Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
United Nations: Why are We Still a Member?
Over the years, the critics of the United Nations have multiplied in number. Its inability to be effective, to act with integrity, its anti-Semitic actions and its refusal to intervene in some of the world’s worst tragedies are well-known. Some people would say that it does accomplish some things, such as data collection and sharing, but its most prominent councils and agencies are fraught with political agendas and ineptitude.
Israel wins the prize for the volume of criticisms by the U.N. General Assembly:
Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said.
The United Nations General Assembly passed more resolutions critical of Israel than against all other nations combined in 2022, contributing to what observers call an ongoing lopsided focus on the Jewish state at the world body.
Two years ago, the U.N. Human Rights Council established the Council of Inquiry to investigate Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The United States condemned the Council’s report in 2022 and that year, Pres. Donald Trump left the HRC. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration rejoined the Council, with State Department spokesman Ned Price stating:
We reengaged with and later re-joined the HRC in part to be in a better position to address its flaws, including this one, and we will continue to seek reforms. . .
The US remains deeply committed to helping achieve peace for both Israelis and Palestinians and will support actions in the UN that bring the parties together to advance prospects for peace.
Clearly, good intentions are not nearly enough. In fact, the agency UNRWA, affiliated with the U.N., was key to delivering food to the Palestinians, but it was proven to be part of the Hamas forces that attacked Israel on October 7.
The poor governance of the United Nations goes far beyond the HRC and the nation of Israel. Even when Israel is not a part of the U.N. General Assembly agenda, they can be lured into the discussion anyway. This meeting was not atypical; it was intended to focus on the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals:
The recently elected president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, spoke of his desire for reform and international engagement, while denouncing Israel’s ‘desperate barbarism.’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an uncompromising address condemning ‘savage enemies who seek our annihilation,’ prompting several national delegations to walk out.
One way or another, Israel is identified as a source of the problem when they are not even involved.
The United Nations claims it makes many contributions to world peace and well-being. It says that all nations are equal and have “equal moral weight and integrity.” But that statement is difficult to reconcile with learning that Iran chaired the Human Rights Social Forum in 2021. Even more tragic, how does the U.N. reasonably explain its lack of action when nearly one million people were slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994 in only three months?
The U.N. Security Council has some tools for peacekeeping, but they have proven to have mixed results. It has no peacekeeping military of its own, and is funded and armed by member countries. But critics of the peacekeeping forces have pointed to their lack of engagement or sexual exploitation of the locals.
When discussions are held to explore reforms to the United Nations, they generally go nowhere. The competing agendas, politics, and historic clashes make agreement on changes nearly impossible.
In terms of being a model to the world for moral behavior, the U.N. falls far short. Sexual exploitation has been identified throughout the organization, followed by blackmail and financial improprieties. There is the question of whether the countries in the U.N. are sufficiently concerned to address these issues.
As a result of this mismanagement and overall ineffectiveness, I think people should have serious concerns about continuing to support the United Nations. In fact, I seriously question whether the U.S. should be involved with it. The fact is, the U.N. is almost powerless to take any kind of action against countries, besides criticizing them, cajoling them and begging them to comply with its demands. It doesn’t have the authority to hold countries accountable, to punish them or even remove them from membership.
When the U.S. first left the Security Council, there was consternation by some about that decision:
The Council is the world’s main human rights body – and it is crucial that all states engage with its work. The US has long been a leader on human rights, particularly through its work and support for the UN’s Geneva-based human rights mechanisms. By abandoning ship, the US has made it that much harder for like-minded states to protect and promote human rights. And it has set a dangerous and worrying precedent that other countries, particularly those who commit grave violations, may emulate.
I seriously doubt that we have continued to earn the adulation of the world or are even the leader on human rights; Americans have been shown disdain by our own government, and our global reputation is in decline.
We no longer serve a meaningful role in the United Nations, nor does it serve us well.
It’s time to move on.
Published in Foreign Policy
The latest complaint against the UN is that the UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have allowed Hezbollah to build tunnels near UNIFIL posts.
Every word of your excellent post is true and accurate.
However, to answer the question posed in the title: because we have to have it, and I want it on American soil. We have exerted tremendous influence around the world because we fund it and give it our moral support by hosting it.
There has to be a way for the independent nations of the world to work out our differences peacefully, through formal discussions and agreements. There have to be relationships among countries that supersede our State Department’s individual relationships.
Relationships among governments are the keys to peace.
Why does there “have to be a way”? No one has figured out how to work out matters with the worst offenders: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They have no reason to make things better with us. We could use excuses like there are financial benefits, even, but they don’t seem to care.
They are also the keys to war, unfortunately.
It has become obvious that the best way to do that is not through The League of Nations. Or the UN.
.
I’m with Susan on this one. I don’t see the benefit of the UN. To anybody other than vicious tyrants.
We should not cooperate with or support such institutions.
Just as only Trump could (would) move the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump might be the only President who would take us out of the U.N.
