Note: Consistent to my article’s overall position, Sarah Palin through Breitbart New has expressed her own ideas on supporting the US’s exit from the UN.
The United Nations was created in the ashes of World War II under the concept of never again such a horribly destructive and genocidal war.
Yet for the last three to four decades, it has been grinding against Israel, giving Saudi Arabia a near free pass on human rights for the most part and promoting big government and largely socialist agendas.
Let us not forget its looking the other way and being impotent to genocides in a number of places, completely or for too long like Rwanda or Kosovo.
It became so wasteful of resources and overdone in being anti-West at UNESCO that the Reagan administration temporarily pulled out as a member.
It helped to somewhat reform that institution and can be learned from for helping to even meet today’s UN challenges.
But for an institution to which the US pays almost a quarter of its budget, hosts its head-quarters and puts up with UN diplomat created traffic and security snarls in New York, one has to ask especially in more recent light of the thoroughly anti-Israel motion this key question.
Why does not the US at least temporarily pull out of it?
With exception of some technical organizations that might be critical to global health and day to day airport functioning, respectively like the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, maybe the US should say it is thinking of calling it a day. The drug control centre may be also a useful one to retain.
That it will declare void to its jurisdiction all future UN resolutions and agreements incompatible to its key values, safety and security and relative to its key allies’ interests and security where appropriate.
Henceforth, during this temporary time it has essentially removed itself from the UN, it will make its own declarations be it on Israel to climate change.
That its focus will be on bilateral treaties and those with NATO, SEATO and other military alliances and possibly regional organizations like the OAS and OSDE, the latter of which includes North America, Europe and Russia.
That the hundreds of millions of dollars used by the UN Secretariat and unproductive agencies be applied for US inner city development and micro-lending to the poor in its hemisphere and neighbourhood of Latin America and the Caribbean.
That the US will focus on securing the homeland and North America’s neighborhood first and foremost while still participating in WHO anti-epidemic and health programmes that work and those of other specialized agencies.
The political side of the UN should be avoided and largely seen as a distraction and ignored during this temporary pull-out period. The United States under the new Trump administration should increasingly leave its chair vacant at the Securiy Council to begin with, especially when less important issues to it are under deliberation.
Other Security Council members may or may not join in this temporary boycott especially until the recent resolution against Israel is rescinded or seriously amended. This could be extended to the toothless UN General Assembly.
I used to enthusiastically support the UN as a younger adult, providing literally thousands of volunteer hours promoting it because its stated ideals were compelling. There are pictures of me with Canada’s UN Ambassador with whom I organized speaking engagements and even organized a major conference with a representative of the UN Secretary General in attendance.
But enough is enough. UN needs to commit itself politically to a sensible, WORKABLE world order than orgies of ganging up on America and Israel. The problems include shaking down the developed world to for excessive funding including too much money from massive indebted western countries,and still too much going to many senseless projects and corruption.
One could say there were more positives consistent to the UN Charter that were put to work in the UN early days when it recognized Israel, primarily due to the courageous and disproportionate influence of western powers in the UN like the US and the United Kingdom. Now these two, too often get their advice shoved aside, particularly if it is from the American right in line with Trump.
However, the United Nation’s current (unwieldy) composition consists of almost two hundred countries with too many regimes that are anti-western basket cases and near to wholesale vitriolic to the power of supporting true business enterprise over regime oriented crony capitalism.
Too many of these failed examples of promoting humanity get so much rhetoric attention like Zimbabwe and free passs on human rights like the Gulf states.
The UN is more the scourge of humanity than the saviour of humanity, one could argue at times.
It has had zero effect in the recent decades of stopping nuclear proliferation in unstable Pakistan and North Korea.
Iran, too has largely got a free pass to being permitted next to having nuclear weapons and all from a state that thinks Israel should not exist or be wiped out. And the UN wants another Gaza on The West Bank?
Also think, the Secretary General of the U.N is a largely inconsequential figure who even though Korean had zero impact on preventing North Korea from becoming a huge risk to international and regional stability. A country now announcing its involvement in developing ICBMs that could be nuclear war loaded and headed for Honolulu if not Los Angeles, one day.
