Why do conservatives/Repubs hate the UN?

As usual, the liberal perceptions of what conservatives believe read like a parody, and an insulting one at that. The ‘reality based community’ should try injecting a little more reality into their corn flakes.

The worst thing about the U.N., from my perspective, is that it gives thugs and tyrants a respectability and legitimacy they do not deserve, and it gives them a forum from which to exercise more power.

The U.N. has long been totally incompetent at its main role of promoting peace and stability. In the last decade there have been genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, completely ignored by the U.N. Bill Clinton had to go around the U.N. to take down Milosovic.

The U.N. was useful during the cold war, and its structure is a cold war structure with the members of the security council basically being the ‘winners’ of WWII. As a ‘safety fuse’ to allow nations to talk before conflict escalated it had some value.

In the post-cold war era, the U.N. has degenerated into a corrupt organization that is cynically used by some countries to gain advantage over others. The conference on ‘racism’ in Durban was a thinly-veiled anti-semitic attack on Israel, and only a handful of countries had the balls to call it for what it was.

Some of the ancilliary U.N. organizations like UNICEF and UNESCO do some good, and it would be nice to see the U.N. reorganized with activities like that as its focus and to get out of the power projection and legitimization game.

Most conservatives don’t want the U.N. eliminated, they want it reformed. They want power taken away from the dictatorships and human rights abusers, and more power given to the large world democracies. Proposals you see floating around right-wing web sites include adding Japan and India to the Security Council, moving dictatorships to a lower level of influence than they have now, putting only the best countries in terms of human rights in charge of the Human Rights commission (basically you have to prove your bona fides before you are allowed to chair it), etc.

Other conservatives favor scrapping the U.N., but replacing it with an organization made up of liberal democracies. In my opinion, you can’t leave Russia and China out of any world body, so this won’t work. So other conservatives support keeping the U.N., but building a parallel organization of only liberal democracies to act as a balance. Any country with free elections and a commitment to human rights would be allowed to join this organization.

So I guess that they don’t see the basic pragmatic value of a forum in which all sovereign powers can come to discuss matters of international import? How exactly do you accomplish what you suggest? Give some countries half-membership? Apportion representation to the United Nations unevenly? Doesn’t that make it more like a world government and less like a diplomatic forum?

I don’t think any liberal point of view holds that there is intrinsic value in giving legitimacy to bad guys, but there seems to be a substantial utility in having a place where everyone is at least at the table, no matter what you think of them.

Is that giving them power? Legitimacy? Not in my eyes.

To me, where the idea of moral action comes into play is in actual government-to-government relationships and from a liberal point of view, the U.S. government has routinely failed to take the moral position in dealing with corrupt governments.

And, I might add, it has been to our detriment. To a large extent, it is we ourselves who have armed and fostered the radical Muslim fringe, to a large extent by befriending the bad guys and squelching democratic reform. Even now, we claim friendship with Pakistan, the snake harbored in our breast.

I think that for statists who oppose the UN, one thing that they find so unsettling is what is going on under the table.

The only thing conservatives dislike about the United Nations is its refusal to roll over and cede to whatever demands the US makes of it.

Yeah, because we know that the only thing that matters is the will of the majority – the minorities can go bugger themselves. It’s not as if large world democracies would ever abuse their power, like starting a war with falsified intelligence… :rolleyes:

Care to explain why? I know you’re a libertarian, and on principle suspicious of governments, but the UN hardly deserves the name.

Theoretically it’s harder to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority than of a particular minority–so while not perfect, I’m not sure that there is a safer alternative.

Which begs the question: Why are conservatives against the idea of world government?

:confused: So what?

That might be the single most ignorant statement you have ever posted in this forum.

It’s been covered elsewhere but basically I don’t trust a world government to look after my interest. We’re not all alike culturally so smaller nations would just find themselves at the mercy of those with the largest populations.

Marc

:slight_smile: Tell us more! Tell us more!

:slight_smile: Tell us more! Tell us more!

I oppose it for the same reason I oppose all other economic black hole boondoggles. If people want voluntarily to form an international organization for whatever peaceful purpose, and fund it themselves, I have no problem with that. But don’t tread on me to finance your hobbies and interests.

Whaaaaa?
Hamilton vs. Jefferson? Hamilton was pro-monarchy in fact. I think you’re confusing small/big government with federalisation/state-isation(?). At this current moment in time, the republican party is small government, with federalist leanings: I.e a small but strong center. Democrat would theoretically then want a larger core (that concerns itself with more issues) but power-wise not so far above state governments.
Not that I think it actually works out that way, nor that the parties are actually split up in any meaningful way.

They aren’t; it’s the idea of a world government that they don’t control which bothers them.

:rolleyes:

Care to elaborate, or are you simply here to shit all over the thread?

It’s the liberals who wish to control everyone. Conservatives mostly just want to be left alone, and generally don’t want any group to get too much control of anything.

But you know what; the vitriol has gotten to me and I’m done with this BB. The first 3 years were great, the last 3 have been downhill.

Then why do they want to tell a man that he cannot marry another man? Or a woman that she cannot rent out her body? Or a couple that they cannot gamble outside an Indian reservation? Or a peaceful neighbor that he cannot grow marijuana? They obsess over piddly shit like burning a rah-rah rag. They push their noses into the private business of families with dying loved ones — all the while braying about “values”. They’ve made freedom into a dirty word, using it to justify world hegemony even while constricting the very life out of our liberties at home. Left alone, my ass.

My statement may be ignorant and insulting, but I think there’s some truth to it.

Simply stated, Pax Americana Conservatives dont want some third world wimp telling them what they can and cant do. Its that simple. I think theres some racism going on, but I wont push that aspect because I dont really know that for a fact.

The UN serves a great purpose. As stated previously it provides a forum for the international community to talk things out. It does not have much power, but it seeks to keep agressive countries (like the US and North Korea) from going astray. Remember, Bush felt he needed to get the UNs blessing before he invaded Iraq. Of course, he really personally didn’t care, but he knew that he had to at least give the appearance of being part of the international community.

The UN has some corruption problems and needs some work, but so does the Bush adminstration.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. I certainly don’t want middle-eastern countries having any say in how we treat women, homosexuals, or Jews. I suspect for any world government to work it’d have to be a loose confederation of some sort. I’d still hate to have some of the rights I consider near and dear to my heart to be taken away because people in some of the populous nations don’t think they’re necessary.

Does it do the job? It certainly didn’t do much to stop the United States from invading Iraq and I’m not quite convinced it does much to keep N. Korea in check. It certainly didn’t do anything for the citizens of either N. Korea or Iraq that’s for sure.

Yeah, lip service just like every else pays. Except the more powerful nations can just ignore the UN when they feel like it.

Marc