Should the Unites States Withdraw From United Nations ?

[Arrian]

As is the Iraq disarmarment chair.

But I think we have to stay in and try and work through the UN - even if it sucks at times.

-Arrian

[SunTzu]

The US should withdraw and save the some 30% of the UN budget that we pay and also withdraw all foreign aid and watch countries crawl back to us, little bastards

[SlowwHand]

Well, damn. Don't sugarcoat it, just speak plainly.
That's what I'm told, anyway.

[GePap]

I remember a time when the "US-leave UN" crowd had almost as many votes as the "US_stay in" crowd. Good to see that this has now changed dramatically: sense does prevail!

The US is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the UN. As for the comment on chairs: grow up people! The UN is s system of states, soveriegn and independent, a club of states and we the US and the French and everyone else likes it that way. If lybia can buy African votes, then they become chair, and we have a rotating system everywhere else. Hell, just cause Sen. Inhoffe (spell?) gets to chair the environmental committee in the Senate doesn't make the Senate a joke, now does it?

The solution to a weak UN that doesn't 'enforce" is not no UN, but a strong supranational organization, just the sort of thign the US doesn't want.

As for the UN and Iraq: the French are trying to curb what they see as American excess: good for them since they are right to some degree, but in the end, the French will give. It depends on the next Blix report on the 14th. If Blix gives Iraq further bad grades (90% chance of this) then the Brits will really put on the charm (Brits need second resolution far more then Bush) and the French will decide to cut their losses. At worst, they would abstain in their vote. And of course, the vitalness of the UN to the US will be seen in the aftermath. The war may last just 1 month, but the aftermath will last a decade, and it is in that decade that the US will need the legitimacy the UN confers. Without it it will be a thankless decade.

[Wezil]

GePap - it does matter who the UN 'elects' to the various committee chairs. It is called credibility.

If the UN as a body decides it is appropriate for Libya, a HUGE violator of human rights, to chair the Human Rights Commission they have no credibility.

Should I respect this same body when it comes to matters of war and peace? Hell no!

Member states that refuse to abide by UN mandates on human rights should not even be allowed to VOTE on the Chair, must less be eligible to accept the position.

Perhaps you see this as minor quibbling, I see this as the essential problem with the UN. What it is supposed to stand for, it doesn't.

edit - corrected poster reference (GePapa not Che..)
- btw, I was one of those supporters 'ten years ago'

[Wezil]

double post - damn slow server

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I remember a time when the "US-leave UN" crowd had almost as many votes as the "US_stay in" crowd. Good to see that this has now changed dramatically: sense does prevail!

I declare this poll illegitimate anyway. It lacks a banana option.

[GePap]

The UN does not stand for Human rights. The convention on human rigths is not mandatory to be part of the UN. The UN stands as a forum where sovereign independent states can come to resolve disputes peacefully, and one to insure collective action if any states is seen by all as to great a threat to the system, a system of states, not individuals. States rights still dominate the UN, and shall, as long as the body remains a sis, primary above Human rights. The US and the great powers like that, so it shall stay.

There are many states wih terrible human rights records that have run the HUman rights commission. It was Africa's time to pick a chair, and Lybia has made iself a "good African citizen" so its efforts paid off.

What you seem to want is some sort of supranational org. that would back things like the INternational Court of Justice. Well, the US opposes such things, and so do most big states. So either you stick with the UN, or you get a pre-UN world. Take your pick.

[intrigue]

I'm a US citizen... and I say the US stays... not like there is even a remote chance of the US leaving.

And even if the US stays - it doesn't mean the US *must* listen to the political babble and waste of time the UN generates

[SlowwHand]

They could put Idi Amin in to chair the Human Rights, but as Wezil said, it kind of loses some of the credibility.

[Wezil]

Wow! Where to start?

"The UN does not stand for Human rights."

- No argument there. It sure doesn't.


"The convention on human rigths is not mandatory to be part of the UN."

- No, but it should be to be a member of the HRC. The fact it isn't speaks volumes about the UN's impotence (I will address again later).


"The UN stands as a forum where sovereign independent states can come to resolve disputes peacefully, and one to insure collective action if any states is seen by all as to great a threat to the system..."

- Alright, let's address this 'collective action'. Are you referring to the UN's role in the former Yugo? Shall we ask the muslims of Srebinica what they think of the UN's collective action while under UN protection? That's right we can't - THEY'RE DEAD!! Yes the UN stood aside while the Serbs moved in and 'cleansed' the town. Good of the UN to keep them all in one convenient location though. Or perhaps we shall talk about the good job performed by the UN in Rawanda? The fact is, the UN is impotent when it comes to collective action - as the current situation with Iraq demonstrates. The UN won't even support its own resolutions. That's a cause we should continue to pay for.... not! Sadly, collective security is left by the UN for other organizations such as NATO to deal with.


"There are many states wih terrible human rights records that have run the HUman rights commission. It was Africa's time to pick a chair, and Lybia has made iself a "good African citizen" so its efforts paid off. "

- You misunderstand the options obviously. For the record the vote was 17 to 3. The African nations indeed voted for Libya (payback for Libyan financial support of an African organization). The three opposed were the US, Canada, and IIRC Guatamala. What you are apparently unaware of is the fact there were 33 (!!) abstentions. These were, to their shame, mostly western industrialized countries.

This brings up another of your valid points - the world seems to 'want it this way'. No doubt the tinpot despots love it! The UN accepts their transgressions and even manages to reward them despite of atrocities. A good deal that they would be stupid to reject. Besides they control many of the votes at the UN with the complicit support of western nations (see the 33 abstentions mentioned above).

Until western nations show backbone at the UN, this organization will continue to be little more than a doppleganger of the great institution it COULD be. Until that day arrives, the UN will continue to be a huge white elephant. Quite frankly innoculating babies around the world (the only thing the UN seems to manage without deadlock) could be done through more efficient means. We don't need the UN for this.


"What you seem to want is some sort of supranational org. that would back things like the INternational Court of Justice."

- Yes, if it could be run effectively which I doubt the UN could manage (hell they'd probably put Milosovic in charge!).


"Well, the US opposes such things, and so do most big states. "

- For obvious reasons - see above.


"So either you stick with the UN, or you get a pre-UN world. Take your pick. "

- Pre-UN please. It is defacto what we are arriving at anyway when other organizations must act in the face of UN inaction.....

[SlowwHand]

Go Wez, go. Don't leave out Somalia.

[Arrian]

The three opposed were the US, Canada, and IIRC Guatamala. What you are apparently unaware of is the fact there were 33 (!!) abstentions. These were, to their shame, mostly western industrialized countries.

Yeah, that's the part that amazed me. I was wondering exactly why those countries abstained. I sincerely doubt they really think Lybia is qualified (if they did, a "yes" vote would do fine), so they were clearly unwilling to vote "no." The question is why? I don't think it's an ambiguous case.

-Arrian

[Lancer]

People love what they know, and they think they know the UN. Hey, at least it's a neat wonder in Civ2...

I say we send in a demolition team to dynamite the place to the ground, then issue an evacuation order. That MIGHT get their attention...

I can see the commitees forming to determine whether to run for their lives.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yeah, Libya as chair is quite laughable.

Yes it is, but it has the positive effect of putting pressure on Libya to clean up their own human rights record. I'm sure a few political prisoners in Libya would owe their freedom to that.

And just because Libya is in the Chair of the Human Rights Commission does not mean they control the agenda or set standards. That is done by the consensus of all Members.