Found this article on today's NYT edition. Given some discussion surrounding SR's UN Peacekeepers, I thought it might be of interest to some.
| QUOTE |
| U.N. Forces Using Tougher Tactics to Secure Peace By MARC LACEY Published: May 23, 2005 NAIROBI, Kenya, May 22 - The United Nations, burdened by its inability to stave off the mass killings in Rwanda in 1994 and by failed missions in Bosnia and Somalia, is allowing its peacekeepers to mount some of the most aggressive operations in its history. The change has been evolving over the last decade, as the Security Council has adopted the notion of "robust peacekeeping" and rejected the idea that the mere presence of blue-helmeted soldiers on the ground helps quell combat. It is most obvious in Congo, which commands by far the largest deployment of United Nations troops in the world. Peacekeepers in armored personnel carriers, facing enemy sniper attacks as they lumber through rugged dirt paths in the eastern Ituri region, are returning fire. Attack helicopters swoop down over the trees in search of tribal fighters. And peacekeepers are surrounding villages in militia strongholds and searching hut by hut for guns. "The ghost of Rwanda lies very heavily over how the U.N. and the Security Council have chosen to deal with Ituri," said David Harland, a top official at the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York. A turning point came in 2000 after rebels in Sierra Leone killed some peacekeepers and took hundreds more hostage. The United Nations commissioned a review, headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, a former foreign minister of Algeria, which called for troops to be deployed more rapidly in peace enforcement operations. "No amount of good intentions can substitute for the fundamental ability to project credible force," the so-called Brahimi Report said. Recently a commander in eastern Congo, a Bangladeshi colonel named Hussain Mahmud Choudhury, pointed at a huge map in his office in Bunia, the regional capital, to show a reporter where his troops had been chasing the militias. "Here, here, here," he said, banging on the map. "If we hear they are somewhere, we move in," he said. "We don't get them all the time, but they have to run. Their morale is shattered, and from a military point of view, that is everything." The peacekeepers in Haiti, as well, are using Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows them to protect their soldiers or innocent civilians by using force. Peace missions in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Burundi and Ivory Coast - each with its own rules of engagement - have also moved well beyond the traditional notion of peacekeeping in which blue helmets occupy a neutral zone between former combatants. But nowhere do war and peace seem as cloudy as in Congo, where peacekeepers received a beefed-up mandate from the Security Council in 2003 - and where at least one human rights group has complained of civilian casualties. "The trend over the last decade is that you deal with many factions, factions that don't always have a political agenda and that are not always committed to peace," said Margaret Carey, an Africa specialist at the United Nations' peacekeeping office. "Ituri is an extreme example." The operation in Congo began as a modest observer mission in 1999. It has mushroomed, now commanding 16,500 soldiers - but is still regarded as understaffed by United Nations officials in New York. After the failed missions of the 1990's, Western countries began contributing significantly fewer troops overseas. In 1998, about 45 percent of peacekeepers came from Western armies. The figure is now less than 10 percent; most now come from the developing world. In Congo, most of the peacekeepers are Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese. As they root out the insurgents who prey on Ituri's population, United Nations soldiers in the east have at their disposal tanks, armored personnel carriers, Mi-25 attack helicopters, mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers - all of which are getting heavy use. "It may look like war but it's peacekeeping," said Lt. Gen. Babacar Gaye of Senegal, the force commander in Congo, of the largest and most robust of the 18 United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. At a militia camp in Kagaba recently, the peacekeepers backed up besieged Congolese troops and engaged in a running battle with ethnic Lendu fighters. In March, after an ambush that killed nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers, the United Nations forces raided a crowded market near Loga to root out fighters preying on the local population. The peacekeepers also conduct what they call "cordon and search" operations, which are essentially hunts for weaponry in remote villages. Their opponents are tribal fighters who ignored the United Nations deadline of April 1 for disarming. A last opportunity to comply is approaching; after that, the peacekeepers say they will get even tougher. As the United Nations has become more aggressive, many tribal warriors have disarmed. Of the 15,000 fighters that the United Nations estimates once operated in Ituri, nearly 14,000 have turned in their weapons. The holdouts are fierce, and show no signs of surrendering. In February, militia fighters ambushed a group of Bangladeshi soldiers on a foot patrol around a camp of displaced people. Nine peacekeepers were killed, then mutilated. On May 12, another Bangladeshi