Is it time to get out of the UN??

Question

Everytime we try to get something done China and Russia block us. While we keep throwing money into the UN they never accomplish much. Using the money they get could do much more good if directed to other projects.

Answer 1

Long overdue. It has done nearly nothing positive. It gives every two-bit dictatorship in the world a forum from which to berate the U.S. To call it corrupt beggars the term, and the really neat part, is WE are PAYING for at least 25% of the tab! It does do some good work with UNICEF and such. Also, I suppose there is an opportunity to obtain intelligence and other useful info, but it sure appears to the casual observer that the downside outweighs the good.

Answer 2

When it comes to humanitarian causes, the UN is a fantastic organization. Security matters, however, are a different matter. The way the UN Security Council is currently organized is a cold-War relic.

The UNSC was set up as a forum for nuclear powers to discuss issues and dance on the powder kegs. The fall of the Soviet Union changed that perspective. Regional interests (both security-related and economic) have taken the place of global interests. As such, the original framework of the organization has combined with current events to transform the organization into a sort of rhetorical society.

With that in mind, the answer to the question can be addressed by one of two solutions.

1) No, we do not get out of the U.N. If this is the route, than this country must be more aggressive in pushing for reform.

2) Yes we do get out of the U.N. In this case, the U.S. should at least plant the seeds of a viable alternative.

Answer 3

No, it isn't time to get out of the United Nations and it never will be. Communication is the universal solvent and without it nothing is accomplished, situations just grow worse. Of course, between individuals, if one or both are being so aberrated it is impossible to have rational communication, all attempts at it should cease until emotions have calmed, before it is picked up again. As far as the U.N. is concerned, anyone who promotes our leaving it does not want to abide by international rules. In other words, doesn't want to make decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest number, which is always the sanest and least selfish way to make any decision. The Bush administration is fascistic and operating in a rogue manner, breaking American and International laws at will. Government has always been good at covertly smearing its enemies and it has done an excellent job for many years of making the U.N. look bad, when the U.N. is responsible for the planet and the United States is concerned almost entirely for the United States. When an American has a bad opinion of the U.N. it is due to a lot of clever propaganda from mainstream media over a long period of time. It really is a shame. I am an American and I felt the same way myself, until my reading expanded a great deal. A few of my sources are listed.

Answer 4

The UN was not formed to be a rubber stamp for U.S. policies. It was formed precisely for the reasons that you are whining about: it forces compromise and debate. It discourages unilateral action, which however noble in intent, tends to be disasterous. (See Iraq, 2003-Present).

Tearing down the UN is but one piece of the ultimate "neo-conservative" puzzle, with its goal being the abolition of government as a limiting force for multi-national corporations. The object is the return to the most stable government of all: Feudalism, the rule of the wealthy over all others.

When we rejected the return to Feudalism in the American Revolution (we fought the global East India Company moreso than the British people, the Company had basically bought Parliament) we stopped the advance. The UN was designed to be another block to the rule of the elite: by making all nations internationally accountable, no one nation could create a system that would usurp governmental authority and create another fascist, feudal, or similar state.

Unfortunately, enforcing these ideals is far more of a political challenge than dreaming them up. This is where the UN has failed, but it is a collective failure. As people, we have to understand the forces we are up against: there are people who truly believe that a return to the rule of the priviledged few is desireable, necessary, and inevitable.

Thus we should not abolish the UN, but rather recommit ourselves to the original goals. Not to rubber stamp invasions, but rather to further peaceful change and bring about an empowering force. Eisenhower, a true conservative, really believed in this dream.

He said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." And he was right. Think about the current "War on Terror" and how it has swelled the ranks of those who oppose the United States. Think about how we could have used that same capital to build incredible charitable works to eliminate the poverty, class discrimination, and disease that created terrorism in the first place.

We have made own our problem; the question is: do we continue down the path of isolation, or do we renew our commitment to the world by setting the example?

Answer 5

The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.
States first established international organisations to cooperate on specific matters. The International Telecommunication Union was founded in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, and the Universal Postal Union was established in 1874. Both are now United Nations specialised agencies.

In 1899, the International Peace Conference was held in The Hague to elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare. It adopted the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which began work in 1902.

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organisation conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organisation was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organisation to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

Note. If you set something up like the UN, that does not mean you are in charge ( Quite the opposite ) or own it. As for money, it is an pity that the united states GOD is Money, better to try and understand why.

Hope this helps.

Good Luck.

Answer 6

It was time to get out of the UN about 30 years ago. The US provides over 70% of the funding for the UN, yet the interest of the US are ignored by the "committees". We keep getting bashed because we don't give more, yet we keep getting ignored. The US was founded on the very principle of "no taxation without representation", and yet we are the primary funding mechanism of an organization which keeps silencing us. It is past time to get out and use the money to tend to our own internal matters. Like quality medical care for those who can't otherwise afford it.

Answer 7

The UN has turned into another corrupt bureaucracy with no one to watch over it. Like most bureaucracy they can show results for maybe 10% of the problems they are tring to address. Being a corrupt bureaucracy they block anyone else from helping to solve the other 90% of the problems.

I don't know about getting out of the UN, but definately smaller is better.

Answer 8

Today, it seems that many Americans look at the UN as a body whose sole purpose is to advance the US foreign agenda and provide legitimacy to US military adventures.

The UN is a forum that provides a voice to all member states.

It is not a world government. It is an international body that provides a daily forum for discussion of issues facing the world. It is a platform for the member states to discuss important issues with international impacts. It is a convenient arena for diplomats to negotiate wide-reaching international treaties, and to come to agreements on Human Rights issues, Human health issues, environmental concerns... as well as violations by member states to the same.

The US blocks as many things that e.g., China and Russia want to get done as they block things that we want to get done.

We OWE the UN over $700 Million in back dues.

Answer 9

I think the UN is a paper tiger and is corrupt. However, It has its uses for the US and we will use it for our best interest. So I think the amount of money we give is worth it from a strategic standpoint. You have to understand that Russia and China, France are not allies so I dont expect them to help us in anyway.

Answer 10

The United States' relationship with the United Nations is ambivalent at best. Due to an emerging trend which power struggles, economic and politics are volatile, especially in regard to two/thirds world nations, our nation has lost prestige in its dealings with the UN.
I believe that our complex involvement with the UN needs to be analyzed and restructured to reflect new global realities