In my humble opinion, the United Nations has proven itself to be an increasingly corrupt organization that is also increasingly anti-American. It's sponsorship of the World Health Organization and it's humanitarian services are the only things worthwhile that it does fairly well.
With that said, I believe that we need to "reevaluate" our association with that august body! Right now we are pouring American tax dollars into a bottomless pit and getting very little in return. That money could be much better spent right here in this country in such areas as Healthcare.
What do you think?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
I say keep it - it's not the problem nor is it a solution. On some points it does accord with our national interests and on others it does not. The big question whether there is a UN or not is this - WHAT is the US Grand Strategy and does it effectively reflect our true and vital national interests in a way that reflects our values as a nation and matches our "Oughta dos" with our "Can dos"? THAT is OUR call and not the UNs. So let's not shift the blame and focus here folks. "The problem dear Brutus is us and NOT the stars"
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Though the intention of the UN was good. The UN will never be the negotiating factor for the world. The UN has no ability to inforce. They are to corrupt. They have to many self interests. The UN needs to Go and we need to start to formulate a Federation of the United States. The US needs to stablize a coalition of countries and work with those countries. The purpose is for the countries of the Federation to increase standards of living, improve economy and provide safety of the nations. We have so many useless treaties now. What happened to the Monroe Doctrine that protects the Western Hemisphere. Oops just doesn't exist anymore. Maybe the time has come to clean the slate and start with a new foundation that will protect our nation and world from aggressors.
We don't have to get out of the U.N. Yeah, it might not be the perfect body, but it is better than nothing. We just need to fix the way it runs. The Security Council situation was great during the Cold War, but anymore, that system just doesn't work. A new voting system needs to be arranged, so that corrupt political systems like Russia and China can't veto anything that hurts their bottom line.
That being said, I have to agree with redrobin as far as putting together a Federation of the United States. But, really, we should be working on creating a E.U. of America. With the creation of the E.U., 25 nations with individual markets became the single strongest market in the world, representing 500 million of the most affluent people in the world. If we don't figure out a way to counter it, the U.S.'s place as the premier world market will be gone in a decade, maybe two. The key, IMHO, is to strengthen NAFTA, but doing it in a way that creates a large market, that makes unified votes in the U.N. and other world organizations, that shares a large, strong currency, and that has a large voice in the world economy. If the countries of the Caribbean, North America and Central America came together like the E.U. countries have, we would surpass the market power of the E.U. It would take some investment, and definitely some time to improve the infrastructures of the rest of the members. But, with the stabilizing influence of the U.S., and the guaranteed money that could be made, I don't see how many of the countries we would be proposing this to could disagree.
To tie the U.N. and my suggestion together, you mentioned the rising anti-Americanism in the U.N. It is not anti-Americanism, it is anti-Imperialism. Like it our not, much of Europe views us as an Imperialistic country. The E.U. makes it so that all these countries almost always vote together in the U.N. So if the official EU stance is anti-American, then there are 25 some odd votes, along with third world countries that vote with the EU due to the aid they receive, that are now voting against the U.S. If we put together a system like I said, we would have just as much influence in the U.N. as the EU does, and would be able to counter them when they oppose something we feel is right.
What countries would be included in your E.U. of America? Comparing the Americas to Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. The european nations of the EU all had similar economies to begin with. What you would get with an American Union, is the complete destruction of what is left of the already weakened middle class! The North American countries of the U.S. and Canada would become like most Central and South American countries with only two classes, the wealthy elites who dominate and rule over the desperately poor! By tying two of the most successful economies in the world to complete failures in the rest of the Americas would create a socio-economic vacuum that the rest of the nations of the world would jump to exploit.
does the UN need us?
Yeah, the U.N. needs us as much as we need them. America cannot continue to be the police state of the world. It is an economic and political burden that is too much for any one state to carry. We need to call for a U.N. reform more than anything, and to begin rebuilding our foreign relations. If and when the U.S. regains the worlds trust, we will begin to see the lessening of anti-Americanism in the U.N.
