NationStates Jolt Archive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been observed that the World in which we live in is not a safe place anymore because of the growing threat of Terrorism, Ethnic Violence and Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism. It has also been observed that the majority of the UN members do not adhere to the voted Resolutions passed by the UN.

In this era of World History where nothing is safe and constant, the Global Carpathian Federation believes that the United Nation should have a United Force which would be able to enforce Resolutions and protect its members from renegade and violent forces. The absence of this FORCE has led to instability in the UN.

Therefore, guided by the Principle of Global Unity and Sovereignity, we propose the Creation of the United Nation Armed Forces, which would serve as the Grand Armyagainst threats to UN Stability and Peace.

This Resolution calls for all members of the United Nation to give to the United Nations 10% of all their Military Property and Resources.

Since it is imperative limits to the power and jurisdiction of the United Nations Armed Forces (UNAF) be set, this Resolution also calls for the Creation of the UNAF Grand Tribunal which will be composed of 15 elected UN members which would serve as Chancellors for 3 months (in NS month). The Tribunal will be headed by the High Chancellor which would be elected by the Chancellors and would also serve for 3 months. If approved, election of the members of the UN Grand Tribunal will be held immediately. (We will use the FORUM for this)

The Laws governing the Employment and Deployment of the UN Grand Army will be drafted after the enactment of this Resolution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Approve this Resolution pending in the United Nations. Please pass the message to other Regional Delegates... This is for greater World Peace and Stability.

Let me see...

Give the UN 10% of our armies? That sounds suspiciously tax-like to me. And it certainly would be ineffective; you'd have a tangled mismatch of technologies, heirarchies, and so on, and every nation might decide to give you light infantry and leave you with no logistics, armour or air support. It would make much more sense for individual nations to temporarily contribute a more significant number of troops (a percentage is still a silly way of going about it) for a limited period of time, and rotate between 'em. Nations should also be able to withdraw their troops if they have a pressing need for them, or if they are to be sent into a conflict their government has involvement with or feels strongly opposed to.

The Laws governing the Employment and Deployment of the UN Grand Army will be drafted after the enactment of this Resolution.
Blank cheque, anyone?

In any case, we're not certain that we're comfortable with the basic idea of this, and doubt it'll enjoy widespread support.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defensive Incapacitation, Aikido and Productive Dialogue

It has been observed that the World in which we live in is not a safe place anymore because of the growing threat of Terrorism, Ethnic Violence and Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism. It has also been observed that the majority of the UN members do not adhere to the voted Resolutions passed by the UN.

"Fight the Axis of Evil" any-one, remember that? Hello?

In this era of World History where nothing is safe and constant, the Global Carpathian Federation believes that the United Nation should have a United Force which would be able to enforce Resolutions and protect its members from renegade and violent forces. The absence of this FORCE has led to instability in the UN.

The U.N. has instability? My gosh, you mean all those poor nations who dive into R.P.'s with no idea and get trashed?

Oh, and two words, I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon/s.

Therefore, guided by the Principle of Global Unity and Sovereignity, we propose the Creation of the United Nation Armed Forces, which would serve as the Grand Army against threats to UN Stability and Peace.

Global Sovereignty? Unity? Stability? Peace? I feel so warm and fuzzy.

This Resolution calls for all members of the United Nation to give to the United Nations 10% of all their Military Property and Resources.

A rose by any other name, is still a rose...

As is a tax.

Since it is imperative limits to the power and jurisdiction of the United Nations Armed Forces (UNAF) be set, this Resolution also calls for the Creation of the UNAF Grand Tribunal which will be composed of 15 elected UN members which would serve as Chancellors for 3 months (in NS month). The Tribunal will be headed by the High Chancellor which would be elected by the Chancellors and would also serve for 3 months. If approved, election of the members of the UN Grand Tribunal will be held immediately. (We will use the FORUM for this)

1) Your idea of a tribunal is nice, but won't work, requires game mechanics changes for best effectiveness.

2) You've in no way worked out how these people would be nominated, veto power, etc, etc, etc.

3) How the hell could the U.N. forum be an effective means of voting, hello, how do you plan to ballot count? Oh, and lets not forget non-existent security. You idiot.

The Laws governing the Employment and Deployment of the UN Grand Army will be drafted after the enactment of this Resolution.