patrol was ambushed. This time, six were wounded and one was killed. At a memorial service, Dominique Aitouyahia-McAdams, the top civilian in the United Nations operation in Bunia, said the death would only embolden the operation in its quest for peace. She called those who killed the peacekeepers "remnant militia bandits still marauding in the district." General Gaye was in Bunia the other day to attend a lavish ceremony for the first anniversary of a peace deal that the militias signed, agreeing to give up their guns. Since that declaration, one of the half dozen militias in Ituri has disbanded, and others have shrunk to small bands. Various militia leaders have been arrested by the Congolese, with help from peacekeepers. But the ceremony occurred a day after the memorial service, demonstrating that the job was not done. United Nations peacekeepers in Congo were not always so gung-ho. For years, they were criticized for huddling in their camps as atrocities recurred in the countryside. Now, some critics condemn them for being too aggressive. And critics also denounce the sexual abuse of girls by some peacekeepers. Justice Plus, a rights group based in Bunia, lamented that when the peacekeepers raided the market near Loga some civilians "paid with their life while the mandate of the United Nations was to protect them." The get-tough approach wins praise from those in Bunia who remember when, just two years ago, it was a battlefield between rival Hema and Lendu militias. As Lendu militias chased Hemas out of Bunia in May 2003, Lea Assamba, 17, was confronted by armed Lendu men and threatened with death. She said she explained to them frantically that she was not a Hema but someone from another tribe, one not involved in Ituri's madness. The militiamen made her suffer nonetheless. They killed a Hema girl standing by, and her body fell on Lea. They made her balance on her head the decapitated head of a Hema man, she said. The stranger's blood dripped down on her. Lea escaped but was confronted by more marauding militias down the road. They shot some people standing next to her, and she dropped to the ground as they did. They died. She, covered with blood, was left for dead. "Things would not be good if MONUC went away," Lea said, using the French acronym for the United Nations mission in Congo. But not far from Bunia, awful things continue. Villagers are on the run. Men with guns and machetes chase them. In the midst of it, heavily armed United Nations soldiers are trying to extend their reach. They engage in something shy of war but also a long way from peace. Marc Lacey reported from Bunia, Congo, and Nairobi for this article. |
"Peace through superior firepower."
Good idea. And it's not that I can't see a UN force with teeth, I just think they the US and pre-Haeffner UCAS would have to be out of the picture for it to happen. Likewise the composition of the UNAF removes any diplomatic fiascos that were to result if the UCAS was leading, say, the peacekeeping force in the Yucatán or California. That said, I'm sure that they tried. Actually, that's something I'm curious about. The book states, "The troops that compose the UNAF are loaned primarily by Security Council members: Amazonia, the Czech Republic, France and the UK, with the latter mostly providing intelligence and logistics" (63) with additional support from the Scandinavian Union and New Zealand. But in SoNA they made a big deal about, and began with, the fact that the UCAS is trying to become the world's policeman again and built up its military, and has been trying to get its foot in the door to send observers and peacekeepers to warzones in NA. Whatup then? Why don't they send troops to the UNAF when there are two UN missions in North America, the Balkan Mission is still around, and there's now a Mission in Jerusalem (Because clearly the UCAS has no interests there)?
OTOH, I wonder which country's forces comprise the bulk of the UNMIYUP force in the Yucatán...
Good idea. And it's not that I can't see a UN force with teeth, I just think they the US and pre-Haeffner UCAS would have to be out of the picture for it to happen. Likewise the composition of the UNAF removes any diplomatic fiascos that were to result if the UCAS was leading, say, the peacekeeping force in the Yucatán or California. That said, I'm sure that they tried. Actually, that's something I'm curious about. The book states, "The troops that compose the UNAF are loaned primarily by Security Council members: Amazonia, the Czech Republic, France and the UK, with the latter mostly providing intelligence and logistics" (63) with additional support from the Scandinavian Union and New Zealand. But in SoNA they made a big deal about, and began with, the fact that the UCAS is trying to become the world's policeman again and built up its military, and has been trying to get its foot in the door to send observers and peacekeepers to warzones in NA. Whatup then? Why don't they send troops to the UNAF when there are two UN missions in North America, the Balkan Mission is still around, and there's now a Mission in Jerusalem (Because clearly the UCAS has no interests there)?
OTOH, I wonder which country's forces comprise the bulk of the UNMIYUP force in the Yucatán...
The UCAS (and CAS) were way too busy licking their wounds and gnarling at the NAN to have any interest in policing the world. With Europe torched and China out of the picture too, only Japan remained. And Japan has always been more pro UN than anti.
