It’s Time to Get Rid of the United Nations

 

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?

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 93 comments.

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

    Susan Quinn: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.

    But Susan, Israel is the prism through which the US seems to view and value (or not value) a lot of the rest of the world. And actually it does seem a bit insane to everybody else.

    It’s time to dissolve the UN by pulling out funds and US participation. What do you think?

    I think you get soooome results from membership, (in light of your obsession : – )

    More seriously, if the US pulls out  – and I don’t think you can just ‘shut it down, because you can’t make that decision for other countries and you “only” contribute 30%, they’d survive your withdrawal – who do you think would take your place, and how would that impact your level of influence over world affairs – and would that matter all that much?  (And if so to whom?)

     

    • #31
  2. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    There is a role for something broader than NATO or the OAS,  but the original notion that goes back centuries that some kind of world government can prevent war was not just naive it was and will always be a dangerous fantasy. We can have peace if a coalition of democratic powers with overwhelming power led by the US and only the US can agree on the outlines of a world order.   We had that and the UN was a part of it, but mostly just the window dressing part but with distorting glass of an amusement park mirror.  Now it’s simply deeply corrupt and dysfunctional and it probably always will be.   So we need to think about what sorts of global or near global institutions could be useful.  Like most obese wasteful organizations it can’t be reformed but it can be replaced.  We could start by putting its meeting place and secretariat in some African country that could use the money and where there might be smaller global hoards of patronage seekers.

    • #32
  3. patpongmike Inactive
    patpongmike
    @patpongmike

    @aardo vozz   has a very good point.   Move the organization around a bit.   It’s time for other countries to “share” the U.N.  ;   Perhaps France could host it for a few years, followed by Japan, and then Germany.

    And reduce U.S. contributions, of course.

    • #33
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Israel P. (View Comment):
    G-d created the United Nations to give international approval to the State of Israel.

    Since then, it’s been all downhill.

    Isn’t that the truth? The longer the UN exists, the greater threat it is to Israel, because it will continue to demonize Israel and exalt the Palestinians until the Palestinians think they’re empowered to do whatever they wish. Then watch out!

    • #34
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    From your lips to God’s ears.

    Mike, what do you think it will take to make it happen? Any thoughts?

    I’m not precisely sure, but it would probably take a spectacular act of malfeasance on the UN’s part to motivate the Trump administration to withdraw America from that organization and then compel it to leave the country.

    Since its corruption has been widely known, that shouldn’t be too hard. We just have to keep our eyes open. Thanks, Mike.

    • #35
  6. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Its time?  Where have you been.  I’ve been wearing my “No UN” pin (UN logo with the red circle and line through it) since the mid 90’s.  I don’t see where the UN has changed much since then.  Maybe my lobbying is finally paying off and people are starting to notice.

    • #36
  7. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Steyn did some columns on all the “peacekeepers” engaged in child prostitution in Africa. The UN does much more harm than good.

    • #37
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    How is any combatant party in the world supposed to take seriously the guarantee that they can safely lay down their weapons due to the insertion of a UN peacekeeping force when the glaring example of southern Lebanon tells them otherwise?

    I agree. As I said earlier, the peacekeepers are next to worthless. My husband suggested peacekeepers are hired to provide money to their states of origin. I assume the states get the bulk of the money, the soldiers a pittance. But I don’t know that for a fact.

    • #38
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    The only argument I’ve ever heard in favor of it is, it’s a big part of the economy of New York City.

    And I think this is a huge factor. NY politicians and their cohorts will fight tooth and nail for the survival of the UN–in NY of course. It will be a hit to the economy.

    • #39
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):
    But Susan, Israel is the prism through which the US seems to view and value (or not value) a lot of the rest of the world. And actually it does seem a bit insane to everybody else.

    Good to see you, Zafar. I’m not sure what you mean by this statement Zafar. Could you clarify? If I’m understanding you, I’d say you’re exaggerating just a bit. Although if you consider that Israel’s very extinction is at stake, I understand our concerns. But I don’t understand the prism part.

    Zafar (View Comment):
    More seriously, if the US pulls out – and I don’t think you can just ‘shut it down, because you can’t make that decision for other countries and you “only” contribute 30%, they’d survive your withdrawal – who do you think would take your place, and how would that impact your level of influence over world affairs – and would that matter all that much? (And if so to whom?)