No, enecting this proposal would be the UN Grand Waste of Time.

Please Approve this Resolution pending in the United Nations. Please pass the message to other Regional Delegates... This is for greater World Peace and Stability.

This is the bit where I scrunch up your proposal and set it on fire.

- The Rep of Komokom.

*claps*
That's brilliant! The most wonderful news I've ever seen from the UN ever! I hope it's passed, so the UN can kill itself by fighting the large number of member nations that don't adhere to the resolutions, and then forcing those nations to sell off their men to some global fascist organization!

Nothing that spectacular, all that would happen is your military spending variable would go up.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Schweitz will never agree to this proposal..
this plan is flawed and unfair aswells as going againt the prinicipal of the UN. My soldiers swear loyalty to their country only and have no interest in spreading the UN influence over the globs as what seems like a united imperialistic power..,

The Federation of Wetland is against this too for two reasons.
The first one is that we have no intention to squander our precious military resources to the UN. Furthermore Terrorism, Ethnic Violence and Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism are matters of law enforcement agencies and not a matter of the military.

Greetings to you, my fellow Comrades!

It is true that this resolution is leaning towards the violation of National Sovereignity. Nevertheless, we in the Federated States believe that it is imperative that the United Nations create its own Armed Forces. In the past few days, we have seen many non-member nations planning the destruction and the future elimination of the UN. If we are not to act decisively, we will one day find ourselves on the hands of rogue nations and tyrants. I would to repeat again that the UN Grand Army is an intervention and security force. It is not an Army amassed for conquest.

Many of the critics of the proposal cite that security problems should be addressed by the states themselves. To a point this is true, but now we live in a globalized community and we cannot live in the illusion that enemies can't cross national borders.

If this proposal fails to make quorum, then I believe that it should be again edited and reviewed in order to make it more acceptable especially to its critics.

We must act decisively! We must make this happen! This is your world and we only have one Earth. Let us protect it.


Lord Mikhail Romanov
Chancellor of the Realm
Theocracy of Great Carpathia

We are pacifists.

If this resolution comes to a vote, we will have no choice but to resign membership.

I doubt anything like this can get enough support anyway. The NS UN has always been a legal and bureaucratic organisation. All attempts to give it an expansionist mandate have failed.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

... and thank the Great Spirit for that :wink: . Look at the number of passed resolutions. Compare it to the number of failed proposals that fall off the list daily, weekly, monthly, yearly... it is amazing. Very few proposals have ever gotten enough support to making it to the General Assembly. The system here weeds out most of the garbage.

Nations should also be able to withdraw their troops if they have a pressing need for them, or if they are to be sent into a conflict their government has involvement with or feels strongly opposed to.

As he put it what if you need your military for an extreme emergency like someone just sent a nuke your way and you need what little is left of your military and what is gone. There are plenty of reasons for needing your military and this requires the freedom to take back what you have sent for the UN. I could have a big attack and need them back asap due to war and what will you do when i lose my capital? That is my point my nation will be destroyed before my force gets back.


Lawyer and Commander
Tzeneth Werman

Sorta reminds me of Episode II, and the Roman Empire.

Two very important civilizations have tried s*** like this and ended up becoming tyrannical empires that collapse under internal problems. What makes you think the UN would do any better?

Oh in case, by a miracle this resolution passes, what's 10% of 0? I need to know so that the peace-loving Vivelonites can make their military contribution. I should hate to accidentally send 15% of my disassembled army as opposed to 10%

Not one penny and one person will we ever give to a UN army, now or ever, and that is our final world. In fact so troubled are we that a UN army could become reailty we have respectfully withdrawn from the UN. We would like to wish the members of the UN well in all their endeavours.

WLP Central Committee (Left Communist Faction)
Albion Soviets

Nothing that spectacular, all that would happen is your military spending variable would go up.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Yes, Tactical Grace, we know, but its th moral of the thing.

Oh, I said moral...

:shock:

Excuse me, I feel so dirty...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

It would not be a bad idea to have a UN military, that way one country doesnt feel like they are militarily back an operation. Get a proportionate amount of troops from each nation. People will volunteer that are already in their nations armed forces that way they dont have to go through a basic training which can get expensive. Very good idea.

I hope it's passed, so the UN can kill itself by fighting the large number of member nations that don't adhere to the resolutions, and then forcing those nations to sell off their men to some global fascist organization!

