1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations? (view source)
Revision as of 14:34, December 31, 2007
, 14:34, December 31, 2007→Other
:::Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Wikipedia article] says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Wikipedia article] says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
==== Third option - expel the US from the UN ====
This should be quite easy to do; it has been paying its membership dues late (if at all) for years. Expelling a member for non-payment should be easy.
This would have a number of advantageous.
* The US is currently a negative force in the UN. The US often acts as if it believes the UN (and all other governments in the world) should support US policy on principle, and not to do so automatically makes them "wrong" and "the bad guys". A significant portion of the US electorate probably believes so as well, hence the subconscious attitude of much US policy that other countries are inferior to and should be subservient to the US.
* Free from the US veto, the UN may be able to be more effective. The Soviet Union discovered how disadvantageous it was (to them) to withdraw from the UN (and therefore give up the veto power) when its withdrawal allowed the UN to send armed forces to South Korea to defend it against North Korean attack. The USSR stayed in after that, in the UN they could block most attempts to prevent them doing whatever they wanted.
* Free from the US veto, the UN would be able to pursue a more pro-active policy in the world. Admittedly the UN is currently hindered by the number of non-democratic members, but democratic and partially-democratic countries are in the majority, and expelling the US would only reduce the majority by one.
* The UN would be more able to create consensus and act, without the US adopting an attitude "you do it our way, or we block you doing anything".
* The UN would be able to put sanctions in place for countries that conduct activities against international law. For example:
:* Enforcing the [[Kyoto Protocol]]s on the US.
:* Ensuring no more illegal military action takes place, such as the invasion of Iraq.
:* Enforcing a consistent global standard on human rights, via the [[International Criminal Court]]. A murderer is not allowed to opt out of a court trying him, so why should a country be allowed to opt out of a court?
In conclusion, no longer having one dominant superpower blocking the UN can do nothing but good.
Therefore the US should be expelled from the UN forthwith, or at least have its veto power removed.
I leave the reader to consider how much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and how much contains a grain of truth.
Happy New Year. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)