Should the US pull out of the UN?

This position (that we should pull out) was advocated in one of the other forums here on DU (where polls aren't allowed, and neither is pointing out that someone's position on an issue is one that is traditionally regarded as conservative. Guess the forum :eyes: ) so I thought I'd post it up here to see what the majority of DUers think about this particular issue.

Here are some advocates of pulling the US out of the UN (warning: conservative wingnut sources).
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jdaloia/c_060103_jdaloia_trackside.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31196
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=730

Should the US pull out of the UN?

Feel free to elaborate, on either side of the argument. Maybe this could lead to a valuable discussion, and a thread worth bookmarking.

the security council is just a minor part of the whole apparatus. I've never heard any wingnut criticize the UN who seemed to have even heard of UNESCO, UNICEF and the other branches that comprise the organization.

If the US pulled out, it would actually make the US weaker, because international agreements would require America to go to each country individually.

Bush and his administration should be locked out.

The US has USED the UN as it's bully pulpit for development and weapons sales for long enough without paying its dues and without really living up to the intent of the charter.

The UN serves a very useful purpose in having smaller nations have a voice at the table and in creating SOME parity for the nations where we have LONG targetted their resources while sending weapons under the guise of charity.

The UN is an important device in the global quest (if there is ANY political will at all for it) for WORLD PEACE and the RULE OF LAW globally.

And stop playing the impotent lover.

Would then be an issue for them. The U.S. is charged more than it should be in dues.

The dues are calculated on a state's ability to pay, and seeing the US accounts for something like 26% of the world's income, that's how the dues are calculated. That's why you'll see the world's poorest states like Bangladesh only paying yearly dues of around $150,000, while the dues of the US and other wealthy Western states is many times more....

You might not be aware of this, but back in the 1960's the US condemned the USSR for withholding peace-keeping dues for specific peacekeeping operations that it opposed. The US insisted that withdrawal of voting rights in the GA due to non-payment of dues be an automatic thing that applied to EVERY state. So, if now it'd be okay for the US to refuse to pay contributions, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't lose it's seat in the GA, something that came very close to happening a few years ago when anti-choice Republicans in Congress placed conditions on the US payment of back-dues to try to place restrictions on how the UN funds family planning programs globally (ie they didn't want any family planning programs operating in third world countries)...

Violet...

with pointy goatees one of my fav right wing tinfoil hat theory :tinfoilhat:

As a world superpower we had a responsibility to help start the UN, and now we have a responsibility to participate in it to insure that another World War doesn't become a possibility.

Humans already have enough insoluble problems to overcome, but try adding a man-made holocaust to this list!

As a world superpower we had a responsibility to help start the UN, and now we have a responsibility to participate in it to insure that another World War doesn't become a certainty.

We had a pretty good relationship with the UN until *somebody* told them to go fuck themselves.

It is necessary that nations - both big and small - have an international forum to discuss issues that relavent to the world community. We should be opening up channels of dialogue and communication, not reverting to a foreign policy of silence and deafness.

We abide by the UN only insofar as it is convenient...we give 4 billion a year to a nation who has broken more UN resolutions than any other.

Being a real member of the UN requires some conviction in pursuing its mission....and that conviction the US demonstrably lacks.

RC

The Neo Fascist leveled complaints toward the UN about Iraq but I have never heard or read any complaints about the dozens of violations of Israel. Why not?

So the fact that Israel violates UN missives is entirely bogus.

Annan condemns 'horrific' suicide bombing in Israel

4 October – United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today strongly condemned the suicide bombing which killed at least 18 people in Haifa, Israel.

Calling the attack “horrific” in a statement released by his spokesman, Mr. Annan reiterated his “utter repugnance at all acts of terror, from whatever quarter.”

The statement also called on the Palestinian Authority to do everything in its power to halt these vicious attacks, which “only harm the Palestinian cause.”