    I know we can’t shut it down. But 30% is a big investment. And don’t  be surprised if others follow our lead. I’m not sure they could survive that, especially if they had to move out of NY. I don’t care who takes our place. The organization is ineffectual. I think we can build our influence in other ways outside the UN. And yes, I think finding ways to influence the world is important.

    • #40
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I Walton (View Comment):
    There is a role for something broader than NATO or the OAS, but the original notion that goes back centuries that some kind of world government can prevent war was not just naive it was and will always be a dangerous fantasy. We can have peace if a coalition of democratic powers with overwhelming power led by the US and only the US can agree on the outlines of a world order. We had that and the UN was a part of it, but mostly just the window dressing part but with distorting glass of an amusement park mirror. Now it’s simply deeply corrupt and dysfunctional and it probably always will be. So we need to think about what sorts of global or near global institutions could be useful. Like most obese wasteful organizations it can’t be reformed but it can be replaced. We could start by putting its meeting place and secretariat in some African country that could use the money and where there might be smaller global hoards of patronage seekers.

    Double like!

    • #41
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Pony Convertible (View Comment):
    Its time? Where have you been. I’ve been wearing my “No UN” pin (UN logo with the red circle and line through it) since the mid 90’s. I don’t see where the UN has changed much since then. Maybe my lobbying is finally paying off and people are starting to notice.

    Sorry, Pony. How could I have missed your pin?! I’m thinking that we should pursue it even harder and follow up on your efforts. With Trump trying to rebuild our reputation (if he doesn’t alienate everyone first), the increased animosity toward Israel such as BDS, and additional recognition of the Palestinians, I’d rather that we didn’t wait any longer.

    • #42
  13. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I agree with you Susan, but I it won’t happen.  Perhaps if the US pulled out, it might collapse, but I doubt that too.  Too many countries believe in it.  I wish we would pull out.

    • #43
  14. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Susan Quinn: It’s time to dissolve the UN by pulling out funds and US participation. What do you think?

    Hear, hear!  Replace it with NATO.  The theocracies and thugacracies can join when they clean up their acts (in a century or two, if we’re lucky).

    • #44
  15. Lazy_Millennial Inactive
    Lazy_Millennial
    @LazyMillennial

    Guys, we’re conservatives here. In the spirit of Chesterton’s fencepost, let’s consider not only the “why was this erected” that was addressed well in the OP, but also the “what benefits, both intended and unintended, does this provide?”

    In the case of the UN, the unintended benefit is that it attracts all the types of people who like the idea of the UN and puts them all together, inmates running their own asylum with no real power. Of course the great danger is they’ll persuade the rest of us to give them power, but the benefit is that as long as we resist that temptation, the UN serves as a self-selecting removal process from general society.

    The solution is not to destroy the UN, but restore it to its original condition. Specifically, put the asbestos back in the building, and lead back in the pipes.

    • #45
  16. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Lazy_Millennial (View Comment):
    Guys, we’re conservatives here. In the spirit of Chesterton’s fencepost, let’s consider not only the “why was this erected” that was addressed well in the OP, but also the “what benefits, both intended and unintended, does this provide?”

    In the case of the UN, the unintended benefit is that it attracts all the types of people who like the idea of the UN and puts them all together, inmates running their own asylum with no real power. Of course the great danger is they’ll persuade the rest of us to give them power, but the benefit is that as long as we resist that temptation, the UN serves as a self-selecting removal process from general society.

    The solution is not to destroy the UN, but restore it to its original condition. Specifically, put the asbestos back in the building, and lead back in the pipes.

    So we can keep the international communications and electrical standards bodies and trash the rest?

    The rest doesn’t seem to have a purpose except kill jews and rape brown children.

    • #46
  17. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    I gave this post a thumbs up before I even read it!  From your lips to Trump’s ears.

    • #47
  18. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    I Walton (View Comment):
    We can have peace if a coalition of democratic powers with overwhelming power led by the US

    That, with the fatal addition of the USSR, is almost a description of the original UN.

    • #48
  19. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Guruforhire (View Comment):
    The rest doesn’t seem to have a purpose except kill jews and rape brown children.

    And to provide a very nice living for third rate crooked pols from around the world. And a revolving door by which NGO members can enhance their careers. But I repeat myself.

    • #49
  20. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    • #50
  21. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    JLock (View Comment):
    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    It’s not either/or.  The US should immediately reduce its contribution to a much lower percentage such as 10%.  If other countries value the UN, they can pay more for it.  I remember a historian saying a while ago that the last time a UN debate was useful occurred during the Six Day War.  That was 50 years ago!  The UN is worse than useless wrt Israel.

