NationStates Jolt Archive

My proposal for an International Peacekeeping force:


Description: As I see all these threats against the United Nations happen, I have a proposal. An International Peacekeeping force.

This is how it would work:

Every nation of the United Nations, is the wanted to, would donate 1/50th of their army minimum, and if there is an emergency, all nations will have to donate their 1/50th of their armies. Of course, it'll be decided by a Security Council of the 10 most powerful nations, all democracies. The leader of this Peacekeeping force would either be the Security Council, the Secratary General, or it would be decided by election.

To the armies of those that are of nations that have just resigned from the UN, but are still in the peacekeeping force:

Your armies will be given back to you immediately, and you will be paid a small fee, but in order not to abuse this, you will only be paid once, and if you resign again, you will not be paid.

When will this force be deployed:

On three conditions. Number one, if any LEGITIMATE invasion is pulled off by a UN nation, they will be sent in to keep the peace, while the invader recovers. Number two, if any threat against the UN is made, and there is no option for peace, the peacekeeping force shall be sent and will force the opposing country/countries to surrender. The last reason is that if a UN nation is attacked by a none UN nation then it will be chosen whether the force should be sent or not by first five UN personnel that vote. Any UN member that attacks a UN member will be attacked by the force. This is my proposal.

This will not affect your economy.
Putting a piece of your army in is voluntary.
You will be awarded when you resign.
If you do put your army in here, and you lose some money, you must've had a huge army if you were able to donate.

May your nations prosper.

President Sergei Ilyanov of the Commonwealth of Rose.
United Nations Delegate of the New Roman Empire.

OOC: My first proposal. Wheee, if you hate it, don't flame me... after all I might improve it, but I think I covered everything.

Let us discuss this in an intelligent way with out vulgarity.

OOC: First topic ever posted wheeeeeee. Sorry if this was already passed, but I didnt see any resolution like this.

I bumpeth this topiceth.

OOC: First topic ever posted wheeeeeee. Sorry if this was already passed, but I didnt see any resolution like this.

There's a very good reason for that. No one wants to pass this kind of resolution. Time and time again someone decides that this would be a good idea, and then its up to the rest of the world to prove them wrong.

Speaking of which, ahem.

Every nation of the United Nations, is the wanted to, would donate 1/50th of their army minimum, and if there is an emergency, all nations will have to donate their 1/50th of their armies.
The fact that this is by volunteer basis undermines the entire focus of the resolution. I don't know many nations that are willing to send their sons and daughters to die for their own causes, let alone because some other nation decided to stick their nose into someone elses business. I'm not sure what you're expeecting, but an army of the six or seven warmongering UN nations isn't going to do much good.

Of course, it'll be decided by a Security Council of the 10 most powerful nations, all democracies. The leader of this Peacekeeping force would either be the Security Council, the Secratary General, or it would be decided by election.
How do you plan on deciding who the ten most powerful nations are? Is this military size? Population? Diplomatic power? Industrial capacity? Furthermore, why should the entire UN be accountable to less than one tenth of a percent of the UN as a whole? This Security Council is neither democratic nor representative of the full spectrum of governments. You even go so far as do discriminate against on-democracies! Hardly in the spirit of the United Nations, especially when we're all about peace and unity and respecting eachother's cultures.

To the armies of those that are of nations that have just resigned from the UN, but are still in the peacekeeping force: Your armies will be given back to you immediately, and you will be paid a small fee, but in order not to abuse this, you will only be paid once, and if you resign again, you will not be paid.
And this fee will be coming from where? The UN doesn't have an operating budget, and you don't specify a funding mechanism in the resolution. Basically, this money is going to come out of thin air, a lot like the volunteers submitting troops.

On three conditions. Number one, if any LEGITIMATE invasion is pulled off by a UN nation, they will be sent in to keep the peace, while the invader recovers.
Now I'm responsible for every other nation and their conquests? And how do we determine if an invasion is legimate or not? There is no standard, nor is there a body that has a final ruling. Furthermore, what justification is there for me sending my military to a far-off land to fight in a conflict that I didn't start and will gain nothing from?

Number two, if any threat against the UN is made, and there is no option for peace, the peacekeeping force shall be sent and will force the opposing country/countries to surrender.
Threat's are made against the UN, and they never come to fruition. Someone comes in, makes a post about how the UN is nothing more than a bunch of left-wing hippies, then declares war. You know what happens? Nothing at all. Within two days, no one remembers, and everything is normal. Why bring military action into this when current methods ensure peace?

