23
$\begingroup$

I am the leader of the of the Egyptian nation. I want to invade the Middle East and recreate the Muslim caliphate of old. I do know, however, that with the United Nations in my way, I will never accomplish my dream.

Assume that I want to dissolve the United Nations. The only way I can see this happening is another world war, however I do not want this. I want the United Nations to fall apart in the sense that it doesn't function OR it doesn't exist. It can still technically exist, but it should not have enough power to enforce sanctions on nations or authorize military actions.

I have until about 2060 to dissolve the pesky organization, and it is currently 2020, with my current age being 40. What is the quickest, most realistic (politically speaking) way to do this without a world war?

I will have whatever resources the current Egypt has.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Hydrochloric acid? But in all seriousness, there are tons of ways to do this and quickest/most realistic is pretty subjective. This question might be too broad. Maybe if you give a smaller timeframe, or more framework for the scenario? $\endgroup$ – Dan Smolinske Sep 24 '15 at 18:42
  • 20
    $\begingroup$ Dissolving the UN will not help you. The USA are what you need to get rid of. Anyway, if you want the UN to not function, all you need is the veto nations not to agree with each other. Then you can be sure that one of them will veto any action of the UN supported by the other. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Sep 24 '15 at 18:57
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ How is the UN in the way? UN usually is a tool of one of the big five, if anything its effect is to soften their influence (because if you are friendly with other of the big five, they can veto any resolution against you). Without UN, any nation that does not like you is free to just begin bombing you because there is no higher instance in international politics to which protest. $\endgroup$ – SJuan76 Sep 24 '15 at 18:58
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Be sure to consider the fact that Israel has nuclear bomb at its disposal. Also consider that if you start from Egypt, you probably want to recreate the Shia caliphate, thus you will get major opposition from Sunni powers, namely Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. You will also get opposition from Iran, since you will try to "steal" their leadership in the Shia world. It is probable that the UN will be a minor problem in comparison with all these. Also take into consideration that the UN has no restrictive power, only the security council have. $\endgroup$ – Kolaru Sep 24 '15 at 22:04
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ You you want to make UN irrelevant between 2020 and 2060, you have to first make it relevant somewhere between 2015-2020. If you have any idea how to do it, please share it with the rest of the world, there's probably a Nobel for that. $\endgroup$ – Darth Hunterix Sep 25 '15 at 12:08
16
$\begingroup$

This one is actually pretty easy to answer.

Egypt's #1 ally outside of the Middle East (and plausible #1 overall) is the United States. This takes the form of large amounts of economic and military aid. Egyptian military officers are trained by the US military in the US (I actually had a few in my classes when I was in training). If your future Egypt can keep the US on its side, or at least be patient enough for the US to get completely fed up with the UN you are good to go.

The US is the linchpin that holds the UN together and without US support its effectiveness (which in my opinion is often suspect anyway, though...you're working with the whole world so its bound to be complicated) would diminish to the point where it would be little more than a puppet show.

According to the UN website the US provides 28.38% of the peace keeping budget. If that goes away (not to mention the US military forces that support the UN) the ability of the organization to do much more than chastise you is severely diminished.

More broadly the US is the largest donor to the UN generally. (This data is somewhat dated, but still illustrative) The US donated 6 Billion dollars more to the UN 2002, 2003 and 2004 than the second place nation (Japan) The gap between the US and Japan is MORE than Japan gave in total (5.5 billion). The total three year tally for the US was $11,398,068,755.

