I have arrived to the point where I can see no reason for the USA to continue the association with this profoundly corrupt organisation - let alone continuing to fund some 22% of its budget.
It will be interesting to see where and when we finally achieve the straw breaking the camel´s back and announce our exit.
Whatever the good intentions were in its creation, the organization has clearly become obsene in its actions and has out long outlived its usefulness.

Mar 30, 2007 10:44 AM

I have to agree with Mr MacDonald. It's frustrating to see the US cough up the dough to pay for this ridiculous (a generous term I feel) organization. I'd LOVE to see the US just declare that it unilaterally is severing all ties to the UN, but this is probably politically unobtainable. I've said in these pages before that a new "UN-like" organization that only permits democratic countries would be much more palatable. I doubt it would be a panacea, but it would remove from political influence those regimes that do not deserve a voice in the world arena. It would have the added benefit of de-legitimizing the world's tyrannies. This would go a long way I think to bringing true human rights to those people in this world who are now denied them.

Apr 1, 2007 02:33 PM

I'm not sure where I stand on this. My principled self says we should get the hell out, and achieve the moral high ground by not being a party to the UN's hatemongering and corruption.

My expedient self says we should remain in the UN, pay dues (but much reduced dues -- say -- $50,00 per year, which may itself be excessive), and continue on the Security Council to be a thorn in the UN's side. In essence, we should tacitly admit that we and our values will never alter the character of the UN, but we should play the role of spoiler and veto whatever we deem to be not in our principled interests -- like any resolutions or actions that might adversely effect Israel in favor of Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria and/or Iran. There's lots to be said for being a vocal conscience, and much more to being a check on outrageous anti-semitic (for example) behavior.

Still, with our State Department so eager to accommodate the North Koreans, what guarantee do I have that we are capable of being a vocal conscience?

I'm on the horns of the proverbial dichotomy. But I'm coming down on the side of staying, if for no other reason than to support Israel.

The fact that we can't cure all of the UN's ills doesn't mean that we can't use our position on the UN to help our friends and further our interests, at least some of the time.

Apr 1, 2007 10:48 PM