Should the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations?

Pro: The United Nations disagrees with many significant U.S. allies, like Israel. In fact, according to the U.N. watch, The UN's discrimination against Israel is not a minor infraction, nor a parochial nuisance of interest solely to those concerned with equal rights of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Instead, the world body's obsession with censuring Israel at every turn directly affects all citizens of the world []UN bias against Israel is overt in bodies such as the General Assembly, which each year passes some nineteen resolutions against Israel and none against most other member states, including the world's most repressive regimes. Since Israel is a major ally to the United States in terms of counter-terrorism, the ongoing wars in the Middle East and a vital provider of information, U.N. actions and resolutions directly impede U.S. interests. Furthermore, the possible U.N. recognition of Palestine as a state would endanger U.S. interests. In fact, Susan Rice, American ambassador to the U.N., quipped that there was I cannot frankly think of a greater threat to our ability to maintain financial and political support for the United Nations in Congress than such an outcome, meaning the prospect of Palestinian statehood. If the U.N. general assembly were to support the Palestinian state, then the effect of Americas backing of Israel would go against the war efforts in the Middle East, and directly affect the fight for peace between Israel and Palestine. In fact, according to the Guardian Newspaper on July 24th, the US is looking increasingly isolated in its support for Israel and a veto would badly damage Mr Obama's credentials in a rapidly changing Middle East. The fact that the U.N. directly goes against U.S. interests with the prospect of Palestinian statehood suggests that the U.S. being in the U.N. is no longer necessary. Furthermore, the U.N. is not effective at reaching either its short term or long term goals. According to the Johns Hopkins Newsletter in 2006, Simply put, the U.N. is the world's least effective international body. Despite its grand commitment to end threats to human security, such as interstate war, genocide, famine, internal war, disease and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. has been surprisingly unsuccessful at achieving these ends. Genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and, most recently, Sudan have continued relentlessly, despite the most earnest attempts of the U.N. to cajole its member states to act. The U.N. has not stopped North Korea's attempts at creating a nuclear arsenal, nor has it prevented India and Pakistan from testing their own nuclear weapons. Iran's Holocaust-denying president is well on his way to developing fissionable material, regardless of their referral to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. It is not in the U.S.'s best interest to support such an ineffective organization. Finally, withdrawing from the United Nations would save the United States billions of dollars. Neil Shenai, Ph.D. Candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, reports that American taxpayers' dollars should be solely used to advance the American interests. Throwing away money to fight disease in Africa that implicates none of America's interests should not be the business of a just government. Withdrawing from the U.N. would absolve the U.S. from having to shoulder the financial burden of such wasteful endeavors, freeing millions of dollars that can be spent on the war on terrorism, rebuilding Iraq, health care, education, job training or most effectively, returning it to the private sector whose money the government originally confiscated.

Con: Empirically, attempts by the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations have failed. Ron Paul in 2005 endorsed H.R. 1146, a bill to end U.S. membership in the United Nations. It failed by a huge margin in the House of Representatives. The fact that the legislative body of the United States government, the body that represents American interests, failed to withdraw U.S. membership from the U.N. suggests that withdrawal might not be in American interests. Furthermore, public opinion sides strongly with the U.S. staying in the U.N. a March 2009 poll found that 66% of Americans would prefer the U.S. to stay, while only 24% would want the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations. Since the United States of America is a representative democracy, foreign policy cannot go against such a huge number of Americans opinions. Additionally, any economic benefits from withdrawal are overshadowed by the costs. The Center for American Progress reported in 2011 that History shows that robust U.S. engagement is actually the best way to reform the institution. Ironically, cutting funds now also means we are shifting our obligations onto future generations since U.N. membership still requires dues even if Congress cuts the budget. Restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs. A decision to withdraw from the U.N. would not solve the issues, but simply ignore and exacerbate them. A better solution would be to continue reforms. In fact, Americas presence in the U.N. has allowed the U.N. to better develop. Once again, the Center for American Progress reported in 2011 that The United Nations is far from perfect, of course. But in recent years strong American leadership has resulted in a number of important management reforms that make it both a more effective and efficient body. It is also becoming a more accountable institution. Across multiple administrations the United States has played a vital leadership role to launch reforms that include the creation of internal oversight offices, an ethics office, an independent audit committee, and success in maintaining current budget contributions instead of raising them. In addition, peacekeeping and secretariat reforms underway now bring about greater fiscal responsibility and a more disciplined, harmonized approach to critical operations Finally, U.N. membership allows for multilateral approaches to foreign policy, for example, Iranian sanctions. The Center for American Progress further reports that: This U.S. position was reinforced at the June 2010 U.N. Security Council when members passed a resolution authorizing the fourth round of sanctions on Irans nuclear program. Shortly after its passage, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice noted that the resolution was a response to the threats to peace and security arising from Irans refusal to comply with the requirements of IAEA and the [previous] demands of the [Security] Council. She went on to note that the measures were tough, smart, and precise. The administration used all its diplomatic assets to ensure the resolution was the strongest and most comprehensive possible. Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer noted in a recent speech, that by engaging multilaterally within the U.N. and with its members, we crafted a tough set of sanctions that all states must implementeven those Security Council Members that voted against them.