First of all, there is no need to be rude, with your cracks about heartland America & right-wing radio, neither of which, incidentally, apply to me.
I guess your opinion that there WILL be a forum for international discussion is clear, but your reasons for believing that is still unclear. If they tear down the UN tomorrow, and everyone meets in a hotel, that is NOT the same as having this giant organization that is trying to control world events, and not doing a very good job of it.
Sorry! Forgot the word “permanent” when I was writing. My point here does not change, though, because…
it’s been a loooooong time since Korea. And really, I am not that interested in the “military aims” of the US (more rudeness from you, thanks), but if it wasn’t for the US military, the UN would still be talking about saving Kuwait.
I agree that the UN has done all of those things…I don’t believe any of my posts said otherwise. The thing you are not understanding is that it is not stupidity and lack of this kind of information that makes me dislike the concept of the UN. Basically, it boils down to this. I think about 20%+ of the UN budget comes from the United States. This is a huge, huge amount of money to give to an organization, especially one which we are basically an involuntary member of (in the sense that we can’t exactly quit, or completely withdraw funding if we wanted to). It is a personal political philosophy that I believe that less money should go to the government for social programs, and more should be done through private charity. I believe the same, if not more so, for the world stage. This has nothing to do with feeling that giving immunizations to people in underdeveloped countries is a bad thing, but rather that I don’t appreciate my money being taken basically without by consent and used by an organization whose values I don’t necessarily agree with. So, it’s not exactly what the UN has or hasn’t done that I have a problem with (although the aforementioned scandals do set me back a little when talking about an organization that is supposed to be about humanitarian aid & human rights). I simply do not agree with being forced to fund this type of organization. That is all. As I say, it is a personal philosophy, and it is clearly different from yours. I am sorry you think that having a different opinion from yours is “ludicrous.”
Which is an amazing thing to say for a nation that basically founded the UN. The USA wasn’t forced in at gunpoint, was it?
And I’m not aware of anything preventing the USA from leaving the UN. Apart of course from the fact that the UN is directly involved in so many things that it would be completely impractical. Apart of course if the US wants to create an US agency for establishing communication standarts with all other nations, an US agency for discussing agreements about cattle diseases with all other nations, an US agency for ignoring the World Court and nevertheless organize international arbitration about fishing rights, an US agency for signing treaties about infectious diseases with all other nations, an US agency for funding food relief without any coordination with anybody else, an US agency for trying to have a say about the demarcation line in Cyprus despite not being involved in the discussions, an US agency for cooperation with nuclear non-proliferation foreign agencies, and so on…
Philosophy is great, but compare the amounts going to foreign aid given by private inviduals and charities and given by states and international organizations. People really don’t give much to foreign aid individually, except in case of major cataclysm well covered by the medias, like last year’s Tsunami. Without this kind of funding, and without the existence of this kind of international organizations able to plan, to advise, to organize and coordinate an efficient response, the smallpox would still be around, major archeological sites would have been devastated, the SRAS would have spread all over the place, millions of refugees would have starved, etc., ec., etc…
Then vote for a presidential candidate that will advocate withdrawal from the UN. I do not hold my breath. And don’t delude yourself in believing that charities are going to do remotely as much good as UN agencies. Just say that your theorical principles about “not being forced” are much more important than the practical need of doing all these things that you think are “not bad”.
The UN isn’t trying to ‘control’ the world, they do what member states agree to do, nothing more, nothing less. However, when a nation signs on to join the UN they also agree to comply with the rules for resolving international disputes. If someone doesn’t want to do that they can leave (see below). Noone can have it both ways, not longterm.
I believe what RickJay is trying to say is that we live in a global world and that international bodies will continue to exist to deal with international issues. Just as every nation (except Somalia) has a permanent government to address national issues, international bodies will always exist to address international issues.
This is a different argument. In that case you should talk to your elected representatives. The US is free to leave the treaty, AFAIK, she’s not an ‘involuntary’ member in any way, as suggested. Basically, the US is a member because US leaders have decided that’s what they want.
US contributions to the UN, 22% of the regular budget (2005), are made up by mandatory (due to membership) and voluntary payments. Total amount is $2.2 billion in a $10 trillion economy, pretty far below (0,02%) the 1%/GDP target many developed nations consider should be spent on international development. Of course, it’s for each nation to decide how much they will contribute internationally, and only a fraction would be routed via the UN anyway.
Still, compare that to the cost of the Iraq war, closing in on $300 billion for US tax payers. Or the $20 billion disappearing from the Iraqi oil fund, that alone would cover the US membership for the next 9 years. EU member states - EU has approximately the same size economy as the US - are currently contributing 38% to the regular budget (2005). http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=328791 http://europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_5013_en.htm
How is the United Nations “trying to control world events”?
