This is true. If a reform as big as an autonomous UN military were enacted, though, one would hope that financial reform would already be underway as well. I'm not a policy-maker or anything, so I can't really imagine what sort of financial scheme could work, but it certainly doesn't seem impossible to make the financing of an army more equitable, IMO.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

If, you mean the US, by we, then I can agree with you that US public charity to red states, external to that Union is not going to be very effective since it is usually done for political purposes and not for the provision of the general welfare of that state.

Why do you think the UN ensuring a republican form of government, in any regions experiencing anarchy would not work given sufficient resources?

I suppose that's something to be worried about, but I don't think a takeover of the UN headquarters would do much of anything. There is no global legislature to take command of, and I doubt a UN military could enforce any unilateral decisions in the face of world opposition. For example, a UN force of 10 or 20 thousand would be large enough to actually do something, but it certainly could not defeat the US or Chinese military alone.

I think a UN takeover of another country might be a problem, but unless the action had the consent and/or support of a large number of member states or the Security Council, it would face a crisis of legitimacy and would probably be fought by a coalition of states.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I am not sure those are insurmountable obstacles since every state in our current global union has already addressed those issues to their satisfaction. You can read the US Constitution for a prescription on how a general government of a union of states may accomplish such a task.

I agree that many questions would have to be dealt with. It would require a host of UN reforms alongside it, there's no doubt about that. The makeup of the military force would probably have to be decided by the Security Council--that in itself really kills a lot of hope for the project, given the broadly different interests of the United States, Russia, and China. It's just an idea at the moment; I've seen many calls for making the UN more effective and efficient, and an autonomous military, even a very small one, would most likely make Security Council resolutions and peacekeeping operations much more effective and timely.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

A point to consider, is that the general government of a union of States would find it more cost effective to ensure the domestic tranquility of any region experiencing anarchy.

Another point to consider, is that the several States of a union will always have their own priorities and profit motives to consider, before the consideration of the general welfare of any red states external to themselves.

A general government of a union would simply be enabling better intercourse among its several States.

Hm. I guess I messed up the link in the opening post, so here it is again: Global governance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

The OP didn't say anything about a worldwide government. We are simply addressing the possibility of the UN forming its own military force. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is not a current "global union".

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Forget the different interests; everyone as different ideas on how a military should be run.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Here is a link to a hypothetical, UN legion design. It provides a rationale for the structure of such a unit.

Source: Design for an UN Legion -- Project on Defense Alternatives

Interesting read. Still doesn't address the real problems behind such a force.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

It depends on your view of our current state of affairs. While it may be true that we have a form of global anarchy, instead of a truer form of global union; it is my opinion, that the current structure of the UN is analogous to that of the US under the Articles of Confederation.

From reading the Wiki article, and subscribing to the concept of forms of global governance (as distinguished from global government) it is still apparent that there is some form of global union (economy) that affects commerce between the several States.

The point, however, is that there are already plenty of working examples on how to provide for ensuring the domestic tranquility of any given state or region experiencing an excessive amount of anarchy.

Can you share your views on the problems behind such a force?

Besides who will pay for it, and what equipment will be used, one big problem will be recruitment.

What standards will the UN use? Will they require HS diplomas (or their equivalents)? Will all diplomas be treated the same? Will women be allowed in? Will women be allowed in line units? Etc....

The list of issues goes on and on.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

I think some of those issues are moot, because they have already been resolved at the State level in most instances.

From one perspective, since the mission of such a force would not be to fight WWIII, the equipment does not have to be state-of-the-art, only better than that which most local insurgents will have access to. Many States are finding that they no longer need as much materiel as they used to in modern times and may be able to donate some of that equipment.

I think the primary consideration of such a force as we are discussing, would be the ability to use collective action in a more disciplined manner, than that achievable by any less well organized insurgents.

In such an instance, even obsolete military equipment could be employed, if it still functions within specification; especially in the case of air power where their is no real opposition.