The short version: The US stops giving money to the UN.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's a pretty good answer. $\endgroup$ – Green Sep 24 '15 at 19:12
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ How to get the US to stop giving the UN money? Convince them to apply the funds to the national debt, instead. $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Sep 24 '15 at 19:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Frostfyre - Or have Ron Paul become president. He's been pushing withdrawal from the UN since at least '97. $\endgroup$ – Compro01 Sep 25 '15 at 13:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This doesn't answer how you would go about this, though. The US standing aside while Egypt builds a caliphate? Aside from the question being misled in the first place. If the UN dissolves, I seriously doubt this will make Europe powerless to do anything about it, or Russia, neither of which are really interested in a caliphate. On the contrary, with the UN gone, those factions might be quicker to react to such a middle east development. $\endgroup$ – DevSolar Sep 25 '15 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ @DevSolar I didn't omit anything by accident, my answer is intentionally high level. The world builder should fill in the exact details of how. I am simply attempting to illustrate how the UN works to give a baseline on the most efficient method. $\endgroup$ – James Sep 25 '15 at 13:31
16
$\begingroup$

Realistically,what you need to get is the support of at least one of the permanent members of the security council. To actually succeed, you'd want the US, Russia, China supporting you and France being not hostile. The UK will follow the lead of the US in Middle East issues and can be ignored. Under these circumstances you can let your friends handle the UN and ignore it.

Your question is somewhat puzzling as it seems to suggest that the UN has some independent political clout, which it specifically does not. Preventing such influence is why those permanent members have their veto power.

As for implementing this... that is left as an exercise to the reader. Just kidding. The best method is generally to take it step by step and opportunistically. Have a clear idea what you want to do and act decisively when an opportunity arises. That is how Bismarck united Germany and defeated France and Austria. (And Denmark.)

First, he inherited a state capable of acting more efficiently than the competition and built up on that. So you must build a military that is capable of gaining your goals with a short, victorious war. The important thing here that Bismark understood, but his successors did not, is that instead of trying to build an insane war machine you break up your goals into to smaller steps that the military you actually have can achieve and then do those step by step. This "lack of ambition" also stops other players from going to panic mode and ganging up on you.

And that really is the most important part, use diplomacy to stop others from joining forces against you. Bismarck had wars against most of his significant neighbours while having significant internal instability due to unification. He was able to to defeat each of his enemies in isolation, often with the help or support of his next target. Or the previous one.

Doing this requires using "real politik". Your actions must be based on the actual reality on the ground and rational decision making. Not on some obscure historical enmity between your country and, say, Israel or Iran. Your alliances must be issue specific and you must ally with every one with significant power that supports you on the issue.

Then you simply must choose such issues that you can further your ultimate goal of uniting the Middle East at the expense of one player who gets isolated in the issue. Most politicians have problems handling the issues that arise due to external factors. True players of the "real politik" know that you are entirely free to interpret those issues as you wish.

If Austria throws a fit as a consequence of an assassination and insists the existing alliance requires Germany to support them in the resulting war, the German Chancellor is entirely free to disagree and instead insist on a peace conference with an agenda of his making. Even if you have the strongest army in the area, you must always remember that it is impossible to win a war. Victory comes at the negotiating table. Fighting just gives you an edge you can use. Thus you should move to peace as fast as is practical. Preferably before a single shot has been fired at your forces. Foreign Archdukes do not count.

Minimizing warfare while at a position of strength also makes diplomacy much easier. This also covers all hostility. If you have hostile relations with someone, either inherited or because you just had a war with them, you should move to have friendly relations with them as soon as you can. Potential allies are useful, potential enemies are not. Any wars you have must be to solve a specific issue, not to fight an enemy.

You are probably wondering why I am listing general remarks, not specific notes on Middle East. That is because the situation evolves from the current as soon as you take the first step. In fact the major goal of your first steps, any steps really, should be to transform the situation so that the reality and "the gaming board" changes. Not necessarily directly in your benefit, but enough that alliances and old enmities become fluid.

Note that the result is a tangle of alliances and pacts that only a really good player can manage. That would be you, and optimally not anyone you have a conflict of interest with. So you should have a plan of succession that either gives your successor an easier to manage situation or assure a successor capable of replacing you.

For Egypt, I'd suggest the first step should be pacification of Libya. Libya has oil. Egypt has strong interests in Libya that allow you to raise an issue in Libya any time you wish. And nobody really cares, what you do to the lunatics currently ruling much of the country. Especially not the ordinary Libyans, they must be fairly disillusioned with the way things currently are.

