Do Republicans support a stronger UN?

Great Debates
1

The United Nations comes under a lot of criticism from Republicans for being weak and ineffectual, and I agree entirely. But back in the 90’s, they abhorred the UN because they felt it was a powerful threat to US sovereignty, and they worked to undermine it.

So is there a new feeling among the administration and its supporters that UN reform should include more resurces for peacekeeping/peacemaking, more aggressive rules of engagement, etc.? Or is it just another angle from which to undermine the UN out of basic opposition to internationalism?

2

I can’t speak for the administration, obviously, but generally Republicans do not support the UN. Their opposition falls into two camps, which you have identified: Some do not like the idea of an international body at all, out of a preference for isolationism or distrust of foreign policy (as opposed to domestic “foreign policy”). Others believe that the UN responds to acute crises by issuing Strongly Worded Messages. For the latter group, certainly a large part of the criticism is a perceived lack of resources/mandate for peacekeeping that has enough muscle behind it to actually keep the peace. If this issue were addressed, the view of the organization as largely ineffectual might change – for those whose opposition is practical. Those whose opposition is philosophical will probably never support the UN.

These positions are not as divergent as they may seem, since continuing UN ineffectualness (perceived) serves as a reason to not support this UN, as well as a reason not to support any UN/League of Nations at all.

3

There’s also the economic and military realities of the UN. The United States pays a considerable share of the operating budget of the UN, far more than any other country, but the perception is that the UN is taking our money and giving us the dick at the same time. Also, when something goes down, historically the majority of the fighting/peacekeeping has ended up in our laps. So since the perception is that we do the fighting and we pay for everything anyway, what do we need the UN for? All they do is show us their ass on a regular basis, so let’s simply ignore them and follow our own lead rather than have the servant dictate to the master.

In some respects I agree with this, but in others I think the world needs the UN. As with anything else it’s never as simple as you want it to be.

4

Actually, we’re $1.3 billion in arrears on our dues.

5

I understand that. That doesn’t mean we’re not still responsible for it. We were assessed 25% of the operating costs for years. Now it’s down to 22%, which is still much more than Japan, who is number two on the list.

6

It strikes me that if the complaint is that you’re charged too much, that you’re not paying it all make it a somewhat less persuasive argument.

“That restaurant was too expensive!”
“So you just paid a bit of it, and left?”
“Well, yeah… but they charged us too much!”

That said, I think that from an American standpoint, an anti-U.N. view makes perfect sense. The U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world; unlike many other countries, for whom the U.N. would be a powerful ally, the U.S. just doesn’t get much of a benefit from membership. It doesn’t need a peacekeeping force, or even economic sanctions/benefits, since it’s much easier to simply forge deals from their position of strength. Any action within the U.N. would just be a compromise for the U.S.; acting unilaterally gives a much better outcome for them (well, predicted better outcome, anyway). If I were Pres. of the U.S., I think i’d only “consult” with the U.N. to give the facade of giving a crap what other countries want, just to make us look a bit better on the world stage.

7

As a mod-right C’tian Repub, my view is- the UN exists so we might as well use it but for the most part, I view it much as I view NAMBLA - get our enemies concentrated in one place so we can keep an eye on then. :smiley:

8

The dues for the UN are based on the country’s share of the world’s GDP (plus a little fudge factor for poor countries). How would you fund the UN if not by that method?

9

Well, that’s all right. We have their names and addresses, and we have our fleet of black helicopters. :wink:

10

Bake sale! :slight_smile:
(It’s late . . . )

11

My dad can get pretty wound up, and even pull some sympathy from me when he tells me stories of the UN saying that it’s going to declare certain things international landmarks and such, and tell the U.S. what can and can’t be done with them. I assume that this idea has at least been floated. Which of course in real, cold, political terms is really just ridiculous, because the U.S. Supreme Court has a loyal bunch with guns that enforces its decrees. The UN, not so much, especially inside the U.S. Can you imagine?

Then you have laughers like Libya becoming chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. BBC NEWS | Africa | Libya takes human rights role

In a real sense, I’m not even totally sure of the point of the UN, seriously. They yell at Israel about occupying territory, but never have the nerve to even suggest doing much about it, because of course there are very powerful entities that wouldn’t stand for it in the all-vetoing Security Council. There’s no point in having “one country, one vote”, because frankly too many of those countries are run by real wackos whose first move would be to try to outlaw the American imerialist occupation of Hawaii or some such.

