Should the U.S.A. Leave the UN?

[John Reece]

Read McCarthy's case for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the UN and say what you think of his recommendation.

[Darth Executor]

Not unless the UN is disbanded in the process.

[John Reece]

Not unless the UN is disbanded in the process.

Are you saying that the U.S. cannot unilaterally withdraw from the UN?

Have you read all of McCarthy's argument that the U.S. not only can but should?

By the way, McCarthy is an expert in the law.

[Mountain Man]

Not just withdraw but kick their HQ out of our country. The UN would fall apart without America's might and money propping it up.

[John Reece]

Not just withdraw but kick their HQ out of our country. The UN would fall apart without America's might and money propping it up.

[elam]

Read McCarthy's case for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the UN and say what you think of his recommendation.

You may not be aware that Australia was one of the founding nations of the UN. In 1946 we held the presidency of the Security Council & our Doc Evatt was the3rd president of the UN General Assembly, you can thank (or curse) him and others for the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Doc Evatt also had a significant role in drafting the NT Charter.when it was negotiated in 1945. Oz has a long and proud history of supporting the UN, so it might surprise you to learn I would encourage the USA to leave the UN and encourage Australia to do the same. I believe it has had its day, and the decks have become so rotten the ship should be condemned.

That said, I disagree with McCarthy on a couple of issues. Most notably Israel. Their establishment of settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and have always been illegal. Likewise their occupation of Jerusalem, which the UN had planned to be a international mandate.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, because the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war.[1][2][3][4][5] Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.
International law and Israeli settlements

To be continued...

[John Reece]

You may not be aware that Australia was one of the founding nations of the UN. In 1946 we held the presidency of the Security Council & our Doc Evatt was the3rd president of the UN General Assembly, you can thank (or curse) him and others for the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Doc Evatt also had a significant role in drafting the NT Charter.when it was negotiated in 1945. Oz has a long and proud history of supporting the UN, so it might surprise you to learn I would encourage the USA to leave the UN and encourage Australia to do the same. I believe it has had its day, and the decks have become so rotten the ship should be condemned.

That said, I disagree with McCarthy on a couple of issues. Most notably Israel. Their establishment of settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and have always been illegal. Likewise their occupation of Jerusalem, which the UN had planned to be a international mandate.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, because the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war.[1][2][3][4][5] Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.
International law and Israeli settlements

To be continued...

Please do not hijack this thread to make it about your off-topic anti-semitic obsession.

I call upon the moderators to see to it that this request is honored starting now, without argument re whether or not you have expressed an anti-semitic obsession, which is so clear to me that I ask that you not put up another post in this thread.

[Cow Poke]

Not just withdraw but kick their HQ out of our country. The UN would fall apart without America's might and money propping it up.

EGGzackly, and it would take away an excuse for the world's spies to have offices in our country under the guise of "UN diplomats".

[Jedidiah]

I agree. Something I have been saying for a long time; "Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

Without American support, especially money, the UN could not long continue in any meaningful way.

[elam]

There is an old saying amongst economists which goes something like "if an activist or politician wants to lie and keep a straight face, he/she just has to be selective & exaggerate the selective statistics".

Whilst it is true that in simple banking terms that the USA's pile of cash paid to the UN is bigger than most other countries, on a per capita basis the USA is not pulling its weight. The USA is said to earn (on average) 27% of worldwide GDP but under UN rules the maximum contribution that can be levied on any country is 22%. On a GDP, per capita basis, some of the poorest nations contribute significantly more to the UN budget than the USA.

To put things in perspective: lets say that in 2016 the USA contributed US$3 billion to the UN. That amount is only 0.005% of the USA's military expenditure for the year.

In December 2015 Time magazine noted The U.S. Is Still No.1 at Selling Arms to the World[/url]. The article noted that "50 percent of the global weaponry market [is] controlled by the United States as of 2014". Interpretated another way, the USA could be accused as contributing to 50% of the conflicts in the world, though I suggest such a perspective would be an exageration. Many countries percure armaments as deterents to perceived belligerants. Contemplating a map of current conflicts in the world, I'd estimate that from armament of waring parties and/or their proxies ehe USA's contribution to world violence would not exceed 30% or 40%.

According to Time magazine in 2014 the USA made US$36.2 billion in armament sales. "Trailing the U.S. in weapons receipts is Russia, with $10.2 billion in sales in 2014, followed by Sweden with $5.5 billion, France with $4.4 billion and China with $2.2 billion, reports The New York Times".

Lets face it, the USA not only aids and abets conflict in the world it profits from it, before, during and after. And in an act of global cynicism it has the all other countries deal with the unprofitable morass.

Truth be known: According to the World Atlas in 2015 the "UN procured $17.6 billion worth of goods and services...This contribution came from 224 different countries, and 124 member nations contributed more than $10 million each. The US and nine other top countries account for 44.8% of this contribution. Five European countries, namely Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom, are among the top ten contributors of goods and services in 2015 to the UN".
Top Countries Contributing To The United Nations

The World Atlas notes that in 2015 the USA contributed TUSD$1.647 billion to the United Nations, that is 9.47% of the total UN budget. In comparison India contributed USD$1.277 billion, 7.27% of the total UN budget. Now that is absurd given the wide gap in development of the two countries.

__________________________

The childishness of withholding funds from the UN over Israel is simply absurd. the USA made a moutain out of a mole hill when Russia annexed Crimea (quasi legally) but turns a blind eye Israel's illegal (by international law) annexation of the captured territories by stealth. If Russian deserves sanctions for its actions, then Israel in its hypocracy, more so.