And it is fairly easy to raise a counter-terrorism angle to get support from the US. China can be bough with oil. The Europeans with oil and fixing the humanitarian situation. (Read: African immigration issue.) Russians could be swayed with a more rational and independent Middle East policy. They do not really approve how Uncle Sam and friends have been mucking around. Note that you should use deals with factions in Libya as much as you can and minimize fighting. Since your plans are bigger than Libya you can afford to be generous and give wide autonomy in addition to peace and stability.

Usually there would be a nationalism issue with Libyans not really liking being annexed by Egypt, but since you are intending to rebuild a caliphate anyway, you can just use that to gain popular support. And the need for popular support to explain why you are talking about caliphate. Which totally would screw over those people in Syria that everyone except possibly Turkey hates... (Because they fight Kurds.)

If you can pacify and annex Libya, next step should probably be Sudan. Using negotiation annex southern parts as autonomous area and then crush the northern part with its religious lunatics in between. Rationales and external politics should be similar to Libya.

Then you could negotiate peaceful annexation with what remains of the Assad regime and move to pacify and annex Syria.

For the rest of region, there would be too many changes at this point to make reasonable predictions, but if you did the negotiation parts of the previous annexations well enough, you should have wide popular support for your caliphate and lots of credibility with the political elite. Opportunities should arise naturally. You should be able to offer people of Iraq a better deal than their own government, for example.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1. So what you're saying is..... Promise lots of cheap oil to China and America if you win the war? Heheh. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_by_country . China's production and consumption are both currently half the US, meaning they import a similar percentage. China's consumption in a few decades has to pass US consumption, and their proven reserves are basically the same as the US. I see a pinch happening. $\endgroup$ – Level River St Sep 25 '15 at 8:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @steveverrill The actual numbers, predictions, or prices are not actually that important. Oil is considered a strategic resource since it is vital for modern military power. That means that countries like the US and China that worry about the strategic balance of military power always want to secure access to oil reserves or remove threats to oil supply. So you can have strong relationship based on shared interests without actually giving anything other than business as usual. Just deal with them with honesty and respect and you'll be their best friend in the region. $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Sep 25 '15 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ I wasn't expecting a reply, but thinking about it, you've drawn attention to a problem. Egypt has relatively little oil, while Saudi Arabia has loads (hence its strong relationship with the US.) How does Egypt build credibility in the face of that? Does it wait for (or some how engineer) a massive fuckup on the part of the Saudis? I'm thinking of some Palpatinesque manipulations. $\endgroup$ – Level River St Sep 25 '15 at 12:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @steveverrill No need to manufacture anything. Neither Saudis nor Israel have really been doing that good a job at being friends of the US in the last few decades. Or having a rational foreign policy that makes them any friends. IMHO as long as you do nothing that directly threatens either of them or intrudes into the corner they have painted themselves in politically, you should be able to work around them. Presuming of course that you provide strong leadership and strategy that actually solves issues instead of making them worse or just containing them. $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Sep 25 '15 at 12:36
5
$\begingroup$

Virtually speaking, this appears easy. Practically speaking, there are a lot of factors involved.

You may accomplish your goal by:

Method 1

Get at least one of the veto power holders to your side. As stated by James, US is already your biggest ally. Once you convince the US congress that the target nations are training terrorists and you are making a preemptive assault, you're fine. Having US on your side = having UK (and perhaps israel too) on your side automatically. The foreign policy of both these countries is heavily influenced by US' take on international matters. Having them on your side would mean once you initiate your assault, only China and Russia are going to chide you. Venezuela and North Korea would spew a lot of vitriolic speeches against you, but nothing is going to happen practically.

Method 2

Drive a wedge between the prominent players in UN and crack them open. All countries have their own interests. Although the western hemisphere has completely given up infighting and always resolve their conflicts by talks and diplomacy, if you are able to present something so valuable and indivisible that it turns the western nations against one another, it will naturally rip UNO apart too, making it either fall into lobbies and groups (virtually inefficient as an organization) or dissolve completely.