Mr. Annan also conveyed his prayers for the families of the victims.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8449&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS ‘MURDEROUS ATTACK’ IN ISRAEL,

REITERATES CALL FOR RETURN TO DIALOGUE

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General is greatly concerned by the continuing deterioration in relations between Israelis and Palestinians. He condemns in the strongest possible terms yesterday’s murderous attack in the Israeli city of Hadera, in which six Israeli citizens were killed, as he has condemned all indiscriminate killings of civilians. The Secretary-General calls on the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and effective action against those responsible.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8102.doc.htm

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS TERROR ATTACKS IN ISRAEL

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General condemns today’s two terror attacks by suicide bombers near Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem, in which at least 12 people were killed and many others injured. He conveys his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government of Israel.

The Secretary-General calls on Palestinian militant groups to halt these despicable and indiscriminate actions, which not only spread death and misery but harm the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinian people. He reiterates his insistence that both sides should fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8858.doc.htm

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS TERRORIST ATTACK IN TEL AVIV,

SAYS IT MUST NOT DERAIL PEACE PROCESS

The following statement was issued on 29 April by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest possible terms tonight’s terrorist attack in Tel Aviv. He strongly urges Israelis and Palestinians not to let this morally reprehensible act derail the resumption of the peace process. The Secretary-General calls on all concerned to exercise maximum restraint and begin the implementation of the “road map” that will be presented shortly.

He reiterates his appeal to the Palestinians to pursue non-violent policies and urges the Palestinian Authority to make every effort to stop these terrorist acts against Israelis. The Secretary-General remains convinced that there is no alternative to a political solution of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8681.doc.htm

SECRETARY-GENERAL ‘DISMAYED’ BY BEIT SHE’AN ATTACK, CONDEMNS SUCH TERRORIST

ACTS AS ‘EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO PALESTINIAN CAUSE’

This is the text of a statement today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General is dismayed by the attack yesterday in the Israeli town of Beit She’an, in which Palestinian gunmen killed six Israelis and wounded many others. He reiterates his utter condemnation of such terrorist acts against civilians, which are extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8533.doc.htm

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS 'DESPICABLE' HEBRON TERRORIST ATTACK

The following was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General

Kofi Annan:

The Secretary-General is horrified by the despicable terrorist attack in the

West Bank town of Hebron that today killed 10 Jewish worshippers on their way to the Sabbath eve prayers and left many injured. He condemns this latest terrorist act against Israeli civilians in the strongest possible terms and conveys his heartfelt condolences to the families of victims and to the Government of Israel.

The Secretary-General reiterates his appeal to all Palestinian groups to stop all such acts of senseless violence, which are extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8498.doc.htm

SECRETARY-GENERAL CONDEMNS BOMBINGS IN JERUSALEM, HAIFA AS TERRORISM;

CALLS ON PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO JUSTICE

The following statement was issued by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday, 2 December:

The Secretary-General is shocked and horrified by the bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa that have taken such a heavy toll of human life in the past few hours. No cause and no motive can ever justify the deliberate murder of innocent civilians. The Secretary General unequivocally condemns these acts as terrorism. They undermine those who are working on all sides for peace and justice.

The Secretary-General calls on the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and decisive action to arrest and bring to justice those responsible for these and earlier acts of terrorism.

The Secretary-General sends his heartfelt condolences to the families of all those who were killed or injured in the bomb attacks, and to the Government of Israel.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm8056.doc.htm


One can just tell how they hate Israel.

But first let's start with the makeup of the UN.

Israel -- one vote.
Arab world -- about 20
Muslim world (Non Arab) -- another bunch of nations

That doesn't exactly even out in the real world there. Even though the U.S., with its Security Council vote, limits the anti-Semitic actions of the UN, it only limits the worst of them. And, of course, you must remember that enemies of Israel often serve on the Security Council as well -- like Syria.

Yes, at times even the braindead leadership of the UN has made NOISES about the evils that the Palestinian terror network does, but they still have too many flaws in their approach.