As much as people don't like it, the U.N. is a necessary entity for the continuation of globalization.
I agree somewhat in what you are saying but we will never please the world as a whole-they will always find something wrong with our country. When there is a crisis somewhere in the world, they always come running to us and want us to help and we always do. America through the years has been there for so many. Sadly, the Iraq war has somewhat put a damper on the appreciation in what we have done for those in the past. I wish we were out of Iraq and done with it but reality is reality and we are there and to just pick up and leave would be idiotic and foolish but yet to stay without seeing results is also idiotic. We do need to rebuild relationships with some of these countries. But and a big but there are those countries out there that despise us and really always have but its become more evident in how they feel through the Iraq war crisis and we should never fully trust them because they will bite us in the back when we are not looking but I'm all about being diplomatic to every country if we are able to. Let's face it, there is never everlasting peace in the world, yes for a season maybe but then something erupts and goes crazy but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try either.
Unfortunately, the UN can only do as much as its members are willing to do. If the UN wants to spend peacekeepers to somewhere, UN member countries need to be willing to supply the manpower. Unfortunately, no country is willing to place their military in danger (which is slightly odd to me), and thus the UN is unable to get anything done. There have been many instances when UN peacekeepers have been put in place, and then stood by while massacres have occurred because their charter wont allow them to protect the innocent. A great example of this occurred in Srebenica, Yugoslavia. It's also a reason why putting the UN in the Sudan will not necessarily make anything better, because if one of the two rival groups begins to massacre innocent bystanders, the UN will not react, because they only use military force if they themselves are attacked.
Seperate from the military issue, the other problem is with veto power in the UN. All of the veto-wielding members of the Security Council have their own special interests (Generally dealing with oil) that affect the way they use their veto. A good example is China threatening to veto any action in Darfur due to the fact that a large amount of their oil comes from the Sudan.
That is a key point Centaur - no matter how exquisite a Nations' rhetoric is in support of the UN, the bottom line is that Nations will do when push comes to shove what is in their National Interest no more and no less. In this regards, the US is no different or better or worse than any other nation in that "storied" and over-hyped outfit called the UN.
I am not denying that the UN can play a role in many areas (humanitarian, disaster recovery, nation/institution-building, etc), but if people think UN Nations (all nations) are going to suddenly do what they preceive to NOT be in their National Interest to comply with UN mandates, then they are just fooling themselves. And on security matters, when push comes to shoove things where the rubber meets the road, things do not get done by the UN in that area without the US. People in the UN are wont to recognize that key fact of life! National Interest is the key to peace and stability and not the UN!! The UN can help for sure, but a National Interest is still paramount and will be for a loooonng time!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
We provide the majority of their funding.
Pleeeeze, that organization has become so corrupt and self-serving and obviously un-policed that no cure is readily available to fix the problem. The building needs to be razed and it's political body sent home and the burden of housing and lavishing perks should be removed from the tax payers obligation...
The corruption in the U.N. is not nearly as widespread as many think. Is it corrupt? No doubt. But it is no more corrupt than the U.S. political system, and we are not talking about completely shutting down that, are we?
As for money, we pay roughly $921,800,000 to the U.N. yearly. A pittance in our annual budget.
The fact is, everybody had grand expectations for the U.N. when it was started, but the operating budget of the program is only $4.2 billion. When you compare this to the fiscal operating budget of the U.S., which is in the trillions, you get the picture.
If you want to really see a program where the American taxpayer is getting screwed, look at NATO. Thats a program that I would fully support axing. The U.S. pays 10s of billions of dollars on that program. If we eliminated NATO, and put for even 10% of the NATO budget into the UN, the total budget would increase by probably 50%. If we could raise the operating budget of the UN, and entrust it with the jobs that we currently allow NATO to do, we could not only help to fix its inefficiency, but save the American taxpayer money.
