Time to Ditch the United Nations
John Yoo ·
March 28, 2011 at 8:57pm
I tried my hand today at publishing on The Daily, the new iPad-only newspaper.
Putting the domestic war powers questions to one side, on which I've been posting here, I criticize Obama's continuing reliance on the United Nations. Seeking justification only from the U.N. resolution means that American forces cannot fulfill the United States' own stated goals: we cannot remove Ghadafi from power; we cannot provide aid to the Libyan rebels; we cannot protect the oil fields. The Libyan intervention shows that it is time for the United States and its allies to replace the U.N. with a Concert of Democracies that would decide when to use force to combat terrorism, fix failed states, overthrow rogue regimes, and prevent humanitarian disasters.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
How do we get this Concert of Democracies on the table?
Dec '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
You had me with the title.
May '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Absolutely not. Yes, the U.N. should be abolished. But let's not replace one problem with another.
It makes sense to have an international forum where national leaders can gather to discuss international concerns, but not to legislate them. Furhermore, Americans should not be taxed to support foreign governors and administrators.
We have no need for a permanent alliance. Leadership changes. Cultures change. We can form alliances devoted to specific goals quickly and efficiently without need of a permanent body. A willing ally is more valuable than an ally of obligation, anyway.
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
The United Nations is a body that much of the world sees as legitimate – and where the United States is one of a very few countries that holds a permanent veto and other permanent institutional advantages over other countries. Conservatives inevitably focus on ways that it allegedly constrains us, even though there is basically no way the UN can order us to do anything.
There is, meanwhile, precious little acknowledgment of how it helps the United States that there is a word body where we enjoy a significant, permanent institutional advantage (which isn't a surprise since we set it up).
Keep the UN.
May '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
We will never be rid of the odious UN, although it's long past its time to go the way of the League of Nations.
If it were not headquartered in New York City, it would have collapsed under its own weight years ago.
Jun '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
I tend to agree with Conor that the Security Council is on balance helpful to U.S. interests. It's also fairly cheap.
I say keep the U.N. but gut the bloated bureaucracies that consume most of our tax dollars. A few like the WHO seem worth keeping around. I'm on the fence about the World Bank and the IMF. The Human Rights Council and Millennium Development Goals are a joke.
My #1 objection to the U.N. is the vast amount of money it spends promoting "population control" and "reproductive health" (i.e. abortion, sometimes forced) worldwide.
Aug '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
What was that real estate worth again in NY ? Why we don't we see what President Trump would do with that piece of prime river view ?
Dec '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
You read my mind...! Next on "Flip this house" ....
Mar '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Yes! Bolton has been saying this for decades. The U.N. security council has no moral authority to be telling us what is and isn't an acceptable war. In fact, the security council really doesn't have the authority to be telling us anything.
Jul '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Donald Trump once suggested that we should relocate the UN to Ground Zero, where nervous commercial tenants would be reluctant to lease space, and sell off the UN's current East River real estate.
Feb '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
On a purely emotional level I would like nothing more than to see the UN move to a more suitable location such as Burkina Faso or, better yet, simply bulldoze the mess into the East River. Given the unlikelihood of such an edifying spectacle we have little choice but to continue membership for the purpose of defanging the Security Council - the only component that could be deemed even potentially threatening. Beyond that, we should simply ignore it and let it atrophy into well deserved oblivion.
Edited on March 28, 2011 at 10:36pmFeb '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
" The Libyan intervention shows that it is time for the United States and its allies to replace the U.N. with a Concert of Democracies that would decide when to use force to combat terrorism, fix failed states, overthrow rogue regimes, and prevent humanitarian disasters."
Good example, the Libyan intervention and window of opportunity to move from the UN to a Concert of Democracies.
Jun '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
The argument often put forward by the Left is that by signing the U.N. Charter we voluntarily agreed that we would never go to war without Security Council approval, and thus we are violating our treaty obligations and going to war "illegally" if we don't have this approval.
Jun '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
The UN should just go ahead and move to where it is destined to move...Babylon. The palace is already there and it will be ready for it's role in the end times.
Mar '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Joseph Stanko
The argument often put forward by the Left is that by signing the U.N. Charter we voluntarily agreed that we would never go to war without Security Council approval, and thus we are violating our treaty obligations and going to war "illegally" if we don't have this approval. · Mar 28 at 1:37pm
Yes, that makes sense. Even then, it would be a pretty small/legalistic problem. Certainly nothing to justify the kind of hysteria with which leftists argue this.
Dec '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Practically speaking, about the only substantive things the UN Security Counsel does is try to constrain US foreign policy and occasionally impose ineffective sanctions. Everyone else ignores the UN Security Council. Russia and China ignore it almost completely. France and Britain will ignore it if they think it is in their interest to do so. Even Clinton ignored it when he wanted to intervene in the Balkans.
It could be useful to have an alliance/council of democracies that was external to the UN. But it should have no authority, by treaty or otherwise, to constrain US foreign policy or commit the US to military action.
I think the UN does some good in the humanitarian area. We can stay in the UN, minimize our financial contribution, and behave as China and Russia do -- mostly listen to the blather and veto as necessary.
Edited on March 29, 2011 at 12:37amMar '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
But we do have such an alliance, it's called NATO. The UN General Assembly is like a large company shareholders' meeting, where someone who owns a single share can stand up and say his thing, however ridiculous and inconsequential, and even get other small shareholders to agree, but important decisions are made by the big investors. For many people, including myself, the sore point is the UN's price tag; if the US was not footing, what, 1/6 pf the bill I'd say, let them talk, talk is cheap. In the end the problem is not so much with the UN but with the US administrations that pay attention and feel guilty and embarrassed when the majority of the world countries, which collectively amount to nothing, vote against the US.
Jun '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Abdiel
Yes, that makes sense. Even then, it would be a pretty small/legalistic problem. Certainly nothing to justify the kind of hysteria with which leftists argue this. · Mar 28 at 2:39pm
Just to play devil's advocate, how is this any different than a leftist saying "Sure Obamacare is unconstitutional, but that's just a pretty small/legalistic problem. Certainly nothing to justify all that Tea Party hysteria."
Mar '11
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Joseph Stanko
Just to play devil's advocate, how is this any different than a leftist saying "Sure Obamacare is unconstitutional, but that's just a pretty small/legalistic problem. Certainly nothing to justify all that Tea Party hysteria." · Mar 28 at 4:32pm
That's when I would get into how socialism is pseudo-economics and has a proven history of failure :P. In particular a reduction in the quality of health care.
Even if it were constitutional it should be avoided.
On the other hand the U.N has never been a body wielding any moral authority. When we follow U.N resolutions its only because we agree to.
Edited on March 29, 2011 at 1:57amAug '10
Re: Time to Ditch the United Nations
Nickolas:
I think the UN does some good in the humanitarian area.
Edited on Mar 28 at 03:37 pm
Ok, Nicko ! ( I feel like someone stuck between Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and the Thin Man).
Please provide the overwhelming "good" done by the UN versus the "bad", as a balance sheet. Delete blue sky as an asset and long term debt as a liability. I don't think they are a viable investment. And we still have Durban III coming to NYC in September !!