However this is not as easy as it might seem. You will need to present something that turns (at least politically) the west apart. Is it a new market for their products? Is it a natural resource they all direly want and is very rare? I leave that to you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wedge between prominent UN players? Are there not already giant wedges between US and Russia and US and China? $\endgroup$ – corsiKa Sep 24 '15 at 22:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Re: Method 1, I don't honestly think that the US would stay on Egypt's side very long once Israel figured out that OP is trying to reestablish the Caliphate. Israel would complain that the existence of the Caliphate means that they'll eventually be invaded for Jerusalem, so they'd pressure the US to condemn OP's expansion. $\endgroup$ – John Robinson Sep 24 '15 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ @corsiKa: I was particularly referring to the western side who always stick together. As long as they stand together, it would be very hard to destabilize UN as a supreme organization. $\endgroup$ – Youstay Igo Sep 25 '15 at 3:53
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnRobinson: I totally agree with that. But do you really think OP is dumb enough to already reveal his plans when the fruit is not already in his hands? ;) $\endgroup$ – Youstay Igo Sep 25 '15 at 3:54
  • $\begingroup$ @YoustayIgo: I mean, he IS getting into a land war in Asia.... ;) $\endgroup$ – John Robinson Sep 25 '15 at 4:46
2
$\begingroup$

As I said in my comments, I do not think that you would get any advantage by dissolving the UN, but to answer the question the idea is to decrease (more!) the effectiveness of the UN and create alternative forums.

One possible point of attack would be the "WW II winners" setup of the Security Council, including the veto power of the big five. Why France or the UK have veto power, while countries with lots more of population like India, Japan or Indonesia are not even permanent members of the council? Advertise as much as possible the idea that UN is just a post-colonial puppet, a way for the other countries to become political clients of the big five.

Of course, that alone is not new to anyone, the idea is not to convince the leaders but to cause a negative public opinion of the UN in the population, so the leaders are less inclined to accept it.

The other part of the plan is the hard one: build one (or several) alternate mechanisms for people to attend, so they have an alternate forum. One that works.

The hard part is always enforcement, is relatively easy to get Syria and Israel to have peace talks, it is somewhat difficult to have leverage to get them to agree at something, it is way more difficult to force them to put that agreement into effect (and punish them if they do). Here Egypt is too much a lightweight to do so, you would need to enroll some heavies like India or Japan to provide support for that (and of course, in that way you are risking yourself to become part of UN 2.0, that is dominated by India and Japan instead of the big five).

The best outcome would be that the functions of the UN are taken by a bunch of different organizations, each weak enough to not be too powerful against you. Of course, this will be way more difficult because it will make any agreement even more difficult; and world leaders would be aware. Even worse, if you agree to that, the big five now are free to build each one their "puppet UN" and totally free to follow their own policies.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It'll be even more difficult to get Israel and Syria to implement an agreement if the arbiter nation punishes them for doing so. $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Sep 24 '15 at 19:20
2
$\begingroup$

The U.N. is irrelevant, per se. If a nuclear power wants to fight you, it will. If they don’t, the U.N. can’t make them.

So what you want is for the important powers, those who could project sufficient military force to stop you, to be willing to live with you in control of a Caliphate. The most likely way to get them to allow this is to convince them that you’re the only person capable of keeping order in the region, and that if they got rid of you, what would follow would be worse. It will actually help if they aren’t dependent on oil as a crucial resource, since then they could afford to let you control it, for what that’s worth.

Note that you cannot invade a nuclear power successfully and every one of your neighbors who sees what you’re doing will go nuclear as soon as possible. You might be able to undermine to some degree, but there is just no way you can ever get all the ethnic groups in the region to accept what you want to do. If you’re willing to accept vassals and indirect rule, and don’t care whether people under your thumb follow your religion as long as they support your foreign policy, that might be workable. If you don’t actually care about the Palestinians or that a Zionist state rules Jerusalem, you can just sell the Palesinians out in a peace deal that makes Israel your client state. If you do, you’ve effectively got to cripple Israel before you can invade it, in a way that will destroy its independence but not provoke them to retaliate. Repeat for Iran, Turkey and Pakistan if you want to go after them.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.