Congress is increasingly corrupt and anti-voter too! I think there is still hope for both. I vote to keep it!
Anti-American sentiments are unrelated to our membership in the U.N. "Blowback" is one source of anti-American sentiment (see Ron Paul---one of the few things I agree with him about).
lets see, first gulf war the un was in charge. Stopped daddy bush from getting sadam.
current war was not approved by un, we went anyway. sounds more like bush spin on un being so corrupt.
Saddam was left in power after the First Gulf War for strategic reasons. As much as I disliked Saddam, I can readily understand the strategic reasons for his staying in power.
1. Get rid of the so called security council.
2. Get rid of U.N. soldiers
3. Quit brunting the majority of its funding. We have no business funding it as we do.
No international body will influence a nations soveriegnty nor their national interests. Lets come to terms with that.
I agree with number one. The security council is outdated and is counterproductive to the goals of the UN.
Number two is a dual headed problem. While I don't like the idea of a UN army, the fact is, if there is a UN army, it lessens the load placed on our army for peacekeeping purposes. Besides, if you get rid of the UN army, you get a League of Nations, which was one of the worst diplomatic farces in history.
On three, you facts are wrong. While we do pay the most money of any country in the UN, its because we have the largest GDP. Every country pays a set percent of GDP, based on its ability to pay. We are the strongest economy in the world (currently), so we pay like the strongest economy. Even with all that, the U.S. only pays about $900 million dollars into the UN general fund. The program where we brunt most of the funding is NATO. They're easy to mix up. We spend tens of billions on that program.
Your last statement is true. We cannot expect the UN to change a nations opinions and agenda. That is not its job. The UN's job is to provide a forum for open international discourse, to try and solve problems before they escalate. Is it always successful? Not really. But it isn't always unsuccessful, either.
its a joke we should get out of it.
I recently had the pleasure to listen to a group of Darfur refugees speak about their experiences. They wrote a book called "They Threw Fire at Us from the Sky". Their stories are heroic and unbelievable. I was taken back when several of them repeated praise for the UN assistance. I was finally hearing something postive about the UN. I believe a lot of what they do is unsung. It is difficult to count the general wars we have avoided since WWII because of the UN. It is easy, on the other hand, for critics to point out their failures. No doubt it is a political body with all of the accompanying corruption, but I believe it would be foolish to do away with it as an institution or step away from it as a country.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for UN and AU peace-keepers to be sent into Darfur to stop the genocide. I believe they will enter, with or without permission from the government of Sudan. The UN might be like you said, a political body with some corruption, but it still manages to help in the end. It may have taken a long time, but this might bring peace to Darfur. And, as we as a country haven't been jumping on ships to go to Sudan, I don't think we can criticize the UN too much for taking so long to come to a decision that really should have come long ago.
Remember that UN sponsored fiasco in Somalia? We had our backsides handed to us to wear for a hat there! The UN couldn't keep the peace in a kindergarten. God knows those people desperately need help in Darfur, but I wouldn't place too much hope for them in the hands of the UN.
Don't blame the fiasco in Somalia completely on the UN. They helped lessen the suffering of the people in Somalia by providing food, not a massive peacekeeping force. The original peacekeeping force was 50 soldiers meant to guard food trucks. The total number of soldiers involved with UNOSOM I was just under 900, and suffered only 6 fatalities. It wasn't until the U.S. got involved that the situation in Somalia completely fell apart. UNITAF, the US controlled successor to UNOSOM I, was a flop, and UNOSOM II, the successor to that, lead to the Battle of Mogadishu. Unfortunately, the Battle of Mogadishu may have been a turning point in the right direction in the struggle in Somalia, except that American public opinion turned against the operation. US troops were withdrawn (which was almost a third of the total troops), and because they didn't possess the troops necessary to perform a peacekeeping mission, the UN was forced to withdraw.