Of course the challenge would be high for any UN Secretary General to make headway on this matter to be fair about it. But what does the UN have to show in mitigating the North Korean threat? Israel on the other hand much to the UN’s disgust, solved the Syrian and Iraqi nuclear threats from the air. If they had waited for the UN who knows what would have happened in the Middle East as bad as it is.
Let us not forget the Syria situation where the UN influence has been near zero and has done little to stop the displacement of millions.
Many of them could be argued should have ended up in the rich Gulf states, instead of almost exclusively pouring over into mostly Europe and NATO member Turkey. But these Gulf States are allowed to have huge disproportionate leverage given the extent of their UN funding. Hence, even the UK is scared of standing up to them on the Palestinian issue. The US under Trump need not and should raise the stakes against those who so compromise Israel’s security.
The refugee, situation has created very bad politics including undermining European attitudes towards the UN in wondering more and more whether it is a paper tiger on the great questions too often that afflict the world.
There is another problem for the West and Israel. The UN would have largely done nothing militarily with boots on the ground to stop Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan.
This caused NATO, an essentially Atlantic focused organization, to become the only credible and much more trusted organization to go into that country to eliminate certain Al Qaeda camps from which 9/11 terrorists were trained or commanded.
The UN was largely not sufficiently strong against terrorism. Someone of visibility needs to say that more strongly and more often.
The Trump administration upon entering office should announce that under special White House adviser John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, it will be doing a thorough review of UN programmes and agencies to which it provides US taxpayer money.
It should then set out basic minimum conditions of reform that would make that funding sustainable.
Finally, if the response is not satisfactory, it should set up a schedule of step by step boycotts and exits from membership of different UN organs should not enough of those reforms be accepted and implemented.
One of those conditions for not exiting should be a retraction of the recently passed UN resolution stating that parts of sacred Jewish Jerusalem are strictly not Israeli territory.
In fact, if the UN keeps on its current trajectory of hostility to the United States and Israel, it should ask other countries, probably more neutral ones like Switzerland to host its main headquarters.
Austria could do so in part but I doubt they would want to given where the politics is going far right there.
In fact many Swiss already feel there are more than enough foreigners and diplomats in their country.
There is also a very worthwhile view that it would be better if UN employees were largely centred in the countries they are supposed to help – poorer ones.
Hence, in any restructuring places like Adis Ababa in Ethiopia, Bangkok in Thailand, Port of Spain in the Caribbean, Lima in Peru or Rio de Janeiro should be looked at for housing the headquarters of (more) development and specialized agencies, if not the UN HQ itself.
For the overall UN headquarters, especially a very slimmed down one does not necessarily have to be in New York.
However local infrastructure must be acceptable or enhanced to make it function what would be left of it, if the UN decides to move its headquarters.
A highly reformed UN with less hypocrisy and less anti-real development rhetoric and much less waste would be helpful.
But the view remains as explained in one of my articles that a bankers fund for real development run by successful NGOs, combined with serious bankers savvy with experience in the Third World and knowledge of inner city problems in the West and East would be a positive initiative.
It would go along with cooperative member state participation and represents a more intelligent model or one complimentary to a greatly reformed UN.
New multilateral development institutions and arrangements relevant to the 21st century are required as the world’s poor and refugee numbers expand significantly.
Let us face it, the UN is not doing its job overall and its unwieldy structures are anachronistic in too many cases. After all, the organization is about seventy years old.
The UN with some important exceptions has become a bureaucratic, wasteful, hypocritical, backstabbing and ideologically unacceptable organization of even sometimes “caviar and cocktail” swallowing officials and Third World diplomats.
It is also too much of a talk shop with anti-Israel and anti-US fetishes.
These countries, of course may require international criticism from time to time like anybody.
But not excessively and disproportionately while too many large offenders and violaters of the UN Charter’s principles and rules get a free pass relatively speaking.
This is happening all while US and Israeli taxpayers or those big supporters connected to these two countries provide at least 25 percent of its budget so the UN can have useless anti US and anti-Israel conflabs?
This is flagrant waste and discrimation especially against one of the principal founders of that organization, the United States
It must stop with serious reforms or the UN will risk its eventual extinction and go the way of the Dodo bird.
That would be unfortunate and would be another major risk to global peace and sustainable development.
A more workable UN with less ideological and disproportionate distractions against the US and Israel will better serve humanity.