* They have fallen victim to the classic problem of moral equivalency and treat the Palestinian terrorists like a political faction. They are not. They are monsters and butchers. And, even worse, Arafat sponsors, supports, endorses, funds and tolerates their actions.
* The UN believes that Israel can make peace with such monsters. It can't. Peace can only be found when the Palestinian people shut down the terrorists.
* The UN makes the same mistake many pro-Palestinian posters here make. They equate actions by the IDF to STOP TERROR with the terror itself. That is like blaming the U.S. for those killed in WWII bombings, even though the blame was squarely on the Axis.

when the world ends, they'll stop the suicide bombing

No, seriously Muddle...let's just paint you as Palestinian and put you in Rafah and see how long you envision Israel as some saintly nation with the divine right of whatever.

Nor is its claim on the land divine. However, I do view it as the VASTLY superior choice of the two sides.

Britain drew up the lines in that region of the world 100 years ago.

What are you saying...the non-Israelis are savages?

that the Palistinian terrorists aren't?

so I may be talking outta my ass here. Israel--one country, one vote. Arab world, more than one country, more than one vote. If that's not the way it's tallied, feel free to correct me and ignore this post, but that's how I think it works--one country, one vote.

Israel-one country, more power than anyone else except the US

Iraq gets invaded, Israel gets a pass and more money besides

I'd say their position on the UN is out of proportion to their size.

And just how did Israel get a seat on the Security Council? One of the smallest, least populated nations on the planet? How did that happen?

What measure do you need?

When did that happen?

Which is why there are so many UN votes against Israel and so few against the near infinite human rights abuses in the Arab world.

I don't think every country in the world hates them.

A huge chunk of the world has a history of anti-Semitism, including a pretty active and current history for many nations. Then the rest of the world relies on oil, which is in abundance among the enemies of Israel.

Not a good starting point.

Even then, Israel has indeed made inroads with Turkey (a secular Muslim nation) and India of late.

You have to crawl, before the baby steps, and those before normal walking, until you can run.

To have allies there has to be a trade-off. Both parties have to get something. If Israel could give something in return for support (what, I don't even pretend to know), then maybe the process of getting allies would happen faster.

And that is in fact what it trades. Still, Israel is a unique case. It has a great deal of enemies who don't like the existence of a Jewish state.

I think some people don't like the fact that the Jews were given a state on land that was already occupied. Either way, Israel exists, and the only way to get rid of it is to nuke it, killing yourself and your enemies, which defeats the point. I think we need the UN as at least a debate forum, so that we can try to solve the problem. But that will only happen when everyone is rational, which I don't really foresee in the near future.

that makes the Iraq invasion TOTALLY arbitrary

The argument of a smart conservative would be that while they believe in might makes right and US exceptionalism and immunity from international laws and agreements, the US should control the UN and bend the international community to do it's bidding, which is US interests coming first and foremost over anything else, even to the detriment of other members of the international community. It's easier to get other states to comply with the wishes of the US if it's done through the UN, because then there can be a veneer of legitimacy to it, and the US can use the excuse that it had UN backing for whatever bit of empire-building it's carrying out. The US also realises that when it comes to things like the invasion of Iraq, it can't do it on it's own and needs international cooperation, so it has to stay in the UN to get that cooperation...

The liberal argument (and considering the whole concept of the League of Nations and later the UN is a cornerstone of liberalism, I find it impossible that liberals would be opposed to the UN) would be that the purpose of the UN is to maintain global peace and security, and that an international body is needed to do that. Those who support the neo-con vision of US exceptionalism and unilateralism would argue that the US can carry out that role, but the huge problem with that is that there's then nothing to restrict the US, the US is in a position where it creates international law to suit itself, and maintaining global peace and security would swiftly turn into maintaining US interests around the globe regardless of whether it removes peace and security from other states. Another liberal argument would be that we've long passed the stage where states accepted that what happened in other states was of no concern to anyone but the state involved. That acceptance in the past allowed atrocities to be carried out by some states on their own citizens while other states looked the other way and claimed it was none of their business and just an internal matter....

I like this quote I read about the UN, which probably explains some of the problems that it encounters: 'By a perverse paradox, the United Nations, identified in so many minds with internationalism, presided over the global triumph of the idea of the sovereign state.'

