Challenge: UN gets an army to enforce global issues

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As a prerequisite for joining the UN, a nation must surrender a constant percentage of its armed forces (maybe 5 or 10%) for use by the UN and answerable only to the UN. This ratio is constant for all countries. These soldiers can be used to actually give the UN teeth to actually impose limits on the country...or in this case, enforce global climate change policies for the benefit of mankind.

It's probably ASB unfortunately. But can we get it work?
UN would never have been established. None of the major powers (the Permanent members of the UNSC) would have allowed it.

The U.S. Senate would never have ratified the Treaty. Since the U.S. was also the only country that could afford to support the UN immediately post war, that alone would have killed the idea

Stalin would have laughed in the folks who proposed it faces.

The British would have be very polite and walked out of the room.

The French would have given one of those shrugs that the French do better than anyone else on the Planet, and headed for the door.

Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek would have asked, with more than a little justification, "who, exactly, is going to pay for this, since we haven't got two cents to rub together", followed by a request to postpone their dispatching of forces until they, ya' know, won the Civil War.

Flat out non-starter.
 
If the UN had a military, then that would've been contradictory to the mission statement of the UN, which is to prevent another world war through peaceful means. It is a diplomatic organization, not a military one. If the UN kept stating that is against war, but at the same time, maintaining a strong military would've made most of the world a bit nervous, since this military would not be answerable to any nation, but to a extranational organization which has the mandate to stick it's nose wherever it pleases.
 
The U.N. council is composed of leaders who happen to have the same goals and ideas and who decide to use the night of their collective militaries to enforce those ideas. U.S., UK, and France must suffer a deep state situation for this to occur, otherwise the U.N. security council won't always be so cooperative when three of its heads keep being switched around, leading to ideals always changing. Maybe they can be dominated by three mega corporations run by three people, each representing each nation, and then those three keep influencing elections to pick what are essentially their puppets.

The U.N. council then forms an army based on volunteers soldiers from member nations who have certain skills and ideals. They'd be more loyal to the U.N. security council members as a whole, then they would be to their national governments as a whole. I don't think an army of this type would be super public, but more like a global CIA/FBI who go on covert missions to influence the path of whole nations, rather than our right invade them. Instead of invading a nation to enforce climate change preventing measures, they'd just influence it's elections and/or support coups that lead to the installation of groups who will follow U.N. policies.
 
Flat out non-starter.
Not as much as you might think...the Charter of the United Nations actually explicitly includes a provision in Article 47 for a Military Staff Committee (to be composed of the Chiefs of Staff or their representatives on the P5) which was intended to serve as essentially a Joint Chiefs for a UN military force (and still exists, albeit mainly as a place to put semi-retired flag officers). Article 45 in fact explicitly calls on members to "hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action". Is this less extreme than the proposed signing over of forces directly? Yes, but at the same time it shows that the founders of the United Nations clearly envisioned a much more substantial role for the United Nations in controlling and directing global military forces than is actually the case today. It's hard to underestimate the utopian internationalist spirit which drove the early United Nations and how ready people were to at least say that they were trying to work together with other nations in the cause of peace and goodwill and so on.

That being said, actually assigning forces directly to the United Nations for control was probably too far for all but the most internationalist of internationalists at that time. So the closest thing I could see happening to the OP's proposal is an expansion of Article 45 calling additionally for ground and naval forces to be "held immediately available," and perhaps providing an explicit formula for the share of air, naval, and ground forces that should be so held by a given Member. However, the fate of this *Article 45 would probably be the same as the actual Article 45: being totally ignored due to Cold War tensions, and thus becoming a dead letter by the modern era, with only some moribund sinecure committees and councils remaining.

At the very, very most extreme limits of possibility, I could see a UN "Rapid Response Brigade/Regiment" being formed--it clearly threatens no one by itself and, at least in theory, allows the UN to rapidly respond to crises--but it probably would only rarely be deployed at best, and would end up mostly being a propaganda and spying tool (as well as another sinecure). That would be about the most UN military power that I could see possibly being allowed to exist in any timeline where the Security Council is anything other than the playground of one nation which is mostly setting up something like the UN to be a velvet glove over their world dominance. In that case, sure, go wild.

