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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The latest complaint against the UN is that the UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have allowed Hezbollah to build tunnels near UNIFIL posts.

    • #1
  2. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    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. 

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MarciN (View Comment):
    There has to be a way for the independent nations of the world to work out our differences peacefully, through formal discussions and agreements.

    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. 

    • #3
  4. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    MarciN (View Comment):
    Relationships among governments are the keys to peace. 

    They are also the keys to war, unfortunately.

    MarciN (View Comment):
    There has to be a way for the independent nations of the world to work out our differences peacefully, through formal discussions and agreements.

    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.

    • #4
  5. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    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. 

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    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.

    I agree! I wonder if he would consider that. If Elon Musk counsels him, I’d bet he’d encourage him to leave.

    • #7
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    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. 

    • #8
  9. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    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. 

    • #9
  10. Rodin Moderator
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Staying in the UN is based on the “sunk cost fallacy“.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MarciN (View Comment):
    As long as we are not controlled by what they say and do in any way, I think it is a good thing. 

    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.

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MarciN (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #12
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    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. 

    • #13
  14. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    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.)

    • #14
  15. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    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.

    • #15
  16. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    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”.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MarciN (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #17
  18. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    We should stay in the UN, if only to use our Security Council veto to keep those morons from doing any harm.

    • #18
  19. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    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.

    • #19
  20. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Instugator (View Comment):
    The world wins, because the excesses of the CCP will become manifest to all.

    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.

    • #20
  21. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Instugator (View Comment):
    My own reform for the United Nations is to offer to allow the CCP and Bejing to host them.

    I would suggest moving UN headquarters from New York City to North Korea.

    • #21
  22. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    I agree Susan, the UN seems to be a totally useless bloated organization. At a minimum we should not give them a single dime.

    • #22
  23. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):
    My own reform for the United Nations is to offer to allow the CCP and Bejing to host them.

    I would suggest moving UN headquarters from New York City to North Korea.

    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.

    • #23
  24. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The latest complaint against the UN is that the UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have allowed Hezbollah to build tunnels near UNIFIL posts.

    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.

    • #24
  25. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    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.

    • #25
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):
    The world wins, because the excesses of the CCP will become manifest to all.

    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.

    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.

    • #26
  27. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):
    My own reform for the United Nations is to offer to allow the CCP and Bejing to host them.

    I would suggest moving UN headquarters from New York City to North Korea.

    Nah, Beijing is a better choice.

    • #27
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MarciN (View Comment):

    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.

    Are we sure that we know it when they’re plotting against us NOW?

    • #28
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    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.)

    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.

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    We should stay in the UN, if only to use our Security Council veto to keep those morons from doing any harm.

    But that doesn’t stop Putin from invading Ukraine, for example.  All the “veto” does is block “resolutions,” not actions.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.