My advice to anyone who thinks the US should pull out of the UN is to go read the UN Charter, come back and point out the bits that they don't agree with, what the US pulling out would do to solve the problems they see, then for them to go and learn some more about the UN and it's many agencies and programmes...

Violet...

to UN resolutions was in the long run, equivalent to having evicted the UN offices in NY; International Metastable order maintained since WWII has been unadvertently dismantled

Get out now. We're expected to bankroll an organization that consistently votes against our interests. Iraq aside, I've always considered the UN to be an albatross around our neck.

I don't like it when the US overrides a law in my home state with a Federal regulation. When it's the UN nudging the US to
introduce Federal legislation it deems fitting, I get an even crappier taste in my mouth.

I'd like to read more about it.

After WWII, the soviets decided to run their sphere of influence as an empire, hence the iron curtain. The US decided to try to set up a sort of democracy based upon the principals and goals of our government within their sphere of influence, giving a voice to the downtrodden with the goal of spreading democracy and peace through example.

It has worked WONDERFULLY, the advent of world trade and international agreements brought down the iron curtain and produced more democratic and free states than at any time in the history of out planet!

If we are to survive as a species we need to move towards a planetary solution to planetary problems and the sooned we move away from nation-states the better. The UN was founded by US in order to move towards that goal, and the current admin and their followers has not only allowed but encouraged greed, nationalism and gingoism to set the process backwards decades!!

Two thirds of the countries in the UN are NOT democracies but are dictatorships and do not represent their people at all. Further, thankfully, the UN does not have any teeth which also makes it a useless debating society. It is also quite corrupt. We should leave it and start a real UN (Confederated Nations?) with only democracies allowed as members, and which would also have some genuine powers and benefits over member nations.

US? Where freedom speech has turned into a right wingnut myth and democracy has 'DieBold Co.' in the brand name?

And would Iraq be a charter member?

Either that or they should be thrown out of the UN and then they can be the true to their desire to be a rogue nation wreaking havoc across the globe.

in GROSS violation of the charter?

If they kick us out, their sorry asses will be bankrupt.

cheez. it IS a Saturday.

Because I am not sure how I want to vote.

But it's a pretty rude leap to assume that anyone anti-UN is pro-wingnut. The UN is a pretty fucked up organization. It does some good, but it is far from being what it was conceived. Another poster here makes an entirely valid point that many of the nations in the UN are dictatorships or worse. Why should such as China, Syria, North Korea and others be deciding on anything for the world?

human rights violations and the atrocities it has perpetrated around the world. Don't get so self-righteous. The US has done LOTS of bad.

The nations I named have not. They have no leveling of the books. They are simply dangerous and should pose no role in running a world government.

It was the US that nixed all attempts AFTER the genocide in Cambodia to have the Khmer Rouge ousted from the GA. Gosh, that was good and gives us all an insight into what *Good* states do to maintain peace and security around the globe. What else? Oh yeah, there's the US refusal for many years to sign the Genocide Convention, and when they finally did, they watered it down so much that it just became another bit of paper that isn't worth anything. It warmed the cockles of my heart to see the great bastion of good that is the US being the only Western state to vote along with some of those states you mention and the Vatican to oppose the protection of women from persecution and discrimination. And let's not forget the attempts to bribe SC members over the recent desire to get SC backing for the invasion of Iraq...

I think the US, because of the power it wields, is many times more dangerous than any of those other nations and as such should pose no role in running a world government, though of course most people are aware that no one state runs the UN, which was created not to be a monopoly, but a collective international forum....


Violet...

it wasn't labelled "Khmer Rouge", when the USA decided to support them against evil communist human inventions from Vietnam. It was relaunched as the movement for "democratic Kampuchea" ever since.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

A cosmetic name change and whacking the word 'democratic' in a title would mean that the US didn't happen to notice that the only thing that changed was the name (btw, Khmer Rouge and the Party of Democratic Kampuchea are interchangable names) and that Pol Pot was still running the show, and that it was actually the same genocidal regime as before. Shame on me for thinking that stopping genocide was more important than the US obsession of the time with the Domino Theory ;)


Violet...

if we don't play nice with them on neutral ground?

