NationStates Jolt Archive

The current government of the Federation of Jolter presents a particularly radical idea to enable UN members to drastically cut their military spending.

Jolter believes that the nations of the UN are in the UN because they wish for better relations with their worldly neighbours. It believes that with this preference for peace, there would also be a preference to cut the ammount of armaments they require.

This proposal hopes to allow each nation to cut their military spending, and instead pool the combined military power of the UN to produce a much more focussed defensive force.

While, technically speaking, the total military strength of UN nations will be reduced, the proposal below seeks to ensure that remaining defencive military strength becomes much more focussed, and defence of our nations becomes a truely international issue. The Federation of Jolter believes this will make up for any cuts in numbers, ensure more international cooperation, and make the world a safer place.

However, it is a radical idea that is anticipated to be opposed by nations preferring to keep full sovereignty over aspects such as their military.

Jolter hopes that the members of the UN will realise that war, and attacks on our members, are an international issue. An issue of grave importance. Not one that should never be faced alone.

----

Description: In the past, UN peacekeeping forces have relied on temporarily placed servicemen, recruited from existing world armies. This resolution will create a full time military organisation within the UN, known as the Full Time Peacekeeping Corps. The UN will directly fund, employ and militarily command all forces within the FTPC.

1) The FTPC will be funded through regular, yet small, monetary contributions and donations from member countries. The FTPC will also have the right to recruit members and personal, purchase equipment from, and station personal within UN member countries. Permanent defencive military centres may be constructed within UN member countries only with those member countries' permissions.

2) The FTPC will be controlled by a select council of UN appointed personal. They have the permission to mobilise FTPC forces under the following conditions:

i) To defend a UN member country if the victim of a 'first strike', through either an open politcal declaration of war, or though an open confrontation of conventional warfare with a known and certain aggressor.

ii) To enforce member countries' adherence of critical UN resolutions.

iii) To aid in quelling civil disturbance or crime within a member country's territories.

iv) To provide temporary added security to a location or series of locations within a UN member country, if requested by said country, and if agreed to be neccesary neccesary by the FTPC governing council.

v) Where the above four conditions are not met, the FTPC may be mobilised under other circumstances through majority vote of UN member country ambassadors to the UN.

3) The FTPC council's primary duty is to ensure speedy and efficient control, deployment and organisation of FTPC forces. However, should any singular FTPC decision ever conflict with the will of the UN, it can be reversed by majority vote of UN member country ambassadors to the UN.

4) While member countries will be permitted to keep their own armed forces, as a result of the FTPC providing the services usually performed by state military forces, this resolution also issues a requirement to UN member countries to reduce their military personal numbers and defence spending by 60% over the next ten years. Citizens becomming unemployed due to this measure will gain first priority in the recruitment of personal to the FTPC.

5) When the FTPC is immobilised, divisions, equipment and personal will be equally spread amongst UN member countries, in the interests of defence and deterrence to rogue nations. Specific numbers of stationed troops will be determined based on country size, population, and negotion between the FTPC council and the member countries.

The Federation of Jolter hopes that UN members will recognise this resolution will be a benefit to world security, by reducing national military numbers, and pooling the military resources of world powers into a single unified body, which, by definition, is a purely defencive entity (unless the conditions described in section two article v of this resolution are satisfied), dedicated to preserving the prosperity of UN member nations.

I don't think you're going to gain much support for this, to be honest. The pacifists won't be happy to be forced to spend money on troops; the militarists won't be happy that their capacity for war is reduced. Everybody will anticipate misuse of the force. Because of these concerns, the NSUN has never been involved in peacekeeping at all - let alone a centralised force.

i) To defend a UN member country if the victim of a 'first strike', through either an open politcal declaration of war, or though an open confrontation of conventional warfare with a known and certain aggressor.

Let's take WW2 as an example. Under this clause, the UN forces would be compelled to defend Poland against the Germans. Then the UN would be compelled to defend Germany and Italy against the British and French, then switch sides again as the war went against the Allies. In civil wars, the principal proper location of UN peacekeeping, they would have no idea what to do.

The NSUN has vast legislative power. We don't trust its consistency enough to grant it vast military power as well.

Good points! I hadn't considered that the possibility was there for a nation to end up spending more money towards military strength. Even though for that possibility to crop up, you'd need a country with close to no military whatsoever. But I'll assume that can happen.

The only comfort I could offer there is that it would be money given towards the goal of every country around you also cutting their military numbers. ;)

With militaristic people opposing this, that's expected. I can only see this appealing to those whose eyes are only on defence. Those who see military as a last resort. Whether that's enough to pass this, we'll have to wait and see!

Trust is an issue, yes. "Do I fund an army of this organisation?" The UN isn't a faceless organisation though: every decision in this FTPC could, in theory, be dictated by majority UN rule. That is, from the countries paying for these forces. While it's not the direct control a country may be used to, the control is still there.