And remember, the UCAS is much more like Canada than the US - re the chapters in SOTA2063 about sex, marriage and religion, for instance. That didn't quite sound like the US I know. Besides, wasn't it the CAS that was always painted as the 'true' heir of the US?
The UCAS is *trying*, yes. It isn't there yet (and that was one of the bits of SR turning a tad too American for my taste). I would also guess that Tshimshian and Salish or all forces in Claifornia would rather not have White Men running around shooting them again. After the conquest of the West and the concentration camps following SAIM's attacks (which are in SR canon, like it or not), I find it a bit hard to believe that the NAN would not hold a grudge against the UCAS and CAS.
And remember, the UCAS is much more like Canada than the US - re the chapters in SOTA2063 about sex, marriage and religion, for instance. That didn't quite sound like the US I know. Besides, wasn't it the CAS that was always painted as the 'true' heir of the US?
The UCAS is *trying*, yes. It isn't there yet (and that was one of the bits of SR turning a tad too American for my taste). I would also guess that Tshimshian and Salish or all forces in Claifornia would rather not have White Men running around shooting them again. After the conquest of the West and the concentration camps following SAIM's attacks (which are in SR canon, like it or not), I find it a bit hard to believe that the NAN would not hold a grudge against the UCAS and CAS.
OK...the UCAS is more like Canada than the US?
Why? That makes no sense. Canada (in SR3) was clearly not the dominant partner in the merger.
Why? That makes no sense. Canada (in SR3) was clearly not the dominant partner in the merger.
Um, there is a cold war between the UCAS and Sioux...
But if they wanted to play the world's policeman, which is what SoNA said, then why aren't they a major contributor to the UNAF? Fuck Tsimshian's feelings, because it's the UN sending troops, not the UCAS. Some of them just happen to come from the UCAS. Like I suggested, you don't think that the Amazonians comprise the largest contingent of forces in the Yucatán?
No, Aztlan wouldn't mind that one bit. Oh, and Aztlan is on the Security Council, so it's not like they don't have a voice.
There just seems to be a lack of continuity or something.
But if they wanted to play the world's policeman, which is what SoNA said, then why aren't they a major contributor to the UNAF? Fuck Tsimshian's feelings, because it's the UN sending troops, not the UCAS. Some of them just happen to come from the UCAS. Like I suggested, you don't think that the Amazonians comprise the largest contingent of forces in the Yucatán?
No, Aztlan wouldn't mind that one bit. Oh, and Aztlan is on the Security Council, so it's not like they don't have a voice.
There just seems to be a lack of continuity or something.
Who's the lift power? Aside from Great Britian (and sort-of Russia) only the USA has significant ability to move troops and material across the globe.
It has to be independants from the corps or most of those 30k are all transport and logistics.
That, btw brings up a point I'd like to make.
I was at first thinking to myself "hey cool, the UN has a static force, probably projection and leadership corps, then multinationals and mercs to fill various missions." Apparently though, if I'm reading this correctly, instead of increasing or decreasing the number of UN soldiers based on how many missions are going on, they now just have a static number that they divide between missions. Otherwise it works pretty much the same as it does today.
It has to be independants from the corps or most of those 30k are all transport and logistics.
That, btw brings up a point I'd like to make.
I was at first thinking to myself "hey cool, the UN has a static force, probably projection and leadership corps, then multinationals and mercs to fill various missions." Apparently though, if I'm reading this correctly, instead of increasing or decreasing the number of UN soldiers based on how many missions are going on, they now just have a static number that they divide between missions. Otherwise it works pretty much the same as it does today.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov @ May 23 2005, 08:53 PM) |
| Who's the lift power? Aside from Great Britian (and sort-of Russia) only the USA has significant ability to move troops and material across the globe. |
Um... France?
Yeah, force projection is a bitch. Reminds me of an argument we had in Foreign Policy about why calls for Europe to carry their own weight were ill-informed. Even if the UCAS has a token carrier fleet, they have supercarriers (note, plural) equivalent to the JIN even so far as to maintain a carrier battle group in the Pacific to protect their interests with regards to Seattle. Even if you halve the number of CVBGs and.... oh, god this is boring.
Yeah, let's go with "the latter" referring to France and the UK and not think about it too much, although I'd also go with your idea and some references in that part of the book and say that there are probably a not-insignificant number of mercs and PMCs working for them, providing logistics and infrastructure (Halliburton of the 2060s. Yeah!) and heavy lift transportation.
