What is the cause of anti-UN fervour in the US?

[Dave_Stewart_v3.0]

I used to post here quite a bit, in a previous incarnation, up until this year, and it always used to irk me to see certain Americans complaining about the United Nations.

In a debate here about the enormous amount of money the US owes the UN, hardly anyone actually visited the UN’s website to actually see the UN’s calculation of what the outstanding amount was, and it became evident that most of the people arguing against the UN’s entitlement to funding were ignorant of its functions. Most people seemed to think that the UN was either:

1. some sort of organisation devoted to undermining American sovereignty, power and influence in the world;

2. even worse, trying to establish itself as a world government;

3. a “tyranny of the majority” which allowed unions of countries to gang up on other countries (Israel’s hammering at the South African conference on racial discrimination);

4. an ineffective bureacracy without any redeeiing features.

All of these positions are in my view incorrect and insupportable having regard to the actual function and purpose of the UN. No doubt I’ll be invited to explain that conclusion.

So, given the US was one of the founders of the UN, under the helm of Elenor Rooselvelt and the San Francisco Conference, how did the change in attitude occur, and how can it be said to have any merit?

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart v3.0 *
**I used to post here quite a bit, in a previous incarnation, up until this year, and it always used to irk me to see certain Americans complaining about the United Nations.

**

If it makes you feel any better I don’t think most Americans hate the UN with a fervor. I think most Americans are simply indifferent towards the UN.

**
In a debate here about the enormous amount of money the US owes the UN, hardly anyone actually visited the UN’s website to actually see the UN’s calculation of what the outstanding amount was, and it became evident that most of the people arguing against the UN’s entitlement to funding were ignorant of its functions.

**

Entitlement? Hell, even the US military isn’t entitled to any money from congress.

**
4. an ineffective bureacracy without any redeeiing features.

**

I admit that I’ve got almost zero respect for the United Nations. I’m not one of those kooks who thinks the UN has a shot of taking over the United States let alone the world. I just don’t think it matters when the UN passes resolutions. I don’t think the UN is useless. I do think it is a great forum for nations to attempt to resolve issues before things get out of hand.

**
So, given the US was one of the founders of the UN, under the helm of Elenor Rooselvelt and the San Francisco Conference, how did the change in attitude occur, and how can it be said to have any merit? **

The United States has never relied exclusively on the United Nations to look after it’s interest. We still have our own economic and military treaties and we still reserve the right to invade other nations without asking permission.

Marc

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

how did the change in attitude occur, and how can it be said to have any merit?

I don’t see that you’ve established that there was a change in attitude. You’d have to prove that back in 1945 when the UN was founded, most Americans agreed that it was not just a waste of time and money.

I’d tend to believe, lacking any other information, that while the most vocal supporters of it might have loudly trumpeted its virtues and its potential for World Peace, still there would have been the Usual Suspects back in the background, who would have considered it a waste of time and money.

Anyway, seems to me you’ve got two debates here–“How and when did American attitudes towards the UN change?” and “Is the UN useless?”

[Latro]

*Originally posted by MGibson *
** we still reserve the right to invade other nations without asking permission.
**

Then you wouldn’t really mind if other countries did likewise?
What were your objections to Iraq invading Kuwait, exactly?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I’ve gained the subjective impression that “anti-Un” attitudes are more of a rural phenomenon. The further out in the boonies you go, the more common it is. Rural Georgia & the non-tourist farm lands of Florida are rife with it.

Strangers are not very welcome in these areas, even if Americans. So xenophobia seem to play a role.

[Eleusis]

*Originally posted by Latro *
**

Then you wouldn’t really mind if other countries did likewise?
What were your objections to Iraq invading Kuwait, exactly? **

The U.S. invading Iraq to remove a tyrannical dictator who is a threat to the entire world, and installing a democratic government by the people and for the people is a far cry from Iraq invading a peaceful neighbor for the purpose of looting and assimilating it.

We aren’t taking over Canada and making one big country.

Big difference.

[Mojo]

3. a “tyranny of the majority” which allowed unions of countries to gang up on other countries (Israel’s hammering at the South African conference on racial discrimination);…All of these positions are in my view incorrect and insupportable having regard to the actual function and purpose of the UN.

