere at once ;).

Anyways I hope will help you a bit.

I would say modify, seperate it, and go for it, see how far it goes. I am intrested in the results.

I think it cannot be done. Someone said the UN's place isn't to found organizations (that changes the game)

Actually the UN in IRL is a resolution making body, they can do what they like. Actually the UN in NS is a resolution making body to, except that any resolution will not affect the way the game works anymore than the effect it does. The talk around it is actually just for fun it seems, or maybe for a roleplaying element.

However then again I like to add, in the form of roleplaying, anything is possible again, even the breach of nature laws. (we are currently unable to breach ;) )

has any1 ever put the idea of a peacekeeping RP for the UN in NS?

Yeah, i'd be for a "peacekeeping force", just make it so.

I am curious here. Is all this talk about forming a UN Force have anything to do with an actual resolutions (it seemed so in the beginning, but the last few posts seem to contradict that)? If this has nothing to do with an actual resolution, why is it even in this forum?

If it does have to do with an actual resolution, while the idea is interesting, it is also clearly illegal since we cannot change the structure of the UN or make resolutions changing game-play.

FInally, even if NS did allow the creation of such a force, a large standing UN army is a danger to every sovereign nation. Few will countenance the existence of a force that could be used to invade their lands at the UN's whim or mayeb as the result of a very very close vote. In summation, either this idea is purely imaginary and shouldn't be here or it is fundamentally impractical and dangerous and should thus not be approved in any manner.

I think all post where about the resolution and how it should be made then.

There is a rule enforcment fixation I think.

You can add an effect. That is the rule enforcement. Just press the whole resolution in an effect :P.

I don't know if Role Play resolutions are allowed, though I think they should. It doesn't clot the system really much, and for the once that RP it might be fun. RP solutions would be those without any effect at all except a piece of text.

In fact having a resolution that makes embargo's and stuff, or NS militairy intervention is not bad at all. Just think a lot of people wouldn't know what to vote because of the size of the UN. Afcourse there will be no effect except for those that want to RP it.

To go back to the resolution. Sure why not write down you create a peace keeping force. Its effect will be zero or hard to devine. There would come no actual peace keeping force somewhere in the database. Except in a bit of text people can read and include in there RP.
hee, I understand people are RPi'ing war too. That is not part of the rules either.

About that I said it would create a secondary organ with its own voting system, that was just to describe the burocratic impact of the resolution. IYou could just use the standard UN rules to control it, grin the make up was practically the same anyway :P.