The United Nations is simply a place for the nations of the world to try to cooperate. The nations of the world DO control world events. They always will, won’t they?
You did specifically say:
Surely you would agree that the **eradication of smallpox ** is significant headway? If the world still has problems, that would speak to the fact that there are a LOT of problems, not that the UN hasn’t solved any.
The United States can quit the United Nations whenever it pleases, and join Switzerland on the sidelines. I am sure the UN building would be easily sold off, it being primo Manhattan real estate. The United States is a founding member of the UN; it’s preposterous to say it’s not a voluntary member.
As to the funding, the United States has 20% of the world’s economy, so paying 20% of the bill seems fair, in a sense. In any case, the UN doesn’t cost a lot of money, relatively speaking; if I recall correctly it’s now about $10 billion a year, more or less. $2.5 billion is less than one percent of the U.S. military budget.
The United Nations is not “social programs,” it’s a vehicle of international diplomacy. Diplomacy is one of the core functions of government; it’s one of the few things private interests CAN’T do, actually.
Obviously, the US was not forced at gunpoint. That doesn’t mean that I would have advocated it at the time (which was before I was born), or that I do now. And I would never advocate that we not belong to the UN, as long as it does exist, because you are right, it would be impractical at this point in time. That is why I never said that I wanted the US to withdraw…my original post said that I didn’t like the idea of the UN, not that we should withdraw. As far as private charities not doing as good a job, there are plenty of non-UN-affiliated organizations that do plenty of good around the world.
OK, I understand that the US is not an involuntary member in the sense that we couldn’t quit the UN if we wanted to. We are an involuntary member in the sense that it would be profoundly stupid to give up our veto power, especially since the other permanent member countries often have agendas that differ greatly from ours.
You don’t seem to get my point. I don’t care how much we spend there…it isn’t about the money, or whether it is going to international humanitarian aid. The problem is the money going to an organization whose values I don’t share. I would rather we not spend money on the war, either…but that isn’t the point of this thread.
Any organization whose biggest bragging points are the Korean War and the eradication of smallpox should ask themselves what they have done for anyone lately.
What does the eradication of smallpox have to do with international diplomacy? I quote an earlier post of yours…
Are those not social programs? Just about every example you have given of the good the various UN organizations have done in the world has to do with social programs. And believe me, I think it’s great to have these types of programs, I would just prefer that my tax dollars go to organizations that do the SAME THINGS, but that I choose based on my personal preferences.
Basically, to give an example of my political philosophy, I would prefer that almost everything the government does domestically be privatized…I don’t even like the idea of public schools. But at least domestically I do have a vote. My tax dollars going to an international organization where I don’t have a voice…it just goes against my grain.
Not to hijack my own thread, and this has been covered a billion times, but why do you see domestic privatizing as the answer? I simply can’t get how everything should be privatized in that fashion. If anything, I like the mail way. Have your governmental agency, then a few private carriers to keep competition going on all levels. That seems to be the best and most fair way to do things, assuming the government places a priority on those schools (like they don’t place an emphasis on public schools and it can be argued that private schools produce a smarter student on average).
A thread on it (started by yours truly): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=368670&highlight=privatizing
I don’t know how to actually make a list as all of these are important. I would say terrorism and organized crime would be near the bottom, but the other 4 tie for first place.
Sort of, but really, no. Providing a service to another country is de facto diplomacy.
But you do choose, via the democratic process, to remain part of the United Nations. If that’s not your personal preference, fine, but at this point you’re at about thirty straight federal elections of losing that question.
What other methodology would you suggest for doing these things? If the money isn’t spent by government, let’s be honest, it largely will not be spent at all. I’m a conservative, fiscally speaking, and I would happily vote for substantial spending reductions, but spending ELIMINATION is impossible, and the UN is a core function, and frankly is not expensive is the grand scheme of things. Total privatization has a lot of economic drawbacks, as externalities intrude ona lot of questions.
To use the oft-repeated smallpox example, do you really, honestly think you’d be better off in any way had the smallpox vaccination program never taken place? (And without collection international action, it would not have.) How would your private decisions have improved upon the collective decision of getting rid of smallpox? You’d now be living in a world still threatened by one of the nastiest diseases to ever come down the pike.
Of course you have a vote. Saying you don’t have a vote at the UN is akin to saying you don’t have a vote in domestic policy because you’re not actually a voting member of the Senate, which assigns votes to states pretty much the same way the UN assigns votes to countries. YOU select the people who run the government of the United States, and therefore who decide how votes are to be cast at the UN, or whether or not the USA will follow the UN’s direction, or even be a member.
It’s indirect democracy, but so is the United States, or any of the fifty states within it. You can’t accuse the UN of being undemocratic without saying pretty much every “Democracy” on earth is undemocratic.