How can you characterize #3 as “incorrect…(in) regard to the actual function” of the UN when that’s what actually occurred?

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Latro *
Then you wouldn’t really mind if other countries did likewise?
What were your objections to Iraq invading Kuwait, exactly?

Our objections to Iraq invading Kuwait was that it harmed our interests. Other nations joined in in repulsing the invasion because it harmed their interests as well.

It’s as simple as that.

Remember, Latro, all nations, including your own, ignore the UN or don’t turn to it for permission when it serves their purpose. Do you remember when your nation, without the permission of the UN, launched an aggressive war against Yugoslavia a few years back?

It serves EU, and therefore Dutch, interests to have a stable Balkans. So y’all decided to kill Serbians. It served U.S. interests to have a stable EU, so we joined in. It served Russian interests to have their ally, Serbia, remain dominant in the Balkans, so they decided to veto any UN Security Council resolution authorizing the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Don’t consider yourself an innocent.

Dave the reason for U.S. indifference/hostility to the UN is simple - the Soviet and U.S. vetos. This meant that, for the first 45 years of its existence, the UN could not come close to meeting its Charter - collective security, protection of human rights, and the like. It was a fruitless and effectively useless organization.

One important thing to recognize, however, Dave, is that US indifference/hostility does not extend to constituent member organizations within the UN. UNICEF, the WHO, UNHCR, etc., have always been accorded respect (and one 'ell of a lot of funding) from both the US government and US individuals.
'Course, with these, we actually see the money being put to good use.

Sua

[Latro]

*Originally posted by Eleusis *
The U.S. invading Iraq to remove a tyrannical dictator who is a threat to the entire world, and installing a democratic government by the people and for the people is a far cry from Iraq invading a peaceful neighbor for the purpose of looting and assimilating it.

We aren’t taking over Canada and making one big country.

Big difference.

Well, you tried in 1812 and did take big chunks of Mexico, to make one big country .

I’m sure you have (questionable) reasons to invade Iraq.
Iraq had (questionable) reasons to invade Kuwait.
There always are reasons/excuses.

[AHunter3]

I’ve never understood this one either. Is the US so firmly opposed to a world government that it would reject one that was largely modeled on and controlled by the US? Has there been a better time since the dissolution of the Roman Empire for one nation to coax the rest into conceding a measure of power to an international body which they themselves have more opportunity to influence than anyone else during its formative stages as a true world government?

Uh huh. You can’t make us. We don’t wanna. Won’t even pay our dues. Go away.

[december]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart v3.0 *
**So, given the US was one of the founders of the UN, under the helm of Elenor Rooselvelt and the San Francisco Conference, how did the change in attitude occur, and how can it be said to have any merit? **

IMHO the change in attitude occurred in many of us because we see the UN as not accomplishing the goals we hoped it would. Even during the Cold War, many key negotiations between the USSR and the West took place outside the UN. The UN did take action against aggression in Korea, but that was a long time ago. Since then, it’s not easy to find where the UN contributed to ending the Cold War.

In the more recent conflicts, the UN did not deal effectively with conflicts over Cuban missiles, Israel-Arab, Cambodian genocide, Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo. (BTW I recommend the the movie No Man’s Land, which mocks the UN’s efforts http://www.dvdangle.com/reviews/review.php?Id=2354 It won an Acadamy Award for Best Foreign Language film.)

George Bush 41 chose to bring the UN into the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, although he was prepared to form a coalition without them. His son is trying to do the same today.

The points mentioned in the OP do piss off a number of Americans. However, they are only adding insult to injury. The real problem is that the UN is not a major force in maintaining world peace.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Well, you tried in 1812 and did take big chunks of Mexico, to make one big country .

Um, what? Did I miss something?

I don’t see a “Mexican” expansion in 1812.
http://ragz-international.com/history_of_the_united_states3.htm

Americans turned their attention south and west, and to Spain’s crumbling empire in the New World. In the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The treaty also established the border between Louisiana and Spanish Texas, a border that ran west along the Arkansas River, over the Rocky Mountains, and to the Pacific along the present southern borders of Idaho and Oregon. Thus the treaty gave the United States its first claim to land bordering the Pacific Ocean, though it shared that claim with Britain.