Right off the top of my head, that's probably going to me mercs from MET2000, Knight Errant counterinsurgency and counterintelligence support, Aegis intelligence support, and the UK to provide whatever heavy transport they can. I'm not seeing a lot of Rapid Reaction Force operations in their future, but that's what mercs and shadowrunners are for.
| QUOTE |
| OK...the UCAS is more like Canada than the US? Why? That makes no sense. Canada (in SR3) was clearly not the dominant partner in the merger. |
Exactly my point. But check out SOTA2063's parts on sex and marriage and all that. Secularised marriage, in the country that wants to put the christian religious definition into the constitution. That's a tad bit too much of a change for 60 years, I'm afraid. Not without some foreign power forcing them to change that way, and I wouldn't know who could do that.
| QUOTE |
| But if they wanted to play the world's policeman, which is what SoNA said, then why aren't they a major contributor to the UNAF? Fuck Tsimshian's feelings, because it's the UN sending troops, not the UCAS. Some of them just happen to come from the UCAS. |
Because the UN is controlled by evil Indians and Asians? Because the US (and thus, presumably, it's successors) has always had a huge problem with submitting troops to others' command? Or mabe just plain old isolationism, and the talk about resuming an active role in international peacekeeping was just drumbeating to distract the public's attention from internal problems the politicans cannot handle. There's certainly no shortage of these in the UCAS.
| QUOTE |
| Who's the lift power? Aside from Great Britian (and sort-of Russia) only the USA has significant ability to move troops and material across the globe. |
You forgot France, as CD said. And that is today. In a fantasy world set some 60 years in a fictional future? Come on. There isn't even a US around to intervene anywhwere The countries we know have been mostly broken up. Japan has changed to become a global superpower, operating several nuclear powered, Nimitz-type aircraft carriers (R3), maintains two colonies (Cyberpirates, Target: Smuggler Havens, SoNA), and has intervened in several countries (SoA reportedly covers the end of the Japanese mandate in Peru, for instance). It has to have some sort of lifting capacity. Same with Aztlan, and possibly, Amazonia (sort of; I'd guess they'd rely on spirits and magic to move troops rather than aeroplanes and ships).
And don't forget the megacorps, who apparently operate expensive equipment such as stealth bombers (Ares, in Aztlan), orbital battlestations and weaponry (Ares, Aztech and SK, corporate shadowfiles), and standing armies, including the logistics to maintain overseas presence. And of course, there's Proteus, who are operating mobile arcologies and space stations and whatnot.
As for the UN .... states like Germany already like to rent transport capacity from Russia and Ukraine for missions in Afghanistan where the crap C-160s they operate cannot fly by themselves (or even charter airliners to get troops to some sort of forward base in safe territory - like Uzbekistan - and fly them in in their little transport planes from there). I see no reason why the UN cannot work like this, too. And, of course, I guess that megacorps interested in whatever mission the UN would gladly offer help in logistics, too.
| QUOTE (hermit) | ||
Exactly my point. But check out SOTA2063's parts on sex and marriage and all that. Secularised marriage, in the country that wants to put the christian religious definition into the constitution. That's a tad bit too much of a change for 60 years, I'm afraid. Not without some foreign power forcing them to change that way, and I wouldn't know who could do that. |
In a country where a group of people want to ...
| QUOTE | ||
Because the UN is controlled by evil Indians and Asians? Because the US (and thus, presumably, it's successors) has always had a huge problem with submitting troops to others' command? Or mabe just plain old isolationism, and the talk about resuming an active role in international peacekeeping was just drumbeating to distract the public's attention from internal problems the politicans cannot handle. There's certainly no shortage of these in the UCAS. |
Well, can we at least distinguish between the RL U.S. and a fictional country for these purposes? Moreover, let's stick with what's actually in the books.
| QUOTE | ||
You forgot France, as CD said. And that is today. In a fantasy world set some 60 years in a fictional future? Come on. There isn't even a US around to intervene anywhwere The countries we know have been mostly broken up. Japan has changed to become a global superpower, operating several nuclear powered, Nimitz-type aircraft carriers (R3), maintains two colonies (Cyberpirates, Target: Smuggler Havens, SoNA), and has intervened in several countries (SoA reportedly covers the end of the Japanese mandate in Peru, for instance). It has to have some sort of lifting capacity. Same with Aztlan, and possibly, Amazonia (sort of; I'd guess they'd rely on spirits and magic to move troops rather than aeroplanes and ships). |
I added France as a 'maybe' not a definite. Like I said above, let's stick with SR. Let's also stick with what's in the book. I didn't omit anything important about the military capabilities except that they use a lot of drones to compensate for their limited size, and if Japan or Aztlan aren't mentioned in the book as even making a contribution worth noting I see no reason to assume that they are helping out. What I do see is that they use mercs and runners and drones in addition to their 30,000 soldiers. Taken all together, the UK and maybe France (as is the imprecise language in such as sentence as the one I quoted) and the others could collectively provide heavy transport from either Berne or the, "roughly two dozen UN monitoring and observation missions" (63) the UN maintains around the world. They could also contract out to a mercenary company like MET2000 if necessary. Everything from here on though is pure speculation.