You obviously don't know the rules. No UN member can not be adhereing to resolutions.

We are pacifists.

Do you have any armed forces? If not, then by my humble mathematics 10% of nothing is....well, nothing.

At any rate, the DSH is against this proposal. In our humble opinion, the UN should not be a military organisation, and the creation of a UN army is a step in the wrong direction. The defence of each UN member state should be primarily carried out through mutual defence pacts with regional partners

We do think that UN nations should be willing to participate in peacekeeping operations under a UN flag, but these should be authorised on a case-by-case basis.

But they could help with mild security or if an organization decides they want to attack the UN itself or if a UN Nation is in trouble, or to help distribute food and supplies to war stricken or weather stricken countries.

Again, I would like to point out that the UN Grand Army is an intervention , security and humanitarian force, not an expansionist one as many of you are saying.

UN Grand Army is in the jurisdiction of the United Nations Security Council and I would like to repeat that the UNSC can veto UNAF Tribunal resolutions.

The threat against the UN is growing. If you continue to stick to your short sighted view that the UN Grand Army will just be used for conquest by tyrannical leaders, then why do we have the UN leadership anyway when you see your elected "leaders" as tyrants?

Again, I would like to point out that the UN Grand Army is an intervention , security and humanitarian force, not an expansionist one as many of you are saying.

Fair enough, but no matter how strongly you say it is not an expanisionist force, nations WILL perceive it to be, especially those who have inclinations against the UN.

I do not think that a standing army is the solution here. I think that member states should have the opportunity to request UN intervention for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes, but there should not be a force for UN nations to rely upon to protect themselves instead of their own armed forces.

The ever vigilant yet charmingly peaceful nation of Berkylvania wishes to state it's complete and utter opposition to this resolution. While we agree that the world may be a dangerous place, we are unsure how creating what amounts to a World Police Force will make it any safer, particularly since this proposal is so vauge and nebulous on it's specifics.

The UN is a type of "gentleman's agreement" (with no disrespect meant to our esteemed female collegues). We abide by the laws enacted by the UN because we have said we will and because we believe that differences should be resolved in a peaceful matter through the UN. To give the UN a standing army of it's own is to adulterate the very reason it was created.

Additionally, as the esteemed speaker from Hirota pointed out, there is no way this will be perceived as anything other than an expansionist move on the part of the UN.

In short, there is nothing to "protect" or "destroy" concerning the UN, other than systematically wiping out all the nations that are members of it. How do you attack a way of thought or a general agreement? Any aggressive act upon a sovergn nation by another nation, be they a member of the UN or unaligned, must be considered as simply that and a correct response judged on a case by case basis. To institute a standing army for the UN is an unacceptable, unneeded and unwelcomed attack on individual national rights.

I think the UN would benefit from not having Moogi's military providing assistance. :shock:

I still will stand by my resolve that a UN Grand Army is essential for the advancement of the cause of Global unity, security and peace.

To those who support this proposal, I praise you for not being short sighted unlike the others here.....

I still will stand by my resolve that a UN Grand Army is essential for the advancement of the cause of Global unity, security and peace.

To those who support this proposal, I praise you for not being short sighted unlike the others here.....

To those who support this proposal, I praise you for not being short sighted unlike the others here.....

Now that is disappointing...for a start, I'm assuming since I do not agree with your proposal you assume that I am shortsighted, when in reality my points I raised, and other issues raised by other members were never considered by yourself nor responded to.

Secondly, if you are going to put a proposal out, you have to expect comments, opinions and observations. This is a debating body after all. :roll:

Thirdly, you'd have had a better chance of this getting somewhere if you had submitted it in draft format first, and seeked to balance the proposal against the concerns raised by Member States. That way it would receive a greater support from a broader range of members, and it might actually be a better proposal.

Instead you are going to refuse to listen to any alternative points of view, and simply assume your first effort needs no improvement.

This proposal might get through thanks to the silent majority, but the way you have tried to pass it is a perfect example of how it should not be done. Like I said, very disappointing. And incidentally, writing off all opinions as "shortsighted" is not the best way to lobby for votes.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Question: I thought proposing anything to do with a Security Council... was a major no-no? I seem to remember reading such... on one of the numerous "do-not" lists.