The key difference between Sudan and Somalia is that the UN got the permission of Sudan to interfere, while they didn't in Somalia. Somali warlords used this to portray UN soldiers as aggressors. I can only guess, but I think the problems in Sudan won't be nearly as bad as the problems in Somalia.
While the UN is far from perfect, it's all there is.
The UN inspectors did their job in Iraq.
The UN approved of the Gulf war to oust Iarq from Kuwait, but the UN did notsupport our invading of Iraq to plunder their oil (okay, so we didn't tell them that...) and that's why you hear all the crap about the UN not being any good, because they didn't buy off on our invasion.
I liken the UN to the US government - Sure, it has problems, but it's what we have to work with.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
The U.N. has long outlived its usefullness, in my opinion. If any single nations forces were guilty of what we know the U.N. "Peacekeepers" have done, the world would be up in arms. Rape, Prostitution, and pedophelia in the Congo, and then the "Peacekeepers" threatening the investigators and bribing the witnesses. This has happened in other places as well. It seems as if the "Peacekeepers" happily move in and take over the duties of whatever opresive regime was running the place. We should not be a part of this organization.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp
The UN is too corrupt for America to continue to support. We pay a majority of the dues. We pay for their infrastructure and their transportation (New York location costs billions to maintain). The UN politicos(foreign nationals) are immune to our laws and basically awful at their job. If in doubt look at their idea of a human rights committee. I say we bail.
If we pull out what will the world think of us? It would be the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States! Other nations would see it as a sign that America is going to act unilaterally all of the time, not just in Iraq! We will not have a organization that is trusted by most nations. North Korea would not let American nuclear inspectors in, but there is a chance they would let UN inspectors in. If we care about some humanitarian project that requires a military, and American soldiers would be culturally unsound to send into the area, we will not have a set place to go to get the right soldiers. So not only is it a bad foreign policy decision, it is a bad military decision. I don't know economics too well, but the political actions would effect the economy too.
In today's global world, withdrawing from the United Nations would be like the South withdrawing from the Union. And there would be no Lincoln to bring peace to the world.
We need more thinking like this if Unity08 is to go anywhere.
The isolationist thinking that predominates on the forum is typical of prior third-party ideology. Isolationist thinking in foreign policy usually leads to Nativism at home, and so it is here.
This mind-set (which is already represented by several of the lower-tier, politically obtuse, republican candidates) will make Unity08 irrelevant to the 2024 race.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
When I first look in this forum I almost had a heart attack reading what people were saying! If people took the time to study and reason out their opinions, I believe more of a consensus could be reached faster and easier. And without harming America!
being part of a corrupt world organization is better than pulling out and perhaps trying to put something else together?
And that whole "unilateral" thing, how many nations was it that went into Iraq?
Or you could just take steps to get rid of the corruption and not have to spend billions of dollars more than we already do. And that is WITHOUT having to convince the rest of the world that we are just being isolationist. The UN has had its successes, we must recognize that.
Four nations invaded Iraq. There was only more than 50% support from citizens in the USA. It was US planned and mostly US implemented. If we had UN support, there would have been more nations involved and no nation would have the right to say that we were wrong. The US was also the main, maybe sole, pusher for the invasion. We convinced them to go with us. Soon there will be only US troops remaining. Unilateral indeed. We do not need more nations viewing the US as an aggressor and causer of wars.
Again, making an entirely new organization with an entirely new infrastructure is virtually impossible, both politically and economically.
Yes. It's better than nothing. The UN is about as corrupt as congress. we are stuck with both.
Yeah Iraq was and is unilateral. - oh, I forgot the 200 Polish troops.....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
But we can replace the corrupt ones. Is that possible with the U.N.?
If every other major endevor of the UN fails and falls apart, it would still be a national forum to debate issues, and this is a must have in our new era of globalization.
The United Nations gives us an important arena on our soil - where we have the opportunity to win the Hearts and Minds of The Leaders and People of many nations ..
