What if the UN "annexed" failed states?

Here's the applicable list (according to me :D)

Somalia
Syria
Libya

Etc.

What if the UN, through some handwavium political finagaling was given the authority to "annex" in the sense of state building failed states for the purpose of doing just that; rebuilding the state infrastructure and establishing parliamentary democracy?

Thoughts?
 
Here's the applicable list (according to me :D)

Somalia
Syria
Libya

Etc.

What if the UN, through some handwavium political finagaling was given the authority to "annex" in the sense of state building failed states for the purpose of doing just that; rebuilding the state infrastructure and establishing parliamentary democracy?

Thoughts?
You mean installing an interim UN administration?
 

Old Airman

Banned
Here's the applicable list (according to me :D)

Somalia
Syria
Libya

Etc.

What if the UN, through some handwavium political finagaling was given the authority to "annex" in the sense of state building failed states for the purpose of doing just that; rebuilding the state infrastructure and establishing parliamentary democracy?

Thoughts?
Iraq was, for all intents and purposes, "annexed" by the US with the stated goal of rebuilding the state infrastructure and establishing parliamentary democracy. Same thing happened to Haiti approximately a century ago. We all know how good it went. UN would, in all likelihood, be LESS effective.
 
At the time of the LoN, the states which were assessed as incapable of self-government were put under the administration of member states as "mandates". The more one changes.....
 

jahenders

Banned
If they just temporarily administered them it could work. They essentially do that in some cases today, but it's only when the UN member states agree to do so.

If, instead, you had a situation where the UN just declared states failed and then took them over for good, then they would become a bizarre country in their own right, with a patchwork of dubiously stable state all over the world. In general, this would mean the UN would ask members (mainly the US) to pay TRILLIONS to keep all these countries stable, with a fair portion of that money being wasted by the UN.

Alternately, if the UN became a shadow government of sorts, they could cynically tweak the definition of "failed" to slowly justify the taking over of one country after another until they eventually even absorbed the superpowers.
 
If they just temporarily administered them it could work. They essentially do that in some cases today, but it's only when the UN member states agree to do so.

If, instead, you had a situation where the UN just declared states failed and then took them over for good, then they would become a bizarre country in their own right, with a patchwork of dubiously stable state all over the world. In general, this would mean the UN would ask members (mainly the US) to pay TRILLIONS to keep all these countries stable, with a fair portion of that money being wasted by the UN.

Alternately, if the UN became a shadow government of sorts, they could cynically tweak the definition of "failed" to slowly justify the taking over of one country after another until they eventually even absorbed the superpowers.

Frightening propositions. But when look at a country like Somalia. An international body coming in and establishing order, through shared multi-polar costs would be win in the long run, at least according to me
 
I did wonder quite a few times, that would be a return of the mandates.

Could work for stabilisation purposes with a technocratic government. As one says, you don't need to have political affiliation to build roads.
 
Top