I currently kind of view it as a council of badly raised third graders, chaired by a subcommittee 8th graders. The little kids are full of empty ideas that amount to nothing and will vote for their friends even in ridiculous situations, making you kind of glad you have the 8th graders, until the 8th graders show how much they like to fight amongst themselves and act like the 3rd graders problems only count when they spill over on the other side of the room. The two situations make you wonder why you convened the whole thing to start with, sometimes.

12

The point is to provide a standing international forum for mediation of disputes between sovereign states, and to some limited extent it does do that.

Well, that’s because the UN is not a government, not even to the very limited extent the European Union is. More’s the pity.

Consider that all of those third-graders and all of those eighth-graders are, in fact, ambassadors appointed by national governments. What does that say about the national governments, including ours, which is represented there by a sociopathic and mentally retarded kindergartener?

13

BG, seriously, I’m really asking, is it possible to have a discussion that doesn’t flip into screaming and ranting? I’m in all honesty trying to help here when I say that this type of thing just makes me take another six months to come in this forum and read anything you have to say on anything. I do have “rebuttal” type replies, but for now I won’t bother.

14

You mean the kind of calm, rational discussion in which we refer to diplomats as “badly raised third graders … full of empty ideas that amount to nothing”?

15

I thought it was quite a good metaphor.

The UN may not be much good, but it is the best that we have got

  • as I see it the main advantage is that it acts as a meeting forum, which is quite useful

It is rational for the USA to be rather wary of things that can be used to beat them round the head.

16

I’m not disputing that, but I thought it was funny that Cardinal jumped on BG for a post that didn’t really have any more “screaming and ranting” than his own.

17

Such is life :-}

Actually the more I think about it, the UN is really a bit like having all the embassies in one small area with a common mess room.

Incidentally in the 1970’s my uncle, who knew a lot about such things, told me that the US contribution was about equal to the income to NYC from having it there.

18

That, incidentally, looks to me like a mistunderstood version of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites program (list of World Heritage Sites in the United States).

The UNESCO cannot, of course, enforce preservation of these sites (not having guns, as noted above). They do have a pretty effective mode of sanction: shaming the country the site is in by revoking World Heritage Site status. The threat of doing this has e.g. worked in Germany wrt planning decisions of municipialities (plans for high rise building in Cologne abandoned as UNESCO threatened to strike Cologne Cathedral off list; also it looks like a planned bridge over the Elbe at Dresden will be shelved as delisting Dresden was threatened)

19

My problem was the “sociopathic and retarded” part. Plus, unfortunately, there’s a bit of history going on there, which unfortunately I’m not entirely able to remove. If I read too much into it, sorry. I do think that the tone about Bolton stepped over into real venom.

I’m not calling the diplomats those names, but the countries and by extension, really, humanity (in broad terms). It’s not the individual diplomats or even the heads of state that are the problem, or we might have solved it by now as we get better at the process.

Point taken about the heritage sites, although it seems ol’ dad wasn’t far off the mark. He’s not at all a fan of the UN telling the U.S. what to do, so that would bother him in the first place, and my sentiments lie in that direction.

I’m not a fan of the UN becoming a real world government, at least not as I understand that term, and not now. The mess it would cause is just out of sight. “Rules without consequences are only suggestions”.

“Iran, stop that _____________________”
“Who’s going to make us, imperialist pig dogs?”
“Jeez, you know, they never signed that law, and hardly any of the more muslim countries did, and to enforce this we have to either use economic sanctions, or invade, which only inflames the region more.”

I can’t see the reconciation of all these disparate cultures. We haven’t been able to on even the limited scale we’ve tried, and making a one world government strikes me as the kind of unrealistic thing that Gene Roddenberry would propose. I do notice Gene never seemed to have hard and fast suggestions of how this might be accomplished.

Yes, to a limited extent, it does that. I suppose having the organization in many cases is much better than having nothing. It does seem to turn out to be something like the humans, Klingons, Romulons, and Borg having a council, though. It’s better than nothing, but you don’t really trust that anyone is going to do much but what they see as in their own self interest, really.

20

I wonder who thought up such a sinister program…