I've never understood why we AS A NATION that's proved to the World - that a Government of The People, By The People and For The People, is the most effective means by which to establish a healthy and successful society : HAVE FAILED TO EFFECTIVELY MARKET OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO MORE NATIONS & PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ..
Within our borders we possess the Most Advanced Organizations & Technologies For Marketing Products and Services - Yet We Fail To Effectively Market The One Thing That Offers Us Peace, Prosperity & Security, Our Form Of Government !!
WHAT's MISSING JFK .. The Understanding - The Will - Or Both ???
Peter K (popo) Evans
The complete lack even basic concepts is America's greatest weakness. With an uneducated populace comes unwise decisions by the government. Bu understanding their world, Americans can do anything. The one thing America has plenty of is heart.
If America can be rallied to a cause, anything is possible. The will is there, the understanding is may not be. And that is precisely what we need to change.
The main problem with the UN is "WE" support it. As long as America pays the freight the UN will not be able to do anything that shows a bias towards America. I say if they want to keep us in the UN move their operations to France or Germany and we will see how effective they are. The UN is a failure and has been for generations and we should not be paying for it. As far as what will the world think why do we need to worry about the world. When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center the UN backed the terrorists. The same people that are screaming to get out of Iraq are screaming to get into Darfur. It is a double standard and we should get out.
Way off, Stumpy. "When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center the UN backed the terrorists. " - where did you get that from?
"The same people that are screaming to get out of Iraq are screaming to get into Darfur. It is a double standard and we should get out."
Yeah, I'm one of those people. The common thread is to stop the killing of innocent people. We have killed thousands of Iraqis.
Moving the UN may not be a bad idea - Switzerland, maybe. A neutral country.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
All countries support the UN based on GDP. Not all countries are in arrears. We are one of them.
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
While good leaders are hard to find, great leaders know how to serve.
The un did not want us going after terrorists because they were to busy making money off of bribes. We ruined their meal ticket. Every day we defend America leaves less time for them to steal.
The previous discussion indicates the UN is very controversial with strong opinions pro and con.
My 7-year study of this issue is summarized on WWW.CONSTITUTION4UN.COM and concludes that the world desperately needs an effective Union of Nations for the 21st Century.
This can be achieved by RECONSTITUTING the existing UN. There are only five logical "fixes" required to the current 34-page Charter that will yield a democratically-inspired 37-page CONSTITUTION. These "fixes" will provide the the UN with the authority, means, and transparency to achieve the ORIGINAL FOUR PURPOSES of the UN.
One way this can be achieved is for UNITY08 to adopt the approach, prompt(goad) the Congress to act, and have the USA "lead" the 157 other democratic nations(82%)in demanding a democratic constitution for the UN.
UNITY08 could catalyze this dramatic international development, salvage the United Nations, and provide a credible basis for future peace and security.
The State Department can cooperate with the UN and changes as long as Congress continues funding. The Charter itself is foreign policy and a constitutional directive of the President. But no president will surrender any perrogative in foreign policy. For democracy to work the most basic units must have the capacity for equality. Citizenship can define that within a country because people can be equal as a basic unit. That simple is not true of nations. Natural resources,technology, and weaponry will never be equalized so neither will thier owners.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
The U.N. is and has been a cesspool of corruption for many years. Moreover,it is also a haven for antiamerican spies. I say kick'em out. Let them go to somewhere more sympathetic to their third world views. American public should not fund these creeps.
.....but the REST of the world sure does.
Yep! Feel good social clubs are always nice for idle gratuitous hypocritical ranting as things go to hell around you.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
When something doesn't work you don't just junk it you fix it. Thats what needs to happen here we need to fix the U.N. The major problems with the U.N. is that it can to easily be stopped... it is to easy to stop something from being approved by the UN, the Un has no way to inforce itself and because it can not inforce itself no one listens to it. The UN needs more power with more checks and balances between the Countries and UN officials. Then maybe we can wwed out the cooruption, put for attainable goals for the UN and then maybe accomlpish them.
THe UN should stay but it needs some changes.