I guess it's all about trade off. Do you want to keep controlling your military explicitly should you be attacked, or would you prefer the force of the UN to come to your aid instead?

Your WW2 example was nice. Though, I do wonder if a scenario like that would occur if an international force like this existed. Your example also seems to assume that all counties taking part are UN member countries. Forgive me if I interpreted that wrong. I suppose that in such a case, the UN would go to the aid of whoever was attacked first.

Though keep in mind that's not a neccesity. While such a situation would give this organisation the power and... not quite 'obligation', but close... to intervene, they wouldn't be compelled to, unless most of the UN said 'you have to'.

With civil wars, that's another good point. But to be honest, I'm not sure how to deal with your concern. With civil wars, I'd guess that everything is case by case. Do we take sides? Just defend those not involved? Stay neutral? You can't really invent a direct 'this is what we'll do!' policy without knowing what'd happen. With that in mind, I'd assume things would be are they as now. ;)

Thanks!

It is the view of His Majesty the King's Government that a UN-wide common defence force would be an imposition upon national sovereignty. As the United Nations is comprised of Member States, as well as Regional Alliances, with competing and often conflicting interests and ideologies, to raise and maintain a common defence force would often require a nation to be at war with itself, and would force the UN, a traditionally neutral body, to take sides in any conflict that were to arise. Wars, battles, and skirmishes take place regularly between UN Member States without the UN as a body taking note. The proposed Draft Resolution would force it to take note.

While war is an abominable prospect for any civilised nation, it can, will, and does happen far too often for this Draft Resolution to be practicable. The King's Government takes the position that issues relating to defence policy are best left to the Regional Alliances and, where possible, individual Member States themselves.

Ardchoille applauds the ideals that prompted this resolution and would even be prepared to contribute to the support of an International Brigade (nice ring to it, that, don't you think?), assuming we've got any money left after constantly shouting the house in the Strangers' Bar.

However, we couldn't vote for Section 2 (iii) as it stands. "Civil disturbance" is too broad a phrase. It could be anything from football hooliganism to justifiable revolt against an oppressive government (and how's that for a value-laden phrase, eh?).

Would you consider lowering your sights slightly and setting up, not an international military, but an international police force? A bunch who could MAKE squabbling nations put down their nasty guns and talk this over like rational beings, preferably at a specially convened conference at a neutral venue?

Trouble is, the MAKE part of it would imply having enough force to let the combatants know the UN means business ... Are there any Swiss NS players who could explain how their RW nation manages to keep itself both uncommitted and uninvaded?

The UN will directly fund, employ and militarily command all forces within the FTPC.

As of now, the UN has no funding scheme. Several proposals have been attemped, but none have yet been passed.

Are there any Swiss NS players who could explain how their RW nation manages to keep itself both uncommitted and uninvaded?

Having everybody's bank accounts and asking no questions about where the suspicious-looking gold came from, mostly.

Even though for that possibility to crop up, you'd need a country with close to no military whatsoever. But I'll assume that can happen.

Believe me, there are many such, including some of our closest allies.

The nation of Caesario strongly declines this proposal. As a small democratically pacifist nation it is our united belief that humanity should be pushing to remove threats of violence and war from the affairs of men and although it seems this too is the goal of the UN Peace Keepers we do not believe in its methods.

Creating another threat of force moves our modern progression in the wrong direction, justifying the use of arms to solve disputes instead of diplomatic negotiations. We feel establishing an army instead of a committee to secure peace is barbaric and terribly old fashioned. After 6000 years of civilization is this the best solution we can contrive: Fighting fire with fire?

Furthermore, the people of Caesario are against this resolution because it is an inefficient and inhumane conclusion to the seemingly never ending problem of war. Building another force to wage war only increases the likliness that wars will be fought. One who prepares for war, will fight a war.

Before The Republic of the Grand Dysreich can even give futher consideration to such a proposal we must know who will select this selected council and how long will it sit how many memebers will there be vetos more information please.

I'd really like to see this resolution get up, and yet I agree with Caesario in spirit. The League of Nations demanded a leap of faith from its members; they must have seen it as an incursion on their national sovereignty, but they went ahead. It must have been even harder to get the United Nations going, trying to build on the ruins of the previous organisation, but they did it, too. So maybe there are enough nations in NS who are willing to make that leap again, saying they will trust their survival to the UN.

Am I correct in thinking that the NS UN operates under the constraints of the RW UN? If not, of course, we could have UN pscientists, thaumaturges or what-have-you disable all weapons, obliging the belligerents to plead their case before the General Assembly. Or the UN could simply deny combatants access to the Web and keep it up until either their war or their economies collapsed ...

What sanctions, if any, does the NS UN have?

The Prime Minister restates the strong opposition of His Majesty the King's Government to this Draft Resolution, and discourages any Member State from supporting it on logistical grounds.

Ardchoille, in many aspects it is like the real UN except, most importantly, no nation states have veto power.