| QUOTE |
| And don't forget the megacorps, who apparently operate expensive equipment such as stealth bombers (Ares, in Aztlan), orbital battlestations and weaponry (Ares, Aztech and SK, corporate shadowfiles), and standing armies, including the logistics to maintain overseas presence. And of course, there's Proteus, who are operating mobile arcologies and space stations and whatnot. |
While the UN is a tool of the Corporate Court, the UNAF also operated against corporations during the Corp War and is often used as a pawn between the corps through certain legal powers in the UN. Likewise, as noted in the text, most of the countries who contribute corps aren't on good terms (and vice versa) with the corps.
| QUOTE |
| And, of course, I guess that megacorps interested in whatever mission the UN would gladly offer help in logistics, too. |
Maybe. Consider this, how did the UN get a mission established in the Yucatán?
| QUOTE |
| Maybe. Consider this, how did the UN get a mission established in the Yucatán? |
Does Aztlan have a veto? If not, the Greenies and the western block (and possibly, Japan) could simply vote it through anyway. Or Aztlan decided to seek a peaceful solution and to let the UN take over after they got their asses thoroughly kicked by that spirit stampede following their slash-and-burn operation in YotC. After all, that seems to have been quite the painful lesson to the Azzies.
| QUOTE |
| I added France as a 'maybe' not a definite. |
They can project force without relying on external help for logistics. Not on the scale the US can, but they have the logistics. All I'm saying.
| QUOTE |
| In a country where a group of people want to ... |
Well, okay, but that group doesn't call itself 'moral majority' for nothing. They have the control over all branches of government (or will have if they cut down on filibustering), and have a 50%+ mandate for their plans from the population (and, according to polls, some 70% of the populace support that speciific plan). That's a a group of people alright. A rather large group, though. Hence my generalisation. But I'll make sure to mention the minority opposition next time I talk about it.
| QUOTE |
| Well, can we at least distinguish between the RL U.S. and a fictional country for these purposes? Moreover, let's stick with what's actually in the books. |
The UCAS is no friend of Amazonia. The UCAS certainly hates the NAN's guts (and vice versa). Hence, I cannot see why the UCAS would want to put their troops under the former's command to help the latter get along.
| QUOTE |
I just think they the US and pre-Haeffner UCAS would have to be out of the picture for it to happen. Likewise the composition of the UNAF removes any diplomatic fiascos that were to result if the UCAS was leading, say, the peacekeeping force in the Yucatán or California. That said, I'm sure that they tried. |
Pretty much. UCAS is not supposed to be "out of the picture". But until now they didn't have much interest in joining peacekeeping ops - except in California, and as you know California only became a real issue in '62. You can assume the California mission is pretty recent.
Yucatan is not really relevant. This has far more to do with the CAS than the UCAS. Between Yucatŕn and the UCAS, there is Aztlan, NANs and CAS.
Once again, the UCAS cannot and is not the US anymore and the US Latin American foreign policy cannot be the same.
| QUOTE |
Actually, that's something I'm curious about. The book states, "The troops that compose the UNAF are loaned primarily by Security Council members: Amazonia, the Czech Republic, France and the UK, with the latter mostly providing intelligence and logistics" (63) with additional support from the Scandinavian Union and New Zealand. But in SoNA they made a big deal about, and began with, the fact that the UCAS is trying to become the world's policeman again and built up its military, and has been trying to get its foot in the door to send observers and peacekeepers to warzones in NA. |
Trying, possibly. There are still troops on the Sioux border, probably close to Denver, and on the CAS border. This doesn't mean UCAS troops are excluded from UN missions, just that they're not the major providers of troops. There are probably some UCASers in Yucatŕn... but what's the point of sending troops when you can take part in the political decisions without sending your own troopers on the field ?