    • #51
  22. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    It’s not either/or. The US should immediately reduce its contribution to a much lower percentage such as 10%. If other countries value the UN, they can pay more for it. I remember a historian saying a while ago that the last time a UN debate was useful occurred during the Six Day War. That was 50 years ago! The UN is worse than useless wrt Israel.

    Indeed, Mr. Easton. I would riposte by saying that not resolving the conflict of Six-Day War earlier, or prior to it, was one of the few failures of the UN. But I don’t want to get further into this argument. It is one that is not only cerebral but visceral. It cost Wilson his brain.

    • #52
  23. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    JLock (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    It’s not either/or. The US should immediately reduce its contribution to a much lower percentage such as 10%. If other countries value the UN, they can pay more for it. I remember a historian saying a while ago that the last time a UN debate was useful occurred during the Six Day War. That was 50 years ago! The UN is worse than useless wrt Israel.

    Indeed, Mr. Easton. I would riposte by saying that not resolving the conflict of Six-Day War earlier, or prior to it, was one of the few failures of the UN. But I don’t want to get further into this argument. It is one that is not only cerebral but visceral. It cost Wilson his brain.

    You wouldn’t make Wilsons’s mistake and issue 14 points (the Good Lord only had 10).  I think the UN has had few successes, especially in the last 50 years.  The united democracies makes more sense than a farcical UN.

    • #53
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    JLock (View Comment):
    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    Then form a different kind of organization that understands the limitations of its power, isn’t overridden with corruption and ineptitude and has something meaningful to contribute, J. I’m listening. And I’m not convinced that its existence pre-empts another World War. Just because people talk to each other doesn’t mean they won’t fight each other, especially if they are a tribal society.

    • #54
  25. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Susan, I respect you immensely and understand the sentiment. Henry Cabot Lodge lives on in all Americans. As useless and futile the UN can be — as long as we are tethered to the world through trade, it must exist. Any symposium where the identity of countries amass to harrumph, yell, or make idle small talk with one another greatly reduces the chances of World War.

    Than form a different kind of organization that understands the limitations of its power, isn’t overridden with corruption and ineptitude and has something meaningful to contribute, J. I’m listening. And I’m not convinced that its existence pre-empts another World War. Just because people talk to each other doesn’t mean they won’t fight each other, especially if they are a tribal society.

    Understandable. As I said in another thread where someone spoke of removing Judicial Review. I view the UN like the institutions of our democracy. A beloved mechanism we use that is a sum of parts antiquated, worn-down, and ill-fitting — and I treat it with the same careful appreciation:

    If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Now, that’s just my view and one that might be privileged and/or under-informed.

    • #55
  26. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    JLock (View Comment):
    . A beloved mechanism we use that is a sum of parts antiquated, worn-down, and ill-fitting — and I treat it with the same careful appreciation:

    If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    J, I suggest you read some of On the Left Coast’s comments. He thinks it’s been broke for a very long time, and in meeting its original mission to stop wars–dismal failure.

    • #56
  27. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    . A beloved mechanism we use that is a sum of parts antiquated, worn-down, and ill-fitting — and I treat it with the same careful appreciation:

    If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    J, I suggest you read some of On the Left Coast’s comments. He thinks it’s been broke for a very long time, and in meeting its original mission to stop wars–dismal failure.

    I did. I have my views about those as well. But I really don’t see them being able to provide any insight and only forcing others to dig in their heels more. God Bless us in these times.

    • #57
  28. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Trink (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: It’s time to dissolve the UN by pulling out funds and US participation.

    Hear! Hear!

    I agree, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    • #58
  29. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    tigerlily (View Comment):
    I agree, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    But I think it’s becoming more and more important (my agenda is that Israel’s situation is becoming riskier, in particular) to bring attention to the issue. You just never know, tigerlily. Thanks for commenting.

    • #59
  30. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    …Then form a different kind of organization that understands the limitations of its power, isn’t overridden with corruption and ineptitude and has something meaningful to contribute…

    The failure of the UN is largely due to the fact that the idea that having the “good” people and the “bad” people sit down and come up with workable solutions is folly.  It’s like the FBI and the Mafia coming to an agreement to reduce crime.

    Workable solutions happen when the “good” people FORCE the “bad” people to do it the “good” people’s way.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.