The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

I will discontinue wasting my partner’s goodwill, and answer his argument. Overall, he attempts to make the case that American membership within the United Nations is a waste of time and money. As his is a simple argument, supported by clear propositions, I will address each component to his argument, as I have character space to do so. The rest will be relegated to the next round – and should not be considered to have been conceded by myself. “The U.S. and the U.N. endorse different values and pursue different policies based in those different values, and contradicts American constitutional rights and cannot be ignored. The Constitution must be America's first commitment, not the whims of a foreign body that promotes policies contrary to American values.” This argument, deverbed, has two components: The United States does not always “get its way,” and should not play. The American Constitution should not be second-fiddle to foreign law. Many readers will have spotted the logical problem with this argument right away: that in order to impose its will fully, the UN would need to be a totalitarian power, which outrages the “sovereignty clause” of the argument. In other words, the argument can be reduced to: “The US should support a totalitarian UN in order to support freedom.” As this argument clearly contradicts itself, it cannot be seen as a valid argument. Another reading of this argument could go as follows: “Party A does not always fully agree with Party B, yet regularly influences Party B. Therefore, A should stop attempting to directly influence B.” Clearly this is absurd. The United States is not logically compelled to resign what influence it has over the UN – simply because that influence is not totalitarian. The influence that the US exerts over the UN is significant. Besides co-authoring the UN Charter in the first place, America also holds a permanent place on the powerful United Nations Security Council. This position, shared with the Russian Federation, China, France, and the United Kingdom, gives the United States government effective veto power over almost any Security Council action that can ever be taken by the United Nations. [1] Article 27 of the United Nations Charter is one important clause that prevents the will of the United States ever being subject to that of the United Nations. This rule enables the Unites States “to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft.” [2] This veto power does not permit the United States to arbitrarily impose its will upon the UN – it only prevents any move by the international community to gain legal precedence over any aspect of the United States Constitution, or our other treaty obligations, or even our extra-constitutional powers abroad. As permanent members of the Security Council, the United Nations can never, under any circumstances, violate American sovereignty, or force our nation to adopt measures that outrage American values or priorities. Every year, over $6 billion in American taxpayer money is contributed to the U.N. This figure was provided by the Heritage Foundation, and is seriously in error. I will allow the Heritage Foundation to justify its own data, and explain where the $6 billion figure came from, but this figure is grossly overblown. The actual annual budget of the United Nations operation, excluding peacekeeping activities (such as the mission in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan,) is only