On the other hand, I'd easily see multi or bilateral *non-UN* peacekeeping ops all across NorAm (Pueblo, Florida, AMC, Tsimshian-Salish) have UCAS troops in their roster.
| QUOTE |
AWhatup then? Why don't they send troops to the UNAF when there are two UN missions in North America, the Balkan Mission is still around, and there's now a Mission in Jerusalem (Because clearly the UCAS has no interests there)? |
I'm not sure what you mean. The UCAS sure has an interest in California, less so in Yucatŕn... what do you mean with the two others ?
| QUOTE |
OTOH, I wonder which country's forces comprise the bulk of the UNMIYUP force in the Yucatán... |
Left open for the GM to decide. Could be Amazonia pushing it through (as there are no veto rights anymore), or even Azania. You'll also note this is clearly mentioned as *not an intervention yet* (check the GI for details on the various missions' denominations), meaning there isn't a big amount of troops on the groud yet, if any.
Most people would be content with 2 or 3 identical posts, Hermit. You had to do it 7 times... 
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| Um, there is a cold war between the UCAS and Sioux... Fuck Tsimshian's feelings, because it's the UN sending troops, not the UCAS. Some of them just happen to come from the UCAS. Like I suggested, you don't think that the Amazonians comprise the largest contingent of forces in the Yucatán? |
| QUOTE |
But if they wanted to play the world's policeman, which is what SoNA said, then why aren't they a major contributor to the UNAF? |
Because for now they have neither the means nor the power to trigger UN ops they're involved in that would answer their current strategic worries.
Okay, the UCAS wants to play global cop again. But first they should get things right on their continent before starting to look after others.
What they very well do in California but no elsewhere in NorAm yet, assuming UN-backed actions is what they want there. Personally I'd rather see them trying to build local multilateral agreements to solve the situation at a regional/continental scale, rather than involving a global-scale, corp-dependent org like the UN.
| QUOTE |
No, Aztlan wouldn't mind that one bit. Oh, and Aztlan is on the Security Council, so it's not like they don't have a voice. |
A voice but no veto right. See the composition of the SecCouncil and it'll make sense.
| QUOTE |
There just seems to be a lack of continuity or something. |
Maybe if you can have a clearer idea it'll be easier to explain.
Toturi:
I didn't do that on purpose ...
I didn't do that on purpose ...
| QUOTE |
I added France as a 'maybe' not a definite. Like I said above, let's stick with SR. Let's also stick with what's in the book. I didn't omit anything important about the military capabilities except that they use a lot of drones to compensate for their limited size, and if Japan or Aztlan aren't mentioned in the book as even making a contribution worth noting I see no reason to assume that they are helping out. What I do see is that they use mercs and runners and drones in addition to their 30,000 soldiers. Taken all together, the UK and maybe France (as is the imprecise language in such as sentence as the one I quoted) and the others could collectively provide heavy transport from either Berne or the, "roughly two dozen UN monitoring and observation missions" (63) the UN maintains around the world. They could also contract out to a mercenary company like MET2000 if necessary. Everything from here on though is pure speculation. |
All the assumptions above are correct.
The thing is that Japan (considering its SR history) and Aztlan would be pretty ugly and terrible peacekeepers (even though this might ne bound to change for Japan).
UK and France weren't hit hard by the Euro-Wars: the first almost took no part in it, the second saw no fights taking place on itd territory, and you can assume that the French didn't send much of their troops to get butchered in the Balkans.
The two reasons why they are not major providers of troops for UN missions is that 1) they no longer have global diplomatic ambitions and 2) they have to support Europe's EuroForce as their primary concern.
They *do* however still have supply and lift and intel gathering capabilities they punctually lend to the UN.
As for all the "behind-the-scenes" stuff (transport, supplies, etc., you can assume merc outfits are prime contractors - the thing is in most cases the UN wants to have Blue Helmets rather than mercs on the field under exciting media coverage, and if possible showing off they have weapons and no scruples to use them.
| QUOTE |
While the UN is a tool of the Corporate Court, the UNAF also operated against corporations during the Corp War and is often used as a pawn between the corps through certain legal powers in the UN. |
Still a corp tool.
| QUOTE |
Likewise, as noted in the text, most of the countries who contribute corps aren't on good terms (and vice versa) with the corps. |
And that's why it's a "fuck-you" game. The corps are satisfied 'cause they think they can keep the provider countries in check and manipulate their militaries however anti-corps those countries are, while the countries think they score points on showing off their military capabilities the corps obviously lack.
| QUOTE |
Maybe. Consider this, how did the UN get a mission established in the Yucatán? |
Once again, left open. Could be that Amazonia pushed it through. Could be that corps want to prey on Aztech's weaknesses. Could be both. You decide.
| QUOTE |
| Does Aztlan have a veto? |
No.
| QUOTE (hermit) |
| The UCAS is no friend of Amazonia. The UCAS certainly hates the NAN's guts (and vice versa). Hence, I cannot see why the UCAS would want to put their troops under the former's command to help the latter get along. |
Who said the UNAF commander was Amazonian?
| QUOTE |
Who said the UNAF commander was Amazonian? |
Nobody. He's Czech. But the *mission's* commander usually comes from the country providing the main bulk of forces.