If the UN had a military, then that would've been contradictory to the mission statement of the UN, which is to prevent another world war through peaceful means.
Well, peaceful means were preferred, yes, but the creators of the United Nations were realistic enough to realize that sometimes combat might be needed to enforce the peace. Hence Chapter VII, Article 42:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

In other words, an explicit blanket authorization for the United Nations to use military force in peacekeeping operations. And, as above, Members were supposed to "hold immediately available" air forces for use in UN operations, so the creators certainly envisioned the United Nations operating and directing military forces from time to time. The idea of having a permanent UN force available is actually not much of a change from OTL, provided that it isn't clearly meant to supplant national armed forces.
 
Last edited:
In other words, an explicit blanket authorization for the United Nations to use military force in peacekeeping operations. And, as above, Members were supposed to "hold immediately available" air forces for use in UN operations, so the creators certainly envisioned the United Nations operating and directing military forces from time to time. The idea of having a permanent UN force available is actually not much of a change from OTL, provided that it isn't clearly meant to supplant national armed forces.

Technically, a military branch like that already exists. It's called NATO. The bombing of Yugoslavia, the Gulf War, the War on Terror, the no-fly-zone over Libya in 2011, etc were all predominantly enforced or carried out by countries from NATO. While it's not technically under the authority of the UN (since it derives it's authority from the North Atlantic Treaty, not the UN Charter), it's the closest thing we have. Also, NATO is primarily meant for collective defence, not to enforce UN mandates, so it's less intimidating to other nations (unless you're Russia, I guess).
 

Marc

Donor
I once kicked out over some beers, the notion of the United Nations hiring the Gurkha regiments for a military police force...
Totally improbable, but amusing.
 
IMHO a big issue is the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. The UN has been in the peacekeeping business (the Korean War with UN approval is the one exception).(1) Peacekeepers basically are cops to keep the peace and can only function in an environment where both sides pretty much obey agreements. When one side or another decides peace agreements are over, the UN forces basically imitate bold Sir Robin. The actions of the UN peacekeepers between Israel and the Arabs in multiple instances, the UN in the former Yugoslavia, various African nations etc are all excellent examples of this. OTOH peacemakers enter the scene and tell both sides to stop fighting and play nice, and proceed to kick ass until both sides listen - this involves a willingness to kill people and break things. That the UN does not and has not done.

Aside from intervening to stop an actual conflict, which is certainly something a military can do, what else could a UN military force do. Invade the USA and shut down every coal fired power plant? Sure that reduces carbon emissions, but now you have lots of folks with little or no electricity. Invade China and shut down every factory dumping pollutants in rivers and watersheds? OK, now how do all those factory workers buy their next load of groceries? Really?

(1) The use of military force in Korea was not really run by the UN, the security council resolution approving this only passed due to the USSR boycotting the meetings and therefore not exercising veto power. The USA and most of the forces in Korea would have been there and done the same things had the UN resolution been vetoed - it was a fig leaf.
 
Aside from intervening to stop an actual conflict, which is certainly something a military can do, what else could a UN military force do. Invade the USA and watch the USAF and USN blow your invasion force to smithereens? Invade China and watch the Chinese Army chew up your army and spit it out?
Corrected for accuracy.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
...Quoting from Article 47, "There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament." (emphasis added)
This might be ... 'supplemented' by Article 45 :
"In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediatly available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. ... "

Reads for me : every members has to have some air-force units available for immediate service for the UN only at every time.

