The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

Contentions:1. The interests and values of the U. S. often conflict with those of the U. N. In matters of foreign policy, the U. S. government has an obligation, first and foremost, to promote and protect the interests of its people. There is no valid reason for a national government to forsake the interest of its people in favor of the approval of an international body. Take, for example, the U. N. 's long history of bias against Israel [1]. Despite pressing concerns in other theaters, the U. N. General Assembly has become fixated on Israel, passing resolution after resolution denouncing its foreign policy. Should the U. S. abandon an important friend because of the disapproval of a collection of various other nations, many of whom have an innate bias against Israel in the first place? While the U. N. remains almost hostile towards Israel, it refuses to play hardball with Iran, who inches ever closer to nuclear capability. The U. S. cannot possibly justify following an international organization that castigates its allies while turning a blind eye to its enemies. The U. S. and the U. N. endorse different values and pursue different policies based in those different values. For instance, the International Criminal Court, which claims to uphold justice across borders, guarantees no right to habeas corpus [2]. This is a clear contradiction of an American constitutional right and cannot be ignored. Even the very idea of an international court flatly contradicts every American's right to trial by a jury of his peers. The Constitution must be America's first commitment, not the whims of a foreign body that promotes policies contrary to American values.2. It is wrong for the U. S. to continue to generously fund such an ineffective and corrupt organization. Every year, over $6 billion in American taxpayer money is contributed to the U. N. [3]. One would expect such a sum to make a meaningful impact through a large international body. But, as history has proved, the U. N. is able to do little towards achieving its goals. After WW2, as full details of the atrocities of the Holocaust continued to be revealed, the international community declared with one voice, "Never again. " But, in the 67 years since, we see countless examples of the U. N. "s failures. Genocides have blazed through Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, and, most recently, Sudan [4]. Though the U. N. claims to protect peace and encourages the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, an unstable and almost universally hostile North Korean government has access to these weapons of mass destruction, and a similar Iranian government is not far off [8]. Even the U. N. 's research and distribution program to reduce child deaths due to disease had "no measurable effect on child mortality," according to Global Governance Watch [5]. Furthermore, nations with appalling records of human rights violations, such as Syria, Sudan, and Turkmenistan, are still active, even respected, members of the U. N. [6]. Some, as disgusting as it sounds, actually participate in the U. N. Human Rights Commission. The U. N. is notorious for blindly giving monetary aid to corrupt regimes that enrich themselves under the guise of humanitarian needs. U. N. money has been funneled into areas where transparency is nonexistent and accountability is impossible; such areas include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, and Somalia [7]. The U. S. , engulfed in a debt crisis as it is, has an obligation to its people to cease its participation in such a corrupt organization where American dollars may find their way into the pockets of dictators and terrorists.3. The U. S. could do more to promote and protect human rights without the restrictions of the U. N. With overwhelming evidence testifying to the ineffectiveness of the U. N, it becomes clear that another champion of human rights must take up the mantle. The U. S. has proved that it can work well outside the structure of an international body. U. S. -led interventions that promoted human rights have taken place in Pakistan, Georgia, the Congo, and several other countries [9]. American individuals, even more than the government, are responsible for billions of dollars worth of disease research and development aid [10]. Funding for charities and non-profit organizations is vastly more likely to make a difference than funding for the U. N. Usually, these organizations go directly to the people in need, bypassing corrupt governments and limiting the chance of regimes to abuse the money. Organizations such as these are immensely more efficient than the U. N. and are superior in their ability to make a meaningful impact. Sources:1. www. adl. org2. www. thefreelibrary. com3. www. heritage. org4 www. thehistoryplace. org5 www. globalgovernancewatch. org6 www. voanews. com7. www. un. org8. www. armscontrol. org9. www. wikipedia. org10. www. foreignaffairs. com