I'm going to let you tell the story then, since I don't particularly feel like revealing everything about this book just yet.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| I'm going to let you tell the story then, since I don't particularly feel like revealing everything about this book just yet. |
Really...
You try to point out why the stuff is coherent, otherwise you get bad reviews and unapropriate critics, and then people tell you you spill the beans.
| QUOTE (hermit) | ||
Exactly my point. But check out SOTA2063's parts on sex and marriage and all that. Secularised marriage, in the country that wants to put the christian religious definition into the constitution. That's a tad bit too much of a change for 60 years, I'm afraid. Not without some foreign power forcing them to change that way, and I wouldn't know who could do that. |
Don't blame it all on Canada (With the South Park song playing in the background).
Sure, Canada is more liberal than the US. Especially Ontario and that's the bulk of the territory that joins the UCAS. But we're not the only ones on the continent. Hasn't the state of Vermont legalized gay marriage, for example?
I'm looking at the map of UCAS right now. Now this might be naive and ill informed, but aren't the parts of the US that constitute UCAS more liberal than the US as a whole? All the south is gone and so are the rockies.
And this all has what to do with anything?
Ya don't think the population might have moved, Charon?
I would think the UN "having a force" would have been pushed through with the goal of simplifying the command structure, flattening the org chart, and generating a consistancy of command and structure in their various operations.
As it appears in the book (to me) it looks like the only thing that has changed really is that now they have at least 30k troops ready to move under UN command, instead of having to ask for donations on a per-mission basis.
Now this simplifies the mission ratification somewhat, but if the dedicated soldiers and their commanders object to a ratified mission you're still going to need to request soldiers from another country.
It still seems the UN force will take months to get to even situations that are fairly obvious they should be involved it.
As it appears in the book (to me) it looks like the only thing that has changed really is that now they have at least 30k troops ready to move under UN command, instead of having to ask for donations on a per-mission basis.
Now this simplifies the mission ratification somewhat, but if the dedicated soldiers and their commanders object to a ratified mission you're still going to need to request soldiers from another country.
It still seems the UN force will take months to get to even situations that are fairly obvious they should be involved it.
| QUOTE (Penta) |
| Ya don't think the population might have moved, Charon? |
The south, no. The west, not all of them and not all into UCAS.
| QUOTE (Raskolnikov) |
| I would think the UN "having a force" would have been pushed through with the goal of simplifying the command structure, flattening the org chart, and generating a consistancy of command and structure in their various operations. As it appears in the book (to me) it looks like the only thing that has changed really is that now they have at least 30k troops ready to move under UN command, instead of having to ask for donations on a per-mission basis. Now this simplifies the mission ratification somewhat, but if the dedicated soldiers and their commanders object to a ratified mission you're still going to need to request soldiers from another country. It still seems the UN force will take months to get to even situations that are fairly obvious they should be involved it. |
| QUOTE |
I would think the UN "having a force" would have been pushed through with the goal of simplifying the command structure, flattening the org chart, and generating a consistancy of command and structure in their various operations. |
That's the idea. Obviously not everything could be covered in detail in 5,000 words, but the idea was that pre-organized multnational groups exist, ready to be taken from national mlitaries to be sent on a UN mission. They also have to be made available for a period of time every year for military maneuvers.
A possible typical group would have a bulk of Azanian or Amazonian troops, with an Amazonian commander, a British intelligence force, French lift capabilities and MET2000 or 10,000 Daggers as back-up on-field specialized troops. All of them wear Blue Helmets and media coverage focus on soldiers providing humanitarian aid, evacuating and providing shelters to refugees, as well as kick the bad guys' ass and smoke them out with some heavy ordnance.
| QUOTE |
As it appears in the book (to me) it looks like the only thing that has changed really is that now they have at least 30k troops ready to move under UN command, instead of having to ask for donations on a per-mission basis. |
That's something in between. The troops are basically rotating and the UN has a permanent contingent ready at any time. Approval from the donator countries is still required though (see below).
| QUOTE |
Now this simplifies the mission ratification somewhat, but if the dedicated soldiers and their commanders object to a ratified mission you're still going to need to request soldiers from another country. It still seems the UN force will take months to get to even situations that are fairly obvious they should be involved it. |
That's why seeing thngs the way they are in 2064 is important. Ruthless corps and nations call the shots at the UN now, and its naive and idealistic stance is gone.
