The US should leave the UN

The recent kerfuffle about the resolution on Israeli settlements has the United Nations back in the news. Unfortunately, no one important seems interested in taking the discussion to the next level and asking whether there’s any point reason why the UN should continue existing.

When I was growing up there seemed to be two views on the UN. In the one in my school books, the UN was a celebration of humanity’s wonderful diversity in which people from all nations, many clad in their native garb, stood around and smiled a lot. There wasn’t much detailed description of what the representatives actually did, but it all looked very happy and multi-racial. This was re-enforced by the “model UNs” that many children have gone through. The other view was that the UN’s was sending out its black helicopters with the intention of taking over the world.

The US should withdraw, not because the UN is secretly running the world, but because they are a bunch of incompetent idiots who couldn’t run a bake sale. They have shown themselves completely incapable of their stated goals of defending human rights and preventing conflict, and meanwhile they waste their time on frivolities.

On the first point, there have been an enormous number of anti-Israel resolutions over the years, none of which have achieved to long-term peace, obviously. Israel is the most democratic country in the Middle East, with the best human rights record, a free press, and other signs of human well being. Watching the Arab countries constantly pile on for condemnations of Israel gives the vibe of a classroom full of dumb jocks tormenting the one kid who actually does his homework. At the same time, the UN does nothing serious against most of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The fact that Saudi Arabia is on the Human Rights Council proves that the situation is hopeless and the UN will not get focused on tackling real human rights abuses anytime soon. This is nothing new. In the 90’s, the UN was notorious for its total failures in Rwanda and Bosnia. It’s a lengthy history of failure after failure.

So that’s the UN failing on serious issues. On the frivolous end, in October they made Wonder Woman an “Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls”. Then in December they reversed that decision because Wonder Woman is “of impossible proportions, scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-baring body suit with an American flag motif and knee high boots”, and apparently they didn’t notice this in October. However, those who really want fictional characters to be ambassadors need not despair: one of the Angry Birds in an ambassador. So is Tinkerbell.

And how much does the US pay into this embarrassment? As with so much of what our government does, they’re in no hurry to provide the American people with a clear answer, but it seems to be somewhere around 8 billion dollars per year. Some of that may go to could causes such as food and medical aid, but it would be more efficient to just donate directly or work with established non-profits, rather than funneling the money through the UN clown show. There’s no reason for America to keep paying for or supporting an organization that attacks free democracies, supports terrible dictatorships, and wastes time and money on dumb publicity stunts.

Eh. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing. Not a a lot better, but still better.

What would be gain by leaving?

The UN is/contains huge established non-profits. UNICEF, ACNUR…

I believe one of the main purposes of the UN is to have a place where nations, even those bitterly at war, can have a dialogue with each other. Whether or not it accomplishes much, that itself is a reason to keep it around.

The UN isn’t supposed to be a world government. It’s a diplomatic forum for countries to get together and talk about common problems with the hope of developing some solutions. And it does that.

Its slow pace is a feature not a bug. If the UN acted like a real government, we wouldn’t just have resolutions passed against Israel - the UN would have invaded Israel decades ago. Countries like Israel are protected by all the limits on UN power.

And those same limits apply to causes we might support. The UN doesn’t invade Saudi Arabia for the same reason it doesn’t invade Israel.

But it does accomplish stuff. We’ve had a lot less wars since the UN was founded. The UN does act as a means to funnel international aid to areas that need it. And terrible regimes have to at least pretend to be polite when they talk in the UN assembly.

We’re better off with the UN than we would be without it. And the UN is better off with America as a member than it would be without us.

Doing that is the International relations equivalent of a toddler holding her breath as a tantrum.

US diplomacy sucks balls true, but that’s not what the UN’s fault.

The US invented the UNO, or at least, it was driven through by Roosevelt in order to ensure that there was a formalised way for every state to have some input to the brute realities of great power politics in a world dominated by the USA and the USSR, and some common definition of how to achieve and maintain peace.

