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 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Please note that I wrote get rid of, not just get out of, the United Nations. Yes, I know we’ve talked about making this move for years, but it’s way past due to act. Let’s do a quick review of this feckless and inconsequential organization. Since many people have written so cogently on this topic, I have let them speak for me to a great extent.
To provide background, the U.N. was formed after World War II:
The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars. The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.
In what way is the UN so useless?
Bruce Walker in the American Thinker explained, in part, why that hasn’t worked out:
The United Nations was created primarily to preserve peace, but it has never succeeded in that at all, nor has it prevented the genocides that so horrified the civilized world after the Second World War ended. The reasons why are pretty clear. Most of the “nations” represented in the United Nations are little more than brutal ruling gangs, who suppress captive peoples like the Kurds and Tibetans and who routinely deny the most basic human rights to those they rule.
The UN has no enforcement authority.
So what can the UN do in terms of enforcing their mandates? Here’s a paragraph on their enforcing protection of the rights of women:
Enforcement mechanisms are usually categorized by the type of UN body that receives communications or carries out the monitoring process. There are three broad categories of enforcement mechanisms: (1) charter-based mechanisms, such as the UN Commission on the Status of Women; (2) convention or treaty-based mechanisms, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; and (3) mechanisms contained in UN specialized agencies, such as the International Labor Organization or the World Health Organization. Each of these bodies monitors either a specific human rights issue or particular treaties.
If you look farther down the page, it explains that remedies for violations are submitting complaints and reports. So much for enforcement.
The Conservative Review published an article on its reasons for the US to defund and leave the United Nations: (1) the UN is pro-abortion, except for those Muslim countries who prohibit abortion; (2) the UN has become a lobbying group for the LGBT movement. (One of the organization’s agencies, UNESCO, even jumped into the fray in 2016 with a report called “Out in the Open” which calls for the public school teaching of the world’s children on transgender issues); (3) it referenced an article in the Washington Times which explained how the UN was working to supersede our gun control laws:
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was negotiated from 2006, during the Bush administration, through 2013 with the Obama administration. The original intent of the treaty was theoretically to prohibit arms transfers to regimes that abused human rights. From the very start though, gun control groups looked upon the treaty as an end run around America’s domestic reluctance to adopt their agenda — if Congress and the state legislatures wouldn’t pass gun control why not get the U.N. to make it a permanent part of its agenda or even better part of international law? The proposed ATT gave them the opportunity they had been waiting for, a legally binding treaty imposing regulation and conditions on the transfer and maybe possession of any weapon from a pistol to a battle ship. As incredible as it seems, the U.N. Human Rights Commission has already interpreted lack of gun control as a human rights abuse.
The treaty is now in effect internationally and approved by Obama but the Senate didn’t sign it into law.
There are those who say that the UN does do some good work in humanitarian assistance, the World Food Program, UNICEF, and the UN Refugee Agency. I didn’t research the work of these agencies, but we have to ask if there are other ways to provide these programs without the UN?
Finally, Charles Krauthammer said in an interview with Fox News:
So we’re paying an organization that spends half its time — more than half its time and energy and resources and bureaucracy– trying to attack the only Jewish state on the planet, a tiny little speck, while genocide mayhem, murder, terrorism is going on all over the world. It’s an obsession that to an outside observer appears to be insane. Why are we doing this? And the rest of the time is spent undermining the United States and democracy and our allies around the world.
He closes by saying:
It is an organization that exacerbates tensions, it does not assuage them. It was born in hope, the end of the second World War. It turned out to be a disaster . . . imagine if headquarters were in Zimbabwe. The amount of weight and coverage it would get would be zero. I think it’s good real estate in downtown New York City. Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn it into condos.
It’s time to dissolve the UN by pulling out funds and US participation. What do you think?