Or are you talking about Texas?

The new Republic of Texas asked to be annexed to the United States as early as 1837.

And in 1846…

Having lost Texas, California, New Mexico, and large portions of Chihuahua and Sonora in northern Mexico, the Mexicans marched toward Taylor’s army near Monterrey.

Not 1812. So, huh?

[Latro]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**

Our objections to Iraq invading Kuwait was that it harmed our interests. Other nations joined in in repulsing the invasion because it harmed their interests as well.

It’s as simple as that.

Remember, Latro, all nations, including your own, ignore the UN or don’t turn to it for permission when it serves their purpose. Do you remember when your nation, without the permission of the UN, launched an aggressive war against Yugoslavia a few years back?

Don’t consider yourself an innocent.

QUOTE]

No, not as simple as that.
Serbia was actively commiting genocide in Kossovo or so it was percieved. It was a moral outcry that prompted the war against Serbia, not ‘instability’, though fear of Albania joining in did play a part.
With Kuwait we mainly joined because started a war of agression.
I am not aware of any big EU interests that played a major role there. I believe that moral reasons played a bigger part.
Just as it does now that the U.S. wants to start a war of agression.

And, no, Holland doesn’t come out of history with its hands clean.

[Latro]

Duck Duck
In 1812 the U.S. invaded CANADA.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Latro *
No, not as simple as that.
Serbia was actively commiting genocide in Kossovo or so it was percieved. It was a moral outcry that prompted the war against Serbia, not ‘instability’, though fear of Albania joining in did play a part.

To quote another poster in this thread,

There always are reasons/excuses.

Sua

[Latro]

Hehehe, nice one.

Where’s that smiley taking his hat off.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Oh, okay, I see what you’re getting at. We’ll assume that you meant to say:

Well, you tried to take over Canada and make one big country in 1812, and did take big chunks of Mexico in 1846.

Well, okay, you got us dead to rights, I guess. Guilty as charged.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/War1812_CausesoftheWar.asp

In reality, it was not so much the infringement of neutral rights that occasioned the actual outbreak of hostilities as the desire of the frontiersmen for free land, which could only be obtained at the expense of the Native Americans and the British. Moreover, the West suspected the British, with some justification, of attempting to prevent American expansion and of encouraging and arming the Native Americans.

Matters came to a head after the battle of Tippecanoe (1811); the radical Western group believed that the British had supported the Native American confederacy, and they dreamed of expelling the British from Canada. Their militancy was supported by Southerners who wished to obtain West Florida from the Spanish (allies of Great Britain). Among the prominent “war hawks” in the 12th Congress were Henry Clay , John C. Calhoun , Langdon Cheves , Felix Grundy , Peter Porter, and others, who managed to override the opposition of John Randolph and of the moderates.

[Eleusis]

Ugh we are getting too far away from the OP, but Latro the War of 1812 is completely irrelevant. I used Canada as an example because today they are our peaceful neighbor, like Kuwait was to Iraq.

[SuaSponte]

Put your mind at ease, then. Read about the Ma’dan, and Iraq’s (largely successful) efforts to destroy them and their culture.

Then read the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under Article 2©, Iraq’s actions against the Ma’dan consitute genocide.

Under Article 1, the Contracting Parties, which include the Netherlands and the United States, have an affirmative obligation to “undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide.

So, why is the Netherlands failing to live up to its obligations under international law to prevent Iraq’s ongoing genocidal acts against the Ma’dan?

Iraq has further committed crimes against the Kurdish people that constitute genocide under the Convention. The affirmative obligation, of course, is not only to prevent genocide, but to punish genocide. Why is the Netherlands failing to live up to its obligations under international law to punish the “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV)who engaged in genocide against the Iraqi Kurds?

I really can’t believe that the Dutch people have such contempt for international law.

Sua

[sqweels]

The real problem is that the UN is not a major force in maintaining world peace.

The impression I get is that many of those who make this complaint are at the same time helping to undermine its effectiveness or block it from becoming more effecive.