Another step, in the ultimate goal, of the One-Worlders to impose a UN dictatorship over ALL of humanity. They also recognize a side benefit... many nations will resign from the UN if this becomes a resolution. This will further their control of a corrupt, bloated, avarious UN.

Another step, in the ultimate goal, of the One-Worlders to impose a UN dictatorship over ALL of humanity.

Agreed, the UN is not a military body. international security should be a regional issue (OOC Example: NATO)
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Perhaps its worth noting that the mechanism to create a "UN army" already exists in the form of resolutions. I know, I know, its hard to understand on face, but bear with me. See, resolutions can do a lot of things. We're used to seeing them as legislation calling for the emuneration of certain rights, but thats not all they can do.

Depending on the body involved, they may call for or suggest of action, condemn an action, or require an action or impose sanctions on the part of the member states.

Lets pay specific attention to the whole "call for action" and "require an action" business. If someone wanted the UN to take military action, it would be a simple matter of posting a proposal that laid out the reasons why and the action requested, then letting democracy have its way. Sure, they'd face all sorts of hostility from people who see UN role play as something that occurs in a vacuum, but a group bent on expanding the idea of the UN into a truly global concept just might push things the other way.

And then we'd all have something to do with our spare time.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Assuming Laio includes Ecopoeia as part of the 'One World' conspiracy (sigh), we'd like to make it clear that not only do we oppose this proposal, we'd also be unaffected by it as we have no military.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs
The Corrupt, Bloated, Avarious (sic) One World Community of Ecopoeia

If my fellow members will not mind me breaking from protocol for a moment, i would like to propose an entirely different type of effective UN military force.
Rather than simply dragging away large swathes of other nations armies, the UN should be allowed to recruit the best of the best from around the world, indeed it may be allowed to TRAIN its own if there is a gap in the services. This force should be kept to a minimum size, but funded the the hilt, with no resources beig denied to them.
This UN Special Operations unit would be placed under the command of a trusted group of both retired and current military leaders who are loyal to the UN, and should then be allowed to function out of sioght, away from the prying eyes of the non-UN delegates.

but funded the the hilt, with no resources beig denied to them.

Where do these funds come from... :?:

This UN Special Operations unit would be placed under the command of a trusted group of both retired and current military leaders who are loyal to the UN

Who determines this "loyalty"... :?:

should then be allowed to function out of sioght

What do you have to hide... :?:

away from the prying eyes of the non-UN delegates.

What is a "non-UN delegate"... :?:

To clarify, non-Un delegates entails those who are not regional leaders: including myself!!!
The funds would be taken from all the donations made by nations to funds for poorer nations (perhaps slightly corrupting but this is the real world),
and the leaders of the group would be picked by the UN security council, in discussion with the General Secretary.
And what would it have to hide? Well it is a military group which could potentailly take action against UN nations which do not comply wth directives, so its workings should not be open to viewing by every nation on the earth, should it?

it would never work, it would be impossibe to communicate battle plans with all UN nations at once. Good idea but it would never work.

Perhaps its worth noting that the mechanism to create a "UN army" already exists in the form of resolutions. I know, I know, its hard to understand on face, but bear with me. See, resolutions can do a lot of things. We're used to seeing them as legislation calling for the emuneration of certain rights, but thats not all they can do.

Depending on the body involved, they may call for or suggest of action, condemn an action, or require an action or impose sanctions on the part of the member states.

Lets pay specific attention to the whole "call for action" and "require an action" business. If someone wanted the UN to take military action, it would be a simple matter of posting a proposal that laid out the reasons why and the action requested, then letting democracy have its way. Sure, they'd face all sorts of hostility from people who see UN role play as something that occurs in a vacuum, but a group bent on expanding the idea of the UN into a truly global concept just might push things the other way.

And then we'd all have something to do with our spare time.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

While Sophista makes a good point, I must draw attention to your quote,

Depending on the body involved, they may call for or suggest of action, condemn an action, or require an action or impose sanctions on the part of the member states.

Now, I am sure most people were drawn off to magically thoughts of white painted jeeps and tanks and helicopters, and troops in those little blue helmets, at check points, and patroling trouble spots and a much of a muchness on that theme, but I think when we look at the U.N. , Nation States and game mechanics, I see see two little words which define exactly what kind of body is deployed when its suggested by members to condem, sanction or engage in any such justice dispensing action,

Moderation Staff

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.