We aren't talking about state level recruitment here man. We aren't even talking about a single, world government here. Stop trying to turn it down that road. We are talking about the UN (which is NOT a world government) forming an independent military force.

all fine and dandy, but there is still the problem of maintenance and resupply. those things cost money.

And that discipline depends on the quality of recruits.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

I thought we were talking about a cooperative public sector business venture involving the coercive use of force of states.

One solution could be to recruit in the manner of the Foreign Legion. Another could be that of the several States, "leasing" troops to the UN for a defined period of time. A third option, could be that of the UN simply supplying more of the logistics to existing local State "militias".

Would it be better if the UN had the power to lay and collect taxes? From one perspective, I think the UN can still state what it thinks it will require, and apportion that amount from the several States.

I am not sure that the quality of recruits will be an issue for an organization that has an entire planet from which to draw personnel.

[quote=danielpalos;1170368]I thought we were talking about a cooperative public sector business venture involving the coercive use of force of states.

No, we are talking about a military force independent of the "states"

Do you think all the member nations can agree to solutions one and two? Solution one would see the heaviest burden of service fall on developed countries. Solution two still costs money, which you haven't even started to address. As for solution three, you really need to get off the one world government kick. It is clouding your understanding of the question.

No, it would not be better if they could lay and collect taxes. Again, you need to stop thinking of the UN in terms of a world government. It is not such a thing, and was never intended to be.

What requirements would be levied? What sort of education should they require? Should women be allowed to join?

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

What is your point? What issues do you have with a hypothetical UN legion? It would be under the authority of a body authorized for such endeavors.

In what manner do you mean "heaviest burden"? In that instance, why should developed countries have any higher burden on manpower? In the second instance, most Things cost money, in a mixed market economy. What is wrong with apportionment among the several states? The third option would probably a cost effective option since the UN could provide for much of the logistics assistance it already has access to. In that scenario, the AU could be providing ground forces while the UN provides air support, and overall coordination of the effort to achieve its humanitarian goals; and to develop the infrastructure necessary for markets to flourish in our global economy.

If we use an object oriented model that could simply "plug-in" to a hypothetical world federal government; then, the requirements are already available from three-fourths of the current member States that comprise that current union of States.

yea but once we give them the money they'll be glad to take all responsibility out of our hands you betcha...

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Have you read anything I have posted? Forgetting the fact that setting up such a force will be logistical and jurisdictional nightmare, given the UNs current attitude towards force and their ROE, such a force would simply provide 'enemies' with nice blue helmeted targets.

It all goes back to the point on how recruitment will be handled for such a force, and what sort of requirements will need to be met by recruits. If they require some sort of highschool diploma, you can pretty much count out most of the undeveloped world. Therefore having disprportionate amount of representation from the developed countries.

Again, who would fund this? The UN cannot collect 'taxes', so that is out.

Possibly, but then it wouldn't really be a UN force woud it? That, and the AU militaries are notoriously unreliable and corrupt.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Some of these issues seem a bit beside-the-point, IMO, except for the issue of funding. Standards of recruitment, rules of engagement, and gender issues could be discussed at length in the General Assembly, Security Council, and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. These are important topics, I agree, but I think they're relatively insignificant in comparison to the question of establishing an autonomous UN legion at all.

Perhaps a percentage of a state's military budget could be "taxed" in return for the assurance of UN interventions in world hotspots. Of course, then that would just drive states to hide military spending even more. To ask for a single-rate contribution from all the member states would be equal but foolish, and asking major developed states for the most contributions would be unfair but the most practical.

__________________
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

Why do you believe that a bureaucracy of any sort would have any problems manufacturing "rules"?

In the hypothetical UN legion link I presented, there is only a requirement for about fifteen thousand personnel for each unit. I have a difficult time believing that supplying the personnel requirements would be difficult to achieve for a global union of States.

The UN already has existing revenue generating capability. If you are concerned about that organization requiring more taxation, it could be given some authority over means of production. Consider the case of a public sector business venture that establishes research facilities on the ocean floor and improves the technology for harvesting magnesium nodules.

We could be advancing science and defraying public and private sector costs in the process.

I didn't know there was a requirement for every UN sponsored intervention to have an autonomous UN force. From my perspective, simply utilizing AU forces could result in a more disciplined force after a sufficient amount of service that could be deployed anywhere on that continent to ensure its domestic tranquility.

I don't believe they would have a problem making "rules". However, the UN has demostrated over the years that their rules for combat simply get people killed. What makes you think this would be any different?

[quote=danielpalos;1170993]
I have a difficult time believing that supplying the personnel requirements would be difficult to achieve for a global union of States.

Oh for fuck sake. We are not talking about a "global union of States." As for requirements, I do not believe requirements could be agreed upon between the different members of the UN. For example; Germany has a very different idea of what being a soldier means than, say, Kenya.

We are talking about a strictly UN military force here daniel, and have been since the OP. Totally autonomous and independent of any other organization. No EU, AU, but simply the UN. Please, please follow along here.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Sorry to hop in the discussion between you and Thorhammer, but I think this might be where he has an issue--not to put words in his mouth, I hope. The thing is, there is no "union of States," except in a very limited sense. I wouldn't even say that the current politico-economic setup is even akin to a confederation. Under the UN, there is little in common between all member states except that they are, in fact, a member. Customary international law has definitely advanced in the past few decades, but I don't think it has reached the level of unifying nations; i.e., the US has some treaty reservations concerning the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) jurisdiction over the United States, unless the US agrees to be bound by a ICJ decision.

With that in mind, the global political situation may be too fragmented for the international community to find a consensus on the issue of financing and raising an autonomous UN force (apparently called a legion by theorists). Given that the Security Council holds tremendous power of UN decisions, and that the major funders of the UN do not hold proportionate power in the General Assembly's ability to allocate resources, how would you suggest moving forward on the issue of establishing a UN legion?

__________________
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 understand that the current situation is not the most conducive to ensuring the domestic tranquility by any single organization States, much less a single State acting unilaterally.

However, from a simple economic point of view, it is much less expensive for the members of the UN to share the cost of ensuring the domestic tranquility of any regions experiencing excessive anarchy and to establish more stable markets in our global economy.

It is my understanding that there is already a mechanism in place to fund UN activities. Developing some "means of production" could enable that organization to fund humanitarian missions on its own.

So...we are all in an agreement that the U.N is a farce?...a very expensive farce.

I don't agree that the UN is an expensive farce, any more than I agree that the US federal government (under the Articles of Confederation) was an expensive farce.

How much was it costing us to keep UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, versus how much is our expensive venture costing us now? The same could be said of the entire Middle East. Why is the US exporting democracy, at the point of a sword, and claiming to be more moral than Islam?

The UN has both, more moral and ethical justification for such ventures via statism than does the US via forms of anarchy.

What has the US accomplished in Darfur that the UN couldn't have accomplished with a funded mandate?

Does anyone have an opinion, on the efficacy of a hypothetical UN legion building a "city" in an easily defensible location? Building an easily defensible city could solve the problem of marauding, and allow for a stable enough environment for sufficient infrastructure to allow local markets to flourish.

With such a "city", dislocated populations could have some place to go to and could provide the labor needed in that newly created "market". Humanitarian assistance would also be more effectually provided from facilities that have access to modern infrastructure (i.e. energy, potable and waste water management systems.)

That type of strategy could also make it easier for local security forces to maintain the domestic tranquility, and could leave the UN force freer to quell more serious disturbances as a rapid reaction force.