The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

I will now summarize my contentions in a conclusion. 1. The interests and values of the U. S. often conflict with the U. N. The U. S. , as a sovereign nation, must be free to promote its own interests whenever, wherever, and however it deems fit. If the U. N. disapproves of or attempts to hinder these interests, then the American government's duty to its people compels it to cast the U. N. aside. No government, especially the U. S. , should be have any obligation above that of its people. The U. S. also has commitments to its allies that must be honored. Israel has been, by the Secretary-General's own admission had received a grossly disproportionate amount of scorn by the U. N. , even while they face a severe existential threat from Iran's nuclear development [1]. How can the U. S. justify its support of an international organization that so unjustly denounces its allies and hinders their interests, even their efforts at self-preservation? My opponent argues that the U. S. can use the U. N. to spread our values and Constitution, but the U. N. is completely the wrong forum for that. The merit of the Constitution is best demonstrated by deeds, making the U. S. 's own actions the best way to spread the Constitution. Additionally, the U. S. and the U. N. support different values, making it almost impossible to spread American values through that institution. 2. It is wrong for the U. S. to generously fund such an ineffective and corrupt organization. My opponent has still not seriously addressed this glaring issue, as it is impossible to contradict. The ineffectiveness of the U. N. is legendary and it is seriously troubling that the United States continues to pour money into this organization with very few results. The U. N. has proved that it is completely unable to protect human rights in areas where they are under the most threat, as evidenced by horrific genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Sudan [2]. Despite proclaiming its lofty goals to protect human rights, the U. N. lacks the proper apparatus, the strength, and the resolve to adequately defend the basic rights of people throughout the world. The U. N. is also well-known for throwing money at corrupt regimes, apparently oblivious to the painfully obvious fact that those regimes enrich themselves at the expense of their people who truly require humanitarian aid. National governments, charitable organizations, and individuals can and do provide aid more effectively, efficiently, and directly than the U. N. Organizations such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, United Way, Habitat for Humanity,and the Peace Corps all provide an immense amount of aid, both personal and financial [4]. Indeed, the Pan American Health Organization is credited with mostly eradicating smallpox in the Western Hemisphere [3]. 3. The U. S. could do more to protect and promote human rights without the restrictions of the U. N. Opponents of withdrawal often cite the possibility of a loss of American power overseas. This scenario is almost laughable in its absurdity. America does not draw its power and influence from its position in the U. N. , but rather from its economic might, dominant military, and commitment to democracy and human rights. Our allies will not forsake us; they know we are their most valuable supporter. As for an power gap in the U. N. after an American withdrawal, the remaining major players can use the U. N. for little more than public relations unless the U. N. has U. S. support. With or without the U. N. , the U. S. is the most influential nation on this planet and can use its power far more effectively than the U. N. The example of Syria still works well here. If the U. S. withdrew from the U. N. , the American government would be rid of the hesitation forced by reliance on stalemated Security Council. A concerted effort by America and her allies would put an end to the Assad regime's murderous crackdown and the cause of human rights would be furthered immensely in a region that sorely needs it. Without the counterproductive restrictions of the U. N. , the U. S. would be free to protect the rights of all human beings across the world. Other nations would join us in this effort because of the same principles that made them first look to the U. N. A shared commitment to human rights among a diverse group of nations will lead to important global change and such change can be implemented far more effectively outside the ineffective, hypocritical, and corrupt body that is the United Nations. Sources: 1. www. adl. org 2. www. thehistoryplace. org 3. www. Wikipedia. org 4. www. charitywatch. org