Should the Unites States Withdraw From United Nations ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes it is, but it has the positive effect of putting pressure on Libya to clean up their own human rights record.

So what's the upside of Iraq chairing a conference on disarmament then? To show us that even IGO's have a well-developed sense of humour?

[SlowwHand]

It doesn't mean Libya will take it seriously either, although Khadaffi has been much more restrained of late.

[cavebear]

The US has had problems with the UN for decades, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It keeps us balanced and encourages us to pay attention to world diplomacy even when it is inconvenient in the short-term.

Regardless of what some people of the world think, the US tends to be a country of law and rational justification. The UN brings out international discussion even from relatively unilateralist US leaders.

When a country like France, which has no significant economic, military, or social impact on the post WWII world, can force the US to bring it's internal debates public, there is some gain to international relationships.

And I think the US gains something by having an international diplomatic assembly when it wants to encourage some particular action of concern for the extension of democracy to places sufferring under the yoke of local tyranny. We don't always do that right, but it does help.

It actually seems to me to be a very good situation to have one democratic superpower, able to take strong coordinated action (on one hand), and a deliberate international body with alternate solutions to counterbalance the more impulsive actions (on the other hand).

[Wezil]

AH - I agree, Libya will not set the agenda. Having it set by consensus is not a reassuring thought either however when I see the sort of decisions the consensus of Members have reached in the past. As well, this doesn't address the issue of credibility. The 'optics' are awful and the UN doesn't care. I agree some positive effort will be exerted on Libya, and a few prisoners may be freed. While nice, this falls far short of the systematic changes needed in Lybia.

Cavebear - You know, I was once where you are now. It pains me to argue against the UN now. I haven't always been a 'UN basher' and in fact was once a volunteer fundraiser for a local UN Club (3 years - about 3 hours a week). I really believed in the ideal of the UN and the role it could serve in international relations. Perhaps I was an idealist but I really thought the UN was the best way to make the planet a better place. Sadly, the longer I live and the more I see of the UN in its perpetual state of inaction, the less I value the institution. The causes are many (perhaps another thread or another day?). Some problems I believe we can fix if the will exists, but some are entrenched and not 'fixable' within the current system. As it is, the UN is nothing more than a 'talking shop' much like its predecessor and will ultimately fail as well.

[GePap]

The UN has lasted for 58 years, and this complaint that it it nothing more then a talking shop has been with it since the start. And this time, such a cpomplaint will lead to as much change as it has in the last 58 ones: 0.

The UN always outlast the naysayers cause it fills a need: as AH has said, the SecCouncil, whcih is what all you whinners have itching about, is just a tiny part, and in the end not even the one that has accomplished the most. Of course the sec council was built so that big powers can use it at their will: back in August the US decided all of a sudden to label Iraq a threat to the international community and used the Sec Council to legitimize its coming action. Without having gone to the council, the coming war would have been utterly illegitimate from the viewpoint of the vast majority of the world: now it isn't. So the UN served its purpose for the US, as it will continue, specially as we then begin to deal with NK.

So go ahead and whine all you want: the results will be the same: zippo.

[Wezil]

I'm under no illusions of being able to change the UN. Beside the UN can do itself more damage than any individual. I simply won't give freely of my time and energy in support of an ineffective institution.

Yes, it has been six decades. This amount of time is historically insignificant. The UN's fate is sealed.

[GePap]

Wezil:

sealed how? Do you care to explain this rather vague comment? Just cause it won't support Bush in his little Iraq war (most likely it will anyway?)

1) At most, Bush remains in office till 2008, then bye.
2) Bush's main "reason" for war now is to carry out UN council resolutions, so in short, he is saying that this war is legitimate cause UN SecCouncil resoltuion are legitimate and we have to enforce them. As much as he keeps saying the UN will become illigitimate, that does not square with him basing the legitimacy of his act on it.
3) Bush needs the UN it the decade long aftermath of this war, and we will probably do some UN speak about NK.
4) Many of the major wars of the last 50 years have never gone up to the UN; the biggest war in Africa has barely been taken up, neithr was the Iran-Iraq war, the Vietnam war, the invasion of Afghanistan, so forth and so on, and through all of that the UN has survived. So yes, it will survive this Iraq hicc-up, no matter how much you guys talk.

But again, you do have a chance to explain you ominous statement.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Wezil
I'm under no illusions of being able to change the UN. Beside the UN can do itself more damage than any individual. I simply won't give freely of my time and energy in support of an ineffective institution.

Yes, it has been six decades. This amount of time is historically insignificant. The UN's fate is sealed.

Crap. 90% of what the UN does is very very good. Its not going away.

[Wezil]

Sorry GePap it was not meant to be ominous at all. As I mentioned earlier the UN has major flaws that can not be fixed within the current framework. These flaws will be its undoing. A quick example you raised earlier re the US gaining legitimacy by going through the UN. One could argue the effective control to secure UNSC support for an effort the people of the world don't support does not make the UN useful or desirable. Beside, you make too much of the current Iraq situation. It only supports a conclusion I reached some time ago. For the record, I harbour no opposition to a US attack on Saddam. I don't believe the US stated reasons and 'proof' per se, but Saddam is one tyrant among many that should be dealt with. I just don't care what the UN says on the matter. They can go back to backslapping the very same tyrants that need to be dealt with.

AH - Don't work yourself into a lather. I agree, the UN does many good things. It just seems rather insane to innoculate babies so they can grow up to slaughter one another while the UN stands by and watches, or worse, hands them over to be slaughtered. The good deeds done by the UN can be performed by a myriad of NGO's w/o the huge overhead of the UN.

As much as I've enjoyed the debate it is past my bedtime and I've been at this off and on all day. Goodnight all.