And for all those : "Noone would have ever agreed to" advocates here ... These intended arrangement HAVE actually been signed.
Don't forget how and why :
The Charte of the UN is bades on the Atlantik-Charta of the wallies and the declaration of the United Nations of the Allied powers ion WW 2.
It was modelled after the experience they had : a toothless LoN, unable to counter a Mussolini (Äthiopia) or a Hitler. The 'new' organisation was intented to have teeth strong enough to counter the named contingencies.​

Though I admitt that these 'good intentions' were rather quickly thrown under the bus for national interests in the upcomming cold war.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not as much as you might think...the Charter of the United Nations actually explicitly includes a provision in Article 47 for a Military Staff Committee (to be composed of the Chiefs of Staff or their representatives on the P5) which was intended to serve as essentially a Joint Chiefs for a UN military force (and still exists, albeit mainly as a place to put semi-retired flag officers). Article 45 in fact explicitly calls on members to "hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action". Is this less extreme than the proposed signing over of forces directly? Yes, but at the same time it shows that the founders of the United Nations clearly envisioned a much more substantial role for the United Nations in controlling and directing global military forces than is actually the case today. It's hard to underestimate the utopian internationalist spirit which drove the early United Nations and how ready people were to at least say that they were trying to work together with other nations in the cause of peace and goodwill and so on.

That being said, actually assigning forces directly to the United Nations for control was probably too far for all but the most internationalist of internationalists at that time. So the closest thing I could see happening to the OP's proposal is an expansion of Article 45 calling additionally for ground and naval forces to be "held immediately available," and perhaps providing an explicit formula for the share of air, naval, and ground forces that should be so held by a given Member. However, the fate of this *Article 45 would probably be the same as the actual Article 45: being totally ignored due to Cold War tensions, and thus becoming a dead letter by the modern era, with only some moribund sinecure committees and councils remaining.

At the very, very most extreme limits of possibility, I could see a UN "Rapid Response Brigade/Regiment" being formed--it clearly threatens no one by itself and, at least in theory, allows the UN to rapidly respond to crises--but it probably would only rarely be deployed at best, and would end up mostly being a propaganda and spying tool (as well as another sinecure). That would be about the most UN military power that I could see possibly being allowed to exist in any timeline where the Security Council is anything other than the playground of one nation which is mostly setting up something like the UN to be a velvet glove over their world dominance. In that case, sure, go wild.


Well, peaceful means were preferred, yes, but the creators of the United Nations were realistic enough to realize that sometimes combat might be needed to enforce the peace. Hence Chapter VII, Article 42:



In other words, an explicit blanket authorization for the United Nations to use military force in peacekeeping operations. And, as above, Members were supposed to "hold immediately available" air forces for use in UN operations, so the creators certainly envisioned the United Nations operating and directing military forces from time to time. The idea of having a permanent UN force available is actually not much of a change from OTL, provided that it isn't clearly meant to supplant national armed forces.
No, pretty much exactly as I thought. A brigade, even a division, is entirely possible considering the number countries involved. 10% of the military budget of the U.S. or the USSR or PRC or even the UK? Not a chance in Hell. The U.S. isn't going to give up even a full division full time, forever, to a UN command, much less two and a couple CBG.
 
... other than Korea.
Even there it only worked because the Soviets had thrown a strop and walked out earlier in the year over Chinese representation, if their ambassador had still been attending they would have just vetoed it.
 
There was a study for what even an ideal "UN Legion" (made in the calm-with-hindsight 1990s) would look like. It pretty much amounts to a slightly large but light mechanized division (four brigades, 14 total battalions that would, at absolute most, still only deploy in brigade-sized chunks) whose heaviest weapons are helicopters and MGS/ERC/Centauro-style "wheeled vehicles with big guns".

I even stacked it up in a spherical cow comparison to a generic "ex-Soviet client third world" OPFOR country in a conventional battle.
 
Last edited:
Probably the biggest issue is you've got to change the UN Security Council's permanent member's veto power (China, France Russia, UK, USA) which enables them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution. This would allow action to be done in spite of one country getting protection from a permanent member (or their own action).

The problem is that without that Security council veto power the big boys take their balls and go home.
 
How about 10% of armed forces of just security council members but all members of UN pay for its upkeep
So it streamlines logistics issues , language cultural issues but all members pay for this force

Realistically you'd still need the US to pay for the majority of costs much like the rest of the UN since it's foundation.
 
Top