Trade Sanctions

[Drefsab]

Something fun to add to the UN would be the ability for the secretary general to propose trade sanctions against a civilization. Just a thought that the Korean thing made me think of.

[MasterDave]

To follow the U.N. model, it should take at least 10-15 years for any sanctions to get approved. Furthermore, nations under trade sanction should get a substantial gold bonus, from "under the table" transactions, with the U.N. secretary getting a percentage as a kickback.

[Dirtstyl3]

.

Typical Republican american that listen to the fox BS

all day long.

The U.N works it has its flaws but since the US is the only super power now the dumb dumb bush think its no longer needed.

Just watch the republicans use the U.N back again in 2015 when China will be the other super power using its sphere of influence at the council.

Chinese wont repress north Korea they are doing the exact same thing the US did wich is building enough friends to buff up its chest .

1984 romance coming in a bit more everyday.

The UN is a faster more diplomatic league of nations , where on country after WW2 cant wage war whitout daily impact on their war declaration.

[sparkyal]

not to be difficult, but I'm pretty sure what mater dave said can be backed up with facts (although i think it's 8 years of debate ).

also, I think he was joking...making light of the situation...horsing around....making a funny...etc....

and as for the game, sanctions would be pretty cool. I have found it difficult to get the AI to stop trading with certain people. and I still like the idea of building nukes (in the game) in violation of the UN resolution.

sparky

[Dirtstyl3]

yeah i know but i dont like when people spread lies that their goverment brainwashed them to say that the U.N is BS and that it dosent work when in fact it probably saved us from nuclear annihilation and kept the cold war a kiddy war seen in Gi.Joe.



What if they spoke to a north korean today that would try to tell the world how much they are superior and how much they are good at everything , any yank would probably laugh their arse off.


As a canadian the only thing to me under a sick conservative gobiment that makes sense is the U.N .

[MasterDave]

The UN itself is a joke. It may have been more meaningful during the cold war, but since I have been paying attention it sat around making pretty speeches while allowing a genocide of half a million people to occur in Rwanda, and is allowing another to happen in Darfur. I challenge anyone to name one example of where the U.N. handled a world crisis in an efficeint and effective manner in the last 15 years. Its cease fires around the world are meaningless, it is rife with corruption (to be fair, all governments are corrupt to some degree, but the UN operates on a much larger scale than most with far less accountability).

I was joking before, but the barely coherent attempt by Dirtstyl3 to flame me as some mind-numbed Bush robot are a bit annoying. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I do have a degree in History from an Ivy League School (Penn) and I have done plenty of independent research on the inneffectuality of the UN during the last 15 years or so. I do not watch Fox news or any televised "news" expecting anything more than propaganda.

The UN is obsolete today, and is now nothing more than a vehicle for a new aristocracy of diplomats to enrich themselves and debate pointless measures and resolutions that nobody pays attention to the day after they are made. It is "feel good" politics without any teeth, but at a very large price tag.

One thing that drives me crazy is label-hurling substituting for logic or actual knowledge of world history or events. Nice try, though Dirstyl13, and I eagerly await the personal attack you will undoubtedly make to refute what I just wrote...

[Kuciwalker]

Re: .

Originally posted by Dirtstyl3
Typical Republican american that listen to the fox BS

all day long.

The U.N works it has its flaws but since the US is the only super power now the dumb dumb bush think its no longer needed.

Just watch the republicans use the U.N back again in 2015 when China will be the other super power using its sphere of influence at the council.

Chinese wont repress north Korea they are doing the exact same thing the US did wich is building enough friends to buff up its chest .

1984 romance coming in a bit more everyday.

The UN is a faster more diplomatic league of nations , where on country after WW2 cant wage war whitout daily impact on their war declaration.

I haven't seen such an incoherent assortment of random ignorant eurocom for a while. Thanks

[Thedrin]

When it comes to issues handled by the UN security council the UN is effectively nothing more than a place where international conferences can take place. Failures to handle problems in the manner we would like are not due to inherent problems with the UN (unless you wish to transfer some of your nations sovereignty to the UN). They are simply due to nations failing to solve the problem. The existence of the UN no more hinders or helps the process since it is realistically only the major powers that can solve major problems and recent events show that the UN won't stop them from going their own way. It merely makes it easier for international conferences to take place. When crises are not handled in a satisfactory manner you would be wiser to blame the major powers for failing to reach a solution.

As for CivIV, I don't think anyone, opponent or proponent, would suggest that it serves the same purpose in the game that it serves in the real world. I would like to see internation conferences introduced into the game (detailed in a post I made in the Omega Expansions thread about a month ago). Such conferences existed prior to the UN (though they were much more difficult to organise). In Civ the UN simply provides an excuse for the introduction of a novel victory condition.

[Diadem]

I have to agree with MasterDave (And behold, I'm not an American). The main problem with the UN is, in his words:

Originally posted by MasterDave
The UN is obsolete today

The UN was invented for one purpose: The avoid war, and to avoid a nuclear war at all costs. For this reason all the countries that officially owned nuclear weapons got a seat in the UN security council, with veto rights. So the UN could do nothing at all without the approval of the most dangerous countries in the world.

The security council is the most important part of the UN. Everything else is window-dressing. Yes, even the general assembly. The general assembly is mainly a method for countries to throw insults at eachother without having to resort to warfare. It does not do anything meaningful.