The USA pretends to be a nation guided by the rule of law, but ignores the rule of law when it views it as inconveniencing its foreign policy = economic objectives = protection of American enterprises overseas. The USA's support for Israel's illegal activities is one demonstration, the USA's illegal presence in Iraq is another example.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Monroe doctrine of 1823 that guided USA foreign policy for years and through multiple transitions evolved into the Bush doctrine of 2001. Basically, in American eyes, the doctrine grants the USA the right to ignore international law and invade any sovereign nation that is annoying the USA's economic interests, without a formal declaration of wall.

Not a good look...

[Starlight]

Read McCarthy's case for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the UN and say what you think of his recommendation.

I would say that the article seems largely inaccurate in its factual claims and misguided in its opinions. But that aside, consider the following...

1. The UN is a way for international discussions to be had and international consensuses to be reached. Let us say that the US doesn't like agreeing with other countries or being constrained by the views and opinions of other countries, and so is not interested in dialoguing with them except on its own terms, and wants to be free to act more unilaterally without consulting others or being bound in any way by their opinions or interests. Wouldn't that make the US a "rogue state"? Do you really care so little about other nations that you want to stop them having any say in what happens around the world? The US is supposed to just do whatever it likes in any country of the world it likes, and the other nations of the world are supposed to sit back and say "this is fine"? Why would they, or why should they? What's to stop them saying "wow, the US is acting terribly, let's all put economic sanctions on them" for example?

2. The UN has been a pretty effective tool for the US to use in sabotaging international actions and resolutions that the US disapproved of. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has used its veto power on the security council to block international resolutions more than all the other security council members combined. If the US were to leave the UN, suddenly all sorts of resolutions that the US didn't like would be passed by the rest of the world. The US ambassadors to the UN have been quite successful over the years in deliberately blocking and sabotaging ideas that were popular in the UN had that the US disapproved of. The US has used its leverage and power over the UN to control a lot of what the UN has and hasn't done over the decades, and has been able to use that power to ensure the UN serves US interests more effectively than it otherwise would. Abandoning the UN would lose the US the power to block international actions it disapproved of.

[elam]

Please do not hijack this thread to make it about your off-topic anti-semitic obsession.

I call upon the moderators to see to it that this request is honored starting now, without argument re whether or not you have expressed an anti-semitic obsession, which is so clear to me that I ask that you not put up another post in this thread.

Please don't play the semite card, the Palestinians are your brothers. Both Isaac & Ishmael were Abraham's sons. It is you that is anti-semitic!!!

All I've done is state historical fact. And the reality of international law. The reality is Zionist Israel, to be distinguished from Jewish Israel, is pursuing an illegal act (under international law) in its pursuit of the captured territories. No ifs or buts that is just a cold hard fact.

The current Palestinian problems go back to the Yom Kipper war in 1973. In the 1967 6 day war, Israel won and captured a lot of territory from Egypt, Jordan & Syria. After the Yom Kipper war (Israel suffered heavy losses) Israel realised its strength was waning, so was open to compromise with the Arabs. Hence the 1978 Camp David Accords. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and normalizes relations. Egypt in turn recognised Israel. Jordan & Syria were/are a different case. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I suspect Israel took retribution out on the Palestinians living in the territories captured in 1967. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to nearby countries as refugees. From an international perspective Zionist Israel (not Jewish Israel) is pursuing a "final solution" for the Palestinians.

If you are a student of history you'd know about the original plan for "Mandated Palestine" (1939-1945). Palestine was not to be partitioned, but the Arabs who owned and populated most of the territory would be induced to allow Jews to settle and establish a homeland within Palestine. Whilst the Arabs weren't happy with the plan they didn't see a choice other than to go along with it, but they did negotiate compromises on the level of Jewish immigration and the ability of Jews to buy Arab land. The Zionists weren't happy and there were numerous civil clashes (wars) that caused nothing but headaches for the British administrators. Flash forward to 1947. The UN came up with a plan to partition Palestine into two states, and to make Jerusalem an international (UN) protectorate. The Arabs rejected the plan to partition their territory. Israel more or less accepted and a nation was born. Hence the conflicts of the last 70 or so years.

Flash forward to 1988. The PLO relying on UN Resolution 181(which had established Israel) declares independence. The International Court of Justice advised the UN that "The...right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed". Israel refuses to acknowledge the Palestinian State.

Inconvenient truths for you maybe, but irrefutable facts none the less...

[Cow Poke]

Please don't play the semite card, the Palestinians are your brothers. Both Isaac & Ishmael were Abraham's sons. It is you that is anti-semitic!!!

Moderated By: CP

Elam, John is the thread starter, and he has requested you not post here, as below. He has that right. Do not post in this thread again, please - not even to answer this notice. Thanks.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Please do not hijack this thread to make it about your off-topic anti-semitic obsession.

I call upon the moderators to see to it that this request is honored starting now, without argument re whether or not you have expressed an anti-semitic obsession, which is so clear to me that I ask that you not put up another post in this thread.

[Starlight]

Elam's long rambles aside... If the US were to leave the UN, then it would have huge implications for Israel. So I guess I would add a third point to my comment above:

3. If the US left the UN, wouldn't it have a pretty negative effect on Israel? Israel is the biggest violator of UN resolutions, and the US has pretty consistently vetoed anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. The UN keeps trying to condemn Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and get them to stop the settlements etc. If the US were to leave the UN, that would seem to leave the UN free to start imposing sanctions on Israel etc. I am confused as to how those conservatives who are anti-UN but pro-Israel would reconcile these things. Since as per my point #2 above, the UN has been a fairly effective tool in the hands of the US for blocking international action against Israel, and UN resolutions against Israel (e.g. the one this Christmas) have tended to be fairly unanimous apart from the US (usually) blocking them.

[John Reece]

elam: please see post # 13.