Because The Un

[rmgill]

Can little Japan join new US-led UN?

Of course.

 

Years ago I saw a nominative alliance framed around the AngloSphere.

 

US, UK, Canada, Australia, various commonwealth nations that tend to have English Common law and usually English as a primary spoken language. This would include India and Japan by way of a number of common factors while not being specifically anglo, but more due to their high level of political alignment, common background OR joint goals as nations go.

 

It's framed around a common set of rights, vision of what sorts of economies work and national productivity. Generally, one of the key things was that it was a very loose confederation but with a high degree of travel allowed between each of the nations insofar as worker sojourner laws with like for like numbers. Thus Americans could travel to the UK to work and Britons could travel to the US to work without proir approval, so long as the number doing so were commensurate with those from the other nation. The idea being to increase the amount of common interaction between each nation and make business opportunities more cross linked and thus the bonds of friendship AND commerce stronger.

 

There's also an expectation of military alliance there as well. But then the US already has such an alliance with most of those nations as a rule now.

[rmgill]

Canadian UN troops were usually quite effective when we did have some - depending on what restrictions UN headquarters placed on them.

Which was my point. They also tended to not cause worse problems in the nations the were attempting to aid. Like where Nepalese troops caused a cholera outbreak in Haiti. OR the rampant sex trade in the Balkans. You won't see me lauding the lack of Canadian Military Capacity. I know a crewman on one of their handful's of C17s. I would like him to have a LOT more peers on other aircraft vs the ~15 or so peers doing what he does across 5 aircraft. More so, a very good friend of mine was CANFOR in the Levant during the 80s. Any sort of criticism of Canada's current military capacity, is something I derive specifically from his unhappiness about the status of tanks in Canada and how his beloved armor force is a pale shadow of what it was.

 

Point being, there's two types of Peace Keeping forces.

Those which are providing service and having some quantity of money to offset their costs.

And those which are making money off of their Peace Keeping mission as a funds transfer from the rich nations that fund the UN to themselves.

Edited July 2, 2020 by rmgill

[Nobu]

US, UK, Canada, Australia, various commonwealth nations that tend to have English Common law and usually English as a primary spoken language. This would include India and Japan by way of a number of common factors while not being specifically anglo, but more due to their high level of political alignment, common background OR joint goals as nations go.

It's framed around a common set of rights, vision of what sorts of economies work and national productivity. Generally, one of the key things was that it was a very loose confederation but with a high degree of travel allowed between each of the nations insofar as worker sojourner laws with like for like numbers. Thus Americans could travel to the UK to work and Britons could travel to the US to work without proir approval, so long as the number doing so were commensurate with those from the other nation. The idea being to increase the amount of common interaction between each nation and make business opportunities more cross linked and thus the bonds of friendship AND commerce stronger.

 

There's also an expectation of military alliance there as well. But then the US already has such an alliance with most of those nations as a rule now.

 

This sounds a bit like the Japan-led TPP, which America and Americans wasted the time of the Abe years with. Ironically, because instead of putting in the effort to craft it into something ratifiable, Washington simply walked away. Ditching the UN would imply a trend.

 

Fool me three times and all that.

[Brian Kennedy]

Kinda surprised (unless I missed it in an earlier post) that nobody has brought up the Haiti Cholera scandal. Definitely a valid criticism of the U.N. and how it hires mercenaries I mean peacekeepers. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/americas/united-nations-haiti-cholera.html