The last reason is that if a UN nation is attacked by a none UN nation then it will be chosen whether the force should be sent or not by first five UN personnel that vote. Any UN member that attacks a UN member will be attacked by the force. This is my proposal.
So the fate of my nations lies in the first five yahoos to show up in the forum? I'm sorry, when it comes to putting lives on the line - especially the lives of my citizens - I need something a bit more scientific than that. Like a real reason, not some abitrary voting system open to anyone who can click a mouse.

It's a good proposal, to be sure...well, very detailed, at least. (I don't have time, just skimmed it, so can't say for sure ;) As they say, presentation is everything...). However, the current method for combating these anti-UN factions, the time-tested, tried-and-true, fail-safe method...is ignoring them. They can beg all they want, the Mods aren't going to take off the UN. Not even if they n00k the mods.

OOC: Oh geez, it was only a first draft, I plan to improve it @.@

I have mentioned it already, that this is a first draft. Also, I plan to improve on the 5 nation voting. And actually, I should eliminate the fund system. Also, how do you it will be judged by their country in general. And I do not say that I hate non-democracies, most of the people in my region are dictartorships, so why would I hate them? And would you rather decide who would be in the Council or let one man/woman choose? You tell me. But then again, if that man/woman was wise, I would let him/her choose. Of course, it's just me.

The fact that this is a draft doesn't excuse the errors. Your job as the author is to prove to the rest of the audience that the formation of a UN army under your terms is a good idea. My job as the hater-of-all-things is to ensure that bad legislation doesn't make it off the floor. Nothing personal, just my job.

Now, I understand that your intentions are good, but there are too many significant holes in this proposal to just sit back and say, "But its a draft!" You need to be proactive, come up with solutions to the problems that have been pointed out. Instead of buckling under pressure, prove you love this idea.

Yeehaw a chance to use my guns

I think the arguments raised by each side speak volumes about the kind of people who support this legislation. Those promoting peace and proper use of UN power are logical, articulate, and make an effort to ensure that policy follows the goals of the organization. Those favoring this resolution just want a chance to shoot something.

Interesting Proposal, however, how would we choose the most powerful nations. Power can be defined in so many ways that it is impossible to rank it. Like many other political situations, it looks great on paper; however, wouldn't people take advantage of it?

That's an argument that many people raise, Minas, and the answer is yes, people will take advantage of it. For that reason, we've suggested an amendment or twelve outlining a process to establish the Security Council in a way that is more fair to the United Nations. Something tells me not to be optimistic on this one, though.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Baureus is a relatively new nation. We are having our general election soon and that shall decide if we will join the UN peacekeeping force.

Currently, Baureus is ruled by a police force, so it is not too stable yet

Regards,
Henrik Polissik Thomsons,
Baureusian Police Force Head and President of the Republic of Baureus

Number one, if any LEGITIMATE invasion is pulled off by a UN nation, they will be sent in to keep the peace, while the invader recovers.

This is ridiculous. If nations are stupid enough to start wars when they can't deal with the cost of victory, it's hardly the UN's role to pay the price for their expansionism. Worse, we note that the true role of UN peacekeepers - that is, peacekeeping in ongoing conflict zones, generally in cases of civil war - is not accounted for at all.

Also, as we've mentioned on previous misguided ventures: 1/50th, or indeed any arbitrary proportion of a military force, is a deeply silly way of going about military contributions. You'd end up with a mismatched rag-tag bunch of forces, unused to working with each other, speaking different languages and using different arms and equipment. What if everybody decides to send infantry and nobody supplies any air support, armour or logistics? And, let's be honest, if you're compelled against your will to supply troops, you're not exactly going to be sending your best units. Even if proportions were worked out, the chain of command would be so disorganised they'd spend most of their time shooting each other by mistake.

In the unlikely event that a set of guidelines for a peacekeeping force that are acceptable to all are ever established, nations should contribute forces on a case-by-case and voluntary basis.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defensive Incapacitation, Aikido and Productive Dialogue

im not a big fan of roleplay. there is so much fun to had for real in NS. However, all this 1/50th of our army nonsense has got us thinking, the UN can band together and form an anti-raider army, that would keep the status quo in NS and protect the smaller, weaker regions who are Un members. This should be the role of the UN.
V4

We would be willing to contribute to a peacekeping force, even a peacemaking force.

While we in Upper Marzipania are strongly committed to the idea of peacekeeping, and would support a UN-based peacekeeping force, we cannot support this proposal.

Participation should be figured on a case-by-case basis with nations offering their support and participation, and the general assembly approving it. Having a portion, no matter how small, at the whim of a Security Council is no different than asking us to pay for a UN standing army which we would have no control over.


Skyhawk
Chief Minister,
Grand Funk Council,
Upper Marzipania