This setup worked rather well. There have been no nuclear wars since the UNs conception. But it's obsolete now, for two reasons. First of all the setup of the UN security council is outdated. Not all countries with nuclear weapons are in there, in fact only half of them these days. And some other major powers are missing as well, mainly Germany and Japan.

But the most important reason is that the cold war is over. The UN has 'cold war institution' written all over it.

The UN should either be seriously reformed, or be done away with. I doubt serious reforming is possible though, it's too corrupt and too bureaucratic.

So let's just throw out the UN and invite some more countries into NATO. Because contrary to the UN the NATO is an organization that has a future. I'm not saying we should invite Russia and China into NATO, I believe NATO should only be for democratic countries, but we could at least work closely together with them to form a world police.

[Thedrin]

The UN was invented for one purpose: The avoid war, and to avoid a nuclear war at all costs. For this reason all the countries that officially owned nuclear weapons got a seat in the UN security council, with veto rights.

Wrong.

When the UN was formed only one nation had nuclear weapons. The permanent memebers of the security council was comprised of the victorious powers in WWII. The UN was set up to help avoid future wars in a manner that would suit the then triumphant nations.

... to avoid a nuclear war at all costs.

...

This setup worked rather well. There have been no nuclear wars since the UNs conception.

There are many successes that people could reasonably claim as successes of the UN. This is not one of them.

NATO is not a feasible alternative. This institution was deliberatly set up to curb the power of Russia. Russia would never join.

[Blaupanzer]

Re: Trade Sanctions

Originally posted by Drefsab
Something fun to add to the UN would be the ability for the secretary general to propose trade sanctions against a civilization. Just a thought that the Korean thing made me think of.

On this point, I like this. In the game, this might be useful in cutting back the power of an aggressive leader. The individual nations would be too intimidated to do this on their own, but might act collectively.

Does anyone know, have experience with whether vassals automatically vote with their masters at the UN? If the answer is no, then all the better! If not, this should be changed.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Diadem
I have to agree with MasterDave (And behold, I'm not an American).
The UN should either be seriously reformed, or be done away with. I doubt serious reforming is possible though, it's too corrupt and too bureaucratic.

So let's just throw out the UN and invite some more countries into NATO. Because contrary to the UN the NATO is an organization that has a future. I'm not saying we should invite Russia and China into NATO, I believe NATO should only be for democratic countries, but we could at least work closely together with them to form a world police.

While I would love to see the UN go away (and not have to pay for it anymore via taxes), and agree with most of your reasoning of your post and its last paragraph, I am very troubled by the very notion that we need a "world police." Either nations are sovereign or they are not. A nation should have the freedom to protect its own interests, and it should be up to other nations individually to decide how to respond to a crisis, event, or transgression of another country. The idea of a powerful but unelected "world government" , "world court", or "world police" that is even farther removed from the will of the people than a national government already is would be is chilling to my Libertarian sensibilities.

If NATO's mandate expanded to try to play this role of a "World police" enforcing highly nebulous "world opinion" on otherwise sovereign nations, then I would view that organization with just as much suspicion and cynicism as I currently hold for the U.N.

[Blaupanzer]

MasterDave,
What do you think of the idea of economic sanctions as an option in a game called Civilization IV?

The rest of your views related to real life would be better served on off-topic. As a fellow Libertarian, I would be happy to debate with you there the real and hidden uses the world's governments make of the UN, how it should be funded, and whether we would have to reinvent it if we got rid of this version.

[MasterDave]

Ok, Ok, I will post on topic for a change. I think that economic Sanctions in the game as something the UN could vote for could be an more interesting than what we have to vote on now. The other items are somewhat boring (imposing environmentalism, emancipation, etc). However, I do think it is somewhat redundant, as most AI players will already not be trading with someone they regard as hostile.

If the designers put in code that would have the AI automatically sanction a human player that is winning by a large margin in spite of individual good relations with the country being sanctioned, then it cheapens the value of maintaining good relations with another country in the game, and is a disincentive to make friends over the long term.

If the designers put in code that has the AI vote for sanctions for someone who has a history of attacking his friends (similar to the honor concept in Civ2), then I would probably be more in favor of that. However, the AI diplomacy system works fairly well in that the AI's have a long memory of being betrayed and not wanting to reopen their borders without considerable bribes after being attacked.

[Diadem]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Wrong.

When the UN was formed only one nation had nuclear weapons. The permanent memebers of the security council was comprised of the victorious powers in WWII. The UN was set up to help avoid future wars in a manner that would suit the then triumphant nations.

I did put the word nuclear between brackets. The point is that the UN was formed to avoid wars, and later on the focus kind of shifted towards nuclear wars. Anyway, of course, the purpose was never to avoid all wars. Just wars that the ruling countries in the world didn't like. Korea was fine, of course Many other wars as well.

There are many successes that people could reasonably claim as successes of the UN. This is not one of them.

Yes. Does the term 'irony' ring a bell?

NATO is not a feasible alternative. This institution was deliberatly set up to curb the power of Russia. Russia would never join.

Things change. Besides, curbing the power of Russia still seems to be a good thing. They aren't the most enlightened nation the world... In fact I think even China is more democratic, at the moment.