1. If a mission is seemingly not going to be approved (countries don't want to provide Blue Helmets, it doens't fit the corps' plans, etc.) the odds are the issue will never be brought up. Again, the UN *no longer* has the ambition to show up and strep in anywhere in the world in the name of peace, but rather to select a few spots (if possible under heavy media coverage and public awareness) where a general consensus has been reached for intervention, rather than controversial hotspots. All part of the ''smaller objectives for better efficiency'' thing. Very cynical.
2. Preliminary monitoring and medation missions are the perfect tool to test a situation. Depending on how the various actors react and show support or hostility for a situation, the UN will decide to intervene and launch a ''campaign'' or not.
3. The UN is a big bartering fair. The corps want an intervention at location X but Amazonia will surely refuse to send its troops there ? What about the Corporate Court lowers the taxes on Amazonian agricultural exports to Asia, or eases the penalties inflicted on Amazonia because of the ban on corps in the country ? The Corporate Court would just have to use its driving belt at the UN (the WTO) to pass the measures at the Economic Council without even seemingly playing a direct role.
But now again, it is unlikely the UN would seriously consider a peacekeeping op without making sure they'd get the troops to begin with. The Sixth World's UN is a big PR machine of make-believe, and showing such signs of unefficiency would hurt its image.
I think one should not make the mistake of comparing the Second Charter's UN with today's. It is fundamentally different. It is in a very large part puppeteered by the corps, and when nations manage to be listened to, that's usually because they are ruthless and know no scruples.
Peacekeeping missions are never supported out of humanitarian concerns (unless it has a very good PR potential), but out of the idea sometimes a military op is necessary to stabilize a region that is a potential market for corporate products and a potential source of cheap labor.
Keep in mind corps and long-teethed nations rule the show, and it'll maybe appear in a whole different light.
It's about freaking time. I just bought my dad the new book by Romeo Dallaire, the general who was in charge of the peacekeepers in Rwanda but was ordered to basically sit on his thumbs the whole time. The UN has been monumentally innefective in peacekeeping throughout it's entire history. Maybe, just maybe, that will start to change.
There have been successful missions, but catastrophic failures like Rwanda and Somalia overshadow them.
| QUOTE (hermit) | ||
Exactly my point. But check out SOTA2063's parts on sex and marriage and all that. Secularised marriage, in the country that wants to put the christian religious definition into the constitution. That's a tad bit too much of a change for 60 years, I'm afraid. Not without some foreign power forcing them to change that way, and I wouldn't know who could do that. |
I hate to say this, but you are missing a few key facts. One most of the country doesn't want that in the constitution, and most of the areas that do want it are no longer in the UCAS.
As it for being to much change, really i don't see that at all. Even with the south and the bible belt still in the UCAS. Look back 60 years ago, people wanted to make interracesal marriages unconstitution. Go back, about80 years and you have times when your gender let you vote or not vote. People change. gays being forced to live people they no longer have sex with is, rather mild compared to the sinlesss. Don't forget that marriages are boons to shopping,an no the megacorps don't want gay money...
Really people study history.
| QUOTE |
| I hate to say this, but you are missing a few key facts. One most of the country doesn't want that in the constitution, and most of the areas that do want it are no longer in the UCAS. |
Yeah, but the people living there didn't just stay. They were, in large parts, driven out of the land, into California, Seattle, Denver, but mainly into the UCAS. Even though assuming a lot of them were in what then turned out to be the CAS, I just don't see why the UCAS should change so dramatically from today's US. I mean, it's basically an oversized Netherlands!
And it could be argued whether or not 'most of the people' are against this constitutional change ... the referenda done in several states indicate otherwise. But let's take this to PM, if you feel like answering, okay?
| QUOTE |
| As it for being to much change, really i don't see that at all. Even with the south and the bible belt still in the UCAS. Look back 60 years ago, people wanted to make interracesal marriages unconstitution. |
Oh, that was the civil rights movement. The pendulum had swung to the far left at that point. It's swinging back now. The circumstances are very much different. And they're even more different in SR. I don't see a society go for *openness* after suffering such a drastic defeat as the Ghost Dance war was. If anything, I'd expect a wagon fort mentality and militarism - and that always goes hand in hand with a return to strict morals. That was my point.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.