How would this improve our "peacemaking" ability in any way different than what the Neocons propose. No bones about it: Pulling out is a yet another radical viewpoint made viable by the outspoken fanatics in power. It's typical of the attitude that wingnuts like the Cato-ites & PNAC display for every program: Just keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater & see what's left. Rubbish.

But I agree with some of your post which I why I still haven't voted. I am reluctant to pull out, but reluctant to stay in as well.

:shrug:

But that's just me.

If they bind no one but us.

WE CANNOT allow our foreign policy to be dictated by tyrants and dictators who's nation is sitting on the Security Council. It encourages bribery, and whores out to the lowest bidder so we can advance our goals. We need to stop Shrub at home, not rely on others to do it for us. We should come to national consensuses (or at least majorities) on issues and persue them, not allow others to bind our decisions

"WE CANNOT allow our foreign policy to be dictated by tyrants and dictators who's nation is sitting on the Security Council"

This is exactly, what the majority of the world population might think.

The dictators and tyrants are sitting in Washington. Aren't 300 unjustified and criminal wars since WWII enough for you?

Aren't uncountable destructed economies by the U.S. dominated Worldbank and IMF enough for you?

Arent uncountable fashist regimes, armed, installed and supported by the USA enough for you?

'till that very day, the corporations and financial organisations in the USA bind the rest of the world. They veto, destroy and boycott every attempt to create democracy, human rights or social justice.

The rest of the world is just allowed to donate to Unicef, if not a multilateral democrat sits in Washington, sharing with the Deutsche Bank and Daymler.

If there's any country in the world, that should be disarmed, if there's any country in the whole wild world, in desperate need of some weapon inspectors from the UNO, it's the USA.

Dirk

The anti-globalists are opposed to the IMF's manipulation of stressed countries by creating "debt dependency" and NOT the role the UN plays in promoting world peace.


This is a story by Greg Palast on how the IMF sacks world governments


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12652

:kick:

IMO the best role for the UN is as a debating society and a way to bring problems of unfortunate peoples/countries (Famine, natural disaters, etc.)to the forfront so that aid can be organized and directed where it is needed.

But I am against any governmental powers being handed over to the UN.


I used to snicker at the "black helicopter" crowd myself, but lately I am not so sure that they are wrong.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

then the UN could actually do something useful instead of the usual "Everyone except the US, UK and Israel wants to do X. Overruled!" nonsense.

If the UN wishes to be without the U.S., I am sure * will agree to it. That will give him carte blanche to do what he wants AND win him the election.

Noam Chompsky was on c-span tonight. He has written a book titled Hegemony or Survival. He described the American Plan and scared me to death. When asked what he thought the ourcome of the 2004 election would be, he said it would be bought! Then gave the example of..."just before the Dem Convention, they'll find or kill Osama so all the publicity of the Comvention will be lost with that sotry. Then, around the 3rd week in Oct. they will use all that $$ they have to buy tons of ad time promoting GWB. No doubt, he'll win."

He explained how the US want's to control the world resources, and wants to militarily control outerspace. Every time the peace agreement comes up in the UN, the US abstains, which amounts to a veto.

Really scary stuff, and the UN looks better than we do in the end.

I think they do good work in terms of humanitarian aid and things like that, but when it comes to backing up their own "use of force" resolutions (i.e. 1441), it seems they lack the force of will to carry through. It seems like the U.N has pulled out of the U.N. Flame away.

It doesn't work. We Americans pay out the wazoo for it but get very little in return. The security council veto is not compensation for the US only getting ONE VOTE. That is, the same as a country the size of Panama and paying in at a much lesser rate.

The UN needs a bi-cameral voting scheme. In one vote, you'd only get the one. In the other vote, you'd vote according to your population. All countries would pay in according to their population level.

Pulling out of the UN is about as dumb an idea as pulling out of the WTO. They both have their problems but play a necessary role.