AHC/WI: A more powerful/effective United Nations

Some actual funding would be good. I mean seriously, Singapore's excess annual profit could probably significantly increase the funds of the OTL UN.
Depending on how you calculate it the UN apparently has a budget of somewhere between $12 and $14 billion US dollars across its various bodies, agencies, and operations. I'm not sure how much of an annual profit Singapore makes but they'd have to be be doing particularly well for it to be comparatively 'significant' to the UN budget.


There are a bunch of small countries that would be happy for their soldiers to be Hessians for the UN. The issue is stopping the great powers from preventing them being used to fight against great power proxies.
There already are. IIRC the amount paid per day per soldier by the UN for peacekeeping operations is often a lot more than what the soldiers from various countries pay is, this means that by renting them out you can fund both the deployed troops and others back home effectively free of charge.
 
IIRC in 2012 or they had an 'excess' profit of several billion SGD. Sure it (probably) goes somewhere useful but if one or two medium sized nations chip in a few hundred million a year it makes quite a difference.

But why would any Nation contribute enough to actually have enough money to form something close enough to a first world level?
 
The actual politicking dosen't need funding at all - it's just a hundred or so ambassadors talking in a large building. What does need the funds is the World Bank, WHO, and other such agencies. Peacekeeping is and always will be dependent on ad-hoc troops. That's why permanent peacekeeping forces could be a drain - why have 100,000 blue helmets when ATL influence is enough to request troops from several nations?

But I digress; I'm sure there's enough wealthy patrons willing to support the UN. However, quite a lot of that goes into useless agencies and bureaucracy. Something that happens quite often is that a nation wants to push for the creation of a UN arm, despite the fact that something similar already exists.
I don't know how to create an environment where nations give more to the UN. What I do know is that they could give a lot more funding.

How will they compel members nations to contribute troops if it doesn't directly benefit their interests? If the UN does something that a nation objects to why wouldn't they withdraw their troops?
 

Ian_W

Banned
But why would any Nation contribute enough to actually have enough money to form something close enough to a first world level?

You don't need troops close to a first-world level for peacekeeping - light infantry, equipped to about the level of modern NZ troops, is fine.

But lets pull this into an example where UN peacekeepers might have been handy, with an event that probably would have rolled along regardless of OTL changes.

In 1974, Portugal's long-term military dictatatorship fell. This led to the independance war in Angola being decided in favour of the rebels - but which rebels ? You have MLPA, FNLA and UNITA and the Cabinda secessionists, all of whom had regional and/or superpower backers.

Now, if the UN picks a side in the 1975 civil war and sends troops in - and remember, we're dealing with a 'more effective at peacekeeping UN', which means their peacekeepers (from Fiji, Sweden or wherever) need to be prepared to shoot at Cuban, South African, CIA and even Soviet 'advisors' - what happens ?
 
You don't need troops close to a first-world level for peacekeeping - light infantry, equipped to about the level of modern NZ troops, is fine.

But lets pull this into an example where UN peacekeepers might have been handy, with an event that probably would have rolled along regardless of OTL changes.

In 1974, Portugal's long-term military dictatatorship fell. This led to the independance war in Angola being decided in favour of the rebels - but which rebels ? You have MLPA, FNLA and UNITA and the Cabinda secessionists, all of whom had regional and/or superpower backers.

Now, if the UN picks a side in the 1975 civil war and sends troops in - and remember, we're dealing with a 'more effective at peacekeeping UN', which means their peacekeepers (from Fiji, Sweden or wherever) need to be prepared to shoot at Cuban, South African, CIA and even Soviet 'advisors' - what happens ?
.

In the real world the Soviet Union and US veto the action and it never takes place.
 
Could the United Nations today develop a National Guard-like structure, with volunteers from around the world? There would still be questions about how an international standing force would be deployed and under what circumstances, but can the U.N. legally have a standing military?
 

Ian_W

Banned
Could the United Nations today develop a National Guard-like structure, with volunteers from around the world? There would still be questions about how an international standing force would be deployed and under what circumstances, but can the U.N. legally have a standing military?

A better question is 'Can the UN deploy such a force without a veto from any member of the UN Security Council ?'.
 
Top