The history of the League of Nations showed what happens when great powers either stand aside or are treated as pariahs, so a compromise was established; or if you go back further, you get the 19th century Congress system of undemocratic elites carving up the world over the head of their peoples, collapsing into the alliances that triggered WW1. Neither of those proved to be a success, so why try to reinvent them?

The UN isn’t “they”, it’s 200+ variants of “us”; you get variable results from your Congress, which dissatisfy a lot of people - but I don’t see people arguing that seriously for a dissolution of the USA.

The OP’s school did him or her a disservice. My school clearly explained what the United Nations is, why it came about, and what it does and has done. The OP seems to falling into what I perceive to be a common misconception: equating the entirety of the UN with one part with which someone has a passing familiarity. For example, the General Assembly and the Security Council are two different critters; they happen to be two of the six main organs of the UN. Wikipedia has a good write-up covering the UN.

Agreed. Although modern communication makes the UN less important than before.

The UN is responsible for the force that maintains the cease-fire in Korea. If the US drops out, are they going to be able to keep the DMZ secure without us?

We are the UN in Korea. Why would we leave?

The US isn’t the belligerent. The United Nations Command is. Are we going to separately declare war against North Korea if we quit the UNC?

The UN’s purpose is not to prevent war entirely. it’s to reduce the severity and incidence of wars by providing a common forum for discussion. Seeing as we haven’t had a major global war since WWII we could say it’s achieved that (yes nuclear weapons also played a big part). And sorry many of the times the UN has failed it’s partly because of the US sabotaging the process:

eg UN inspections and sanctions were working in Iraq, they had got rid of their weapons of mass destruction, inspections were proving that. The US told the inspectors to leave and manufactured their own fabricated intel to justify the Iraq war. And as for Israel, the US has vetoed most of the resolutions on Israel, so of course the UN couldn’t do much?

And then there’s UNICEF and the WHO, which have certainly achieved a lot, being largely behind the eradication of smallpox and the near eradication of polio.
http://www.who.int/features/2010/smallpox/en/

You’re saying it’s a failure but you have absolutely no evidence that any of the situations you mention (Bosnia, Rwanda, Israel) would be any better if the UN did not exist? This argument boils down to the usual GOP bullshit technique. Cut funding to a public service to the bone, then point out how incompetent that service is as a prelude to privatising it or eliminating it.

So OP, educate yourself, and far from withdrawing the US should stop being a deadbeat and pay the back dues it owes, so that the UN can do a better job.

I don’t disagree that some member nations would seem to discredit the UN’s efforts in the areas of human rights and global justice, but the UN offers a forum for multi-lateral dialogue. Without it, it’s every country for itself. The UN gives its member nations options other than war, like sanctions and international political pressure. Those alternatives are often insufficient, though they sometimes get somewhere. Without a UN, however, international diplomacy becomes a much more complicated process. Besides that immediate benefit, the UN is involved in a lot of humanitarian and development work in poorer countries, a lot of which really does produce good results.

It seems failure = “not doing what my domestic political faction wants and imagines it can impose unilaterally on the world.”

Yep, its “the UN won’t do whatever the US want’s because other countries have a veto” therefore it’s a failure. It’s childishness, idiocy from people that have no understanding of geopolitics (And I include Trump in that category).

Just because a country has sub-standard social and medical conditions relative to countries of similar wealth, and egregiously high race based incarceration rates relative to most countries in the world, and an obscene pattern of trying to overthrow the governments of other countries, and of funding civil and regional wars, and of invading other countries for little or no good reason, does not mean that it should be kicked out of the UN. If you decide on your own to skulk off, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. You are not the leader of the free world, no matter how much you mistakenly think that you are. You are an imbuggerance.

If there is a way to truly reduce U.S. influence in the world, cede any and all moral high grounds (and opportunities to take moral high grounds through coordination and joint action), and generally retreat to post-WWI isolationism, leaving the U.N. would do it. We would be the only recognized country in the world outside the U.N. The U.S. would stand alone.

Or we could leave it to the Euros whose incompetence and propensity for violence led to the deaths of more than one hundred million last century and two world wars.

I think electing Trump may have accomplished this, so, …way to go! Good job!