I think this rightly belongs here rather than in IMHO or GD.
Lets say that the USA proposes one last UN resolution to force Iraq to comply fully and uncondiotionally or face war. The US gets its 9 or more votes and France vetoes it. The US proceeds with the war anyway, finds the hidden WMD and shows the world absolute and irrefutable proof of their existance and ousts Saddam from power (who then kills himself)
…These are wild assumptions, I know, but lets not debate those.
What would happen, when all is said and done in Iraq, if the USA calls the UN irrelevant and refuses to have any dealings with the Organization and even kicks them out of the UN building in New York. What if the USA formally announces its full and immediate resignation from the UN and refuses to pay any debt it ever had to the UN?
A self Hijack question would be, What would the world be like if the UN is gone? What are the negative repercussions of the UN dissolving? What would hapen if all of the nations just said, “We dont want to to abide by the charter of an organization that has no power.” ?
I don’t think the UN would dissolve. It would still continue its humanitarian and scientific functions though on a somewhat smaller scale. The US funds about a quarter of UN spending IIRC so there is still enough money from Europe and Japan to continue.
As an instrument of collective security it will be damaged but IMO the primary function of the UN is political rather than military. Here it would continue to be useful for the rest of the world. If the US left the UN, much of the rest of the world would become even more anti-American. A UN without the US would be the perfect forum for ganging up on the US diplomatically. The US would become more isolated.
Of course the US would still use its power and wealth and get its way through bilateral diplomacy but it would be costly and difficult. In general world public opinon will become even more anti-American, some of that will translate into more anti-American terrorism, co-operation with the rest of the world in curbing that terrorism will be reduced and US national security will be damaged perhaps badly.
The US wouldn’t be a rogue nation. The UN will end eventually as did the league of nations. It will be replaced by something more tailored to US interests and who ever else is in power. All it takes is a good war with UN putting restrictions on powerful countries that decide to ignore them and its over. Without the US in the UN the UN is pretty much useless. Many important decisions that should be made in the UN aren’t and the US leaving would just make it more of a reality. The UN does a lot of things but lets face it the real purpose is for the super powers to squabble in proxy. If the US is gone others will follow or so much will be done outside the UN it would be a waste of time not to mention it would have no power to enforce anything.
I kinda agree with Knighthammer. Without the military might of the US to push things along, the UN is just a resolution pushing peace organization with no power or authority to back them up. What would the UN do if it came against the USA? No nation on earth is strong enuf to militarily challenge the US. The US holds a tremendous economic power as well. Alliances with Britain, Japan and the other nations will not disappear. No one is going to take the UN seriously even if they do gang up on the US. No resolution made by the UN is meaningful if the US just chooses to ignore them. What is the UN going to do? Send France after us?
“It will be replaced by something more tailored to US interests and who ever else is in power.”
This is pure fantasy. There is not a single major country which will join the US in forming a new body tailored to American interests. Even Britain won’t join. Tony Blair is having enough trouble going to war with Iraq; do you think that public opinion there will tolerate leaving the UN?
“Without the military might of the US to push things along, the UN is just a resolution pushing peace organization with no power or authority to back them up.”
Exactly how many UN resolutions are enforced by the US military? Very few. The fact is that the US doesn’t go to war to enforce UN resolutions. It tries to obtain UN resolutions to increase the legitimacy of wars that it wants to fight. So one of the main effects of the US leaving is that it will no longer be able to fight wars in a manner considered legimate by the rest of the world.
“Alliances with Britain, Japan and the other nations will not disappear”
But they will be weakened because the public in most of those countries supports the UN.
Once again the UN is not a military alliance like NATO. It’s primary activities are diplomatic, humanitarian and scientific.
Heh, of course many Americans think that the rest of the world is helpless without them and that anything they try to do on their own will ultimately fail.
I won’t debate the likelyhood of your scenario but I am curious as to what you think it adds to your question. Do you think that if the US goes it alone and finds weapons they’ll have been “right all along” and aid a shift in world opinion on the UN, thereby making pull-out and some new world league formation easier? I’m not so sure.
Plenty of people who favour the UN approach are quite aware that Saddam is stalling and probably trying to hide something. They just think inspection, if allowed proper access, can render Iraq pretty helpless. Many also simply think a war will simply create more problems than it fixes. But I don’t want to turn this into a invasion debate, merely want to point out that even a moderately successful one wouldn’t give Bush carte blanche if done outside the UN.
I just took it to extreme. There will be a severe backlash in relations no matter what the outcome. If the US perceives the UN to be “irrelevant” it will use that as its excuse to wage war without UN support. If the US does so, isnt that tantamount to resigning from the UN? It might even use that threat (of resigning) to influence other members of the UN. If it does so, France would be the supreme political power in the UN but at what cost to the world and the UN itself.
““It will be replaced by something more tailored to US interests and who ever else is in power.”
This is pure fantasy. There is not a single major country which will join the US in forming a new body tailored to American interests. Even Britain won’t join. Tony Blair is having enough trouble going to war with Iraq; do you think that public opinion there will tolerate leaving the UN?”
“Heh, of course many Americans think that the rest of the world is helpless without them and that anything they try to do on their own will ultimately fail.
I call it fooling themselves.”
No thats not what was implied. Lets stick to the issues and not vent our anger here. The point is the UN is really not a good representative of the entire world and the motives behind its creation aren’t as noble as you think because for one reason they were fueled by US interests. Pure fantasy. No only yours. What happened when the super powers left the League of Nations huh? It was over and the UN was later created. The UN was orginally tailored for US interests and it still is in many ways yet look who joined it CyberPundit. There are many countries that would jopin a body tailored to American interests. They may not realize it or they may feel that they can get something out of it. The rest of the world wouldn’t be helpless without the US in the UN. True. But at the same time many issues in the UN would be pointless without the US.
Lets take Iraq for example. How would the present situation be different if the US weren’t in the UN?
“What happened when the super powers left the League of Nations huh?”
There is a big difference between that situation and today. Remember that neither the US nor the Soviet Union belonged to the League of Nations. But in 1945 these were the two most powerful nations in the world. Naturally these two, along with Britain and France, had the clout to start a new institution to suit their interests. Today the US alone doesn’t have the kind of clout that the four allies together then had.
“There are many countries that would jopin a body tailored to American interests”
Which ones exactly? How would it be better tailored to US interests than the UN? By excluding countries like France, Germany ,Russia,China, and most Third World countries? It would be a joke.
“How would the present situation be different if the US weren’t in the UN?”
The US would have more trouble getting bases in the ME. It would have to bear a bigger burden in reconstructing Iraq. There would be an even bigger anti-American backlash possibly leading to more terrorism and less co-operation in fighting terrorism.
I don’t think that is an accurate statement. A more accurate statement would be that many Americans think that the rest of the world won’t do anything and that lack of action will lead to problems that will end up costing American money and American lives. I am sure that WWI and WWII would be cited as examples.
As for the OP, I think it is much more likely that the US would just stop paying dues or otherwise assist in the funding of the organization. If, however, they were to withdraw, I think there would be a new organization of some sort that would develop (with or without the continued existence of the UN). The US, Russia, and China all realize the implications of any combination of the three going to war, and the presence of a body that promotes communication makes such an event less likely.
While France is enjoying its day in the sun at the moment, if the US withdrew from the UN, I think France would find itself on the outside looking in. Why would anyone who is not French follow the French? The only reason Russia is playing along is that they have interests in Iraq, just like the French. If the playing field were Korea instead of Iraq, I doubt that anyone would look to the French for leadership. Diplomacy works best when backed with power, and the French have lacked that since the mid 1800s.
Exactly how many UN resolutions are enforced without the US military?
I fear that we are going to be almost the only ones bearing the burden of reconstructing Iraq, although I am sure there are some countries who would love to play a part in developing the oil fields.
"There is a big difference between that situation and today. Remember that neither the US nor the Soviet Union belonged to the League of Nations. But in 1945 these were the two most powerful nations in the world. Naturally these two, along with Britain and France, had the clout to start a new institution to suit their interests. Today the US alone doesn’t have the kind of clout that the four allies together then had. "
Lets see as a sole super power today the US has less competition. World markets rely more on the US than they did back then. US companies has nowhere near as many technology patents as they have today. The US military actually had rivals when it came to power projection. There were a handfull of super powers then. I would say your attempt at down playing the necessity of the US in the UN just reflects your attitude towards the US.
“Which ones exactly? How would it be better tailored to US interests than the UN? By excluding countries like France, Germany ,Russia,China, and most Third World countries?”
No not really I’m sure where your getting this. Countries like France, Germany, Russia and China have important relationships. Cooperation between the countries is in their governmentts interests. Contrary to what you may think there are other more important issues between them then Iraq which none of them care about for moral reason. They have to deal with each one way or another and they will. If that means creating a new body then considering that the UN is less relevant then it once was then it is likely. The US isn’t the only country that has ever been frustrated with the UN.
"The US would have more trouble getting bases in the ME. It would have to bear a bigger burden in reconstructing Iraq. There would be an even bigger anti-American backlash possibly leading to more terrorism and less co-operation in fighting terrorism. "
Well your response is correct yet conviniently lacking. But thats expected if you have an agenda. World opinion is know as widely as it is today because of US military politics. If the US had even less regard for world opinion and no self binding false devotion to some kind of world community, then world opinion would be less expressive and less solidified. The US would have attacked Iraq long ago before the world got so frustrated. Without the UN involved in the reconstruction of Iraq the US will have a better opportunity to form a puppet government. I don’t think the French or the Germans have a good shot at carrying out any of their interests if this war does take place. US public opinion which has some importance won’t be influenced by hte sanction of the UN.
Will you get a diplomatic immunity from parking tickets?
Am I downplaying the role of the UN too much? It seems to me, CyberPundit is trying to say that without the UN, the US cant negotiate with countries in the Middle East for military bases. Under what UN authority or permission does the US need to ask for base permission? I was under the impression it was obtained because of mutual cooperation.
The US camps there and anyone who attacks you, we will attack as if they attacked us. Since no one (sane) messes with us, no one will mess with you.
Market share, import/export quotas, taxes and trading are not done under the auspices of the UN, are they? Individual companies negotiate that with other companies under scrutiny and regulation of their govts. The UN does have anything to do with business relationships.
Terrorists hate our guts enuf to kill themselves just to kill our defenseless. How can you increase the level of hate if the US quits the UN. Why would ordinary people care if the US is in the UN or not? I dont really care right now. I just have this gut feeling that we are jumping thru too many hoops in such unspeakable postures to get rid of what almost everyone in the world agrees is a despotic tyrant.
So, I am not fully understanding the reasons as why quitting the UN would hamper our US military negotiating ability, hamstring our business relationships or increase anti-american sentiment.
Knighthammer,
In 1945 the US had a much larger share of the world economy and world trade. Much of the world was dependent on the US for its defense against the Soviet Union. It was the only nuclear power. Sure today it’s the “only superpower” but in most other ways its relative share of world power has gone down. In any case my point was that in the 1945 the four major WW2 allies the US, USSR, Britain and France who founded the UN had more power than the US alone does today. That is true regardless of which way you look at it.
The US isn’t the only country that has ever been frustrated with the UN."
Maybe not but there isn’t a single major country in the world apart from the US which wants a new institution like the UN. Kindly explain which countries will follow the US in forming such an institution. Explain how it would be better suited to the US interest than the UN currently is.
. "World opinion is know as widely as it is today because of US military politics. "
Huh? Public opinion around the world matters because governments around the world , whether they are democratic or not, have to pay attention to their public if they want to survive. If public opinion around the world hates the US, governments around the world will co-operate less with the US in ,say, hunting down terrorists or providing the US with bases or helping pay for US-led wars.
X-Slayer,
I didn’t say that leaving the UN would eliminate America’s diplomatic options. However it would make them more costly and more difficult. Without the legitimacy provided for by UN resolutions countries would be more reluctant to help the US and would demand more in return. Especially if public opinion in their countries turns even more against the US.
“Why would ordinary people care if the US is in the UN or not?”
Well as it happens many people around the world regard the UN as a source of legitimacy. If the US leaves the UN and acts outside the UN framework it will be regarded as being less legitimate as a world power. That’s just a fact of life.
I think the UN has an annual administrative budget of 3 billion, of which USA pays 750 million (or is supposed to pay, at least). Peacekeeping is about 2.8 billion, we are supposed to pay about 900 million (it would take me 10 minutes to look up the stats, and i’m tired but i think those numbers are correct).
So if we pulled out of the UN, Europe would probably cover our lack of funds.
Europe would spend 12 years fighting over the allocation of payments in replacement.
No, without the US there is no UN. Non-Security Council resolutions are already nothing more than worthless statements. All that remains pro-active regarding the UN goes through the Security Council. The withdrawal of the US would destroy that, leaving a very expensive white elephant in it’s wake that few would care to fund.