Thanks, Dr. B. In the past we’ve talked about forming another kind of organization, but if we do, its agenda should be narrow and focused. I’ll have to try to remember what the possibilities were.
I agree! I wonder if he would consider that. If Elon Musk counsels him, I’d bet he’d encourage him to leave.
Susan, Dr. Bastiat, and Henry Cabot Lodge are in agreement. :)
I just don’t see another way for the world to function reasonably peacefully.
As long as we are not controlled by what they say and do in any way, I think it is a good thing.
I’ve spent my entire life believing in keeping open the channels of communication, and the United Nations seems like the best way to do that.
Lots of good things happen when socialization occurs among people of vastly different philosophies.
And by the way, what I think would happen if we pulled out is that the countries would simply relocate to another one and plot against us and we’d never know it.
Staying in the UN is based on the “sunk cost fallacy“.
It sounds like you assume that our being a member has benefited us, or helped keep the peace; I’m not sure that’s true. I’m not sure there’s much socialization either, frankly.
If countries are plotting against us, they are unlikely to tell other nations, especially us. And if we don’t know they’re plotting, I’m not sure it matters if they are.
All of you might be right.
I really don’t know. I like the idea of it a lot, the potential for good.
But I also know that China dominates it, and that’s why Taiwan isn’t recognized as it should be. It’s why Israel is treated so badly.
And China has BRIC. And there are business and academic networks for back-channel communications should the need arise.
So who needs the United Nations?
Is the only source of its influence our support for it? Perhaps. The International Court of Justice, to which we give a respectful nod but don’t really participate in, does not carry the weight of the UN. Clearly the UN derives its influence from our support, and everything they do is against us.
You might be right.
I don’t know.
Does the President have the authority to withdraw the US from the UN without Congressional approval?
Based on a whirlwind tour of the Interwebs, it seems to be a sticky matter, but from what I can tell, there is no clear case law saying he or she cannot, and the Constitution is silent on the question.
So, probably he can. Maybe one of our experts on Constitutional Law will weigh in. (I am suspicious of the articles I did find, some of which seemed to have a political point of view (a left-leaning one.)
I’m afraid that most if not all of the potential for the UN to do good has been subverted, corrupted and systematically destroyed. Its primary job now is to provide legitimacy for disgusting regimes and soak as much as possible of US taxpayer dollars. We should take back the valuable real estate and cut our financial participation to the level of the governments that are years behind in their “dues.” My opinion, of course, and worth every cent it costs you.
I don’t trust centralized power. I don’t even trust my own federal government.
I certainly don’t trust anything called “The United Nations”.
Marci, I so appreciate your candor. These issues so can be so difficult. BTW, ICJ is also corrupt and has ruled against Netanyahu. I can’t remember if it’s war crimes or genocide. They’re not even real judges. Sheesh.
We should stay in the UN, if only to use our Security Council veto to keep those morons from doing any harm.
My own reform for the United Nations is to offer to allow the CCP and Bejing to host them.
China wins because whoever hosts the UN becomes the elder brother of the nations of the world (something which Xi and the CCP desperately want).
The world wins, because the excesses of the CCP will become manifest to all.
The US wins because the UN will be further reduced to the non-entity it ought to have been.
You think they won’t be able to hide whatever they are doing? They’ll just restrict where people can go and what they can see.
I would suggest moving UN headquarters from New York City to North Korea.
I agree Susan, the UN seems to be a totally useless bloated organization. At a minimum we should not give them a single dime.
I don’t know. I think governments would probably find new ways to pour money and technology into North Korea on behalf of the UN. Much of it would land in dictators’ pockets and those of specially favored contractors.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said that Jaw-jaw is better than war-war. (Maybe that rhymes if you are a brit.) I doubt that he foresaw the world being held hostage by tin pot dictators.
It’s much worse than that. UNIFIL has sat by while Hezbollah – which was supposed to stay north of the Litani River in Southern Lebanon amassed massive amounts of arms for the sole purpose of threatening- and ultimately attacking- Israel. Because there has long been an Irish contingent in INIFIL (some of whom I know) it is deemed to be beyond criticism here. When Nikki Haley criticised it as US Ambassador to the UN, there was outrage. Even now as the reality is exposed, it goes mostly unreported.
We should not leave the UN.
We should pay our “fair share” as one of the 160+ “countries”. So a tiny fraction of what we pay.
We should tell them to vacate their headquarters in the US.
The reason we should never leave though is simple. As long as we have that seat on the Security Council, and can veto any significant action by the UN we must stay.
Diplomatic Immunity.
Truthfully, the Chicoms cannot hide their environmental depredations. To make the Olympics work, they had to stop driving in Beijing. They cannot do that every day. When diplomats start suffering from respiratory problems, they will complain.
Nah, Beijing is a better choice.
Are we sure that we know it when they’re plotting against us NOW?
Whether they “can” or not, you can be sure that there would be people making a fuss and trying to stop it. It might take years or longer to sort out.
But that doesn’t stop Putin from invading Ukraine, for example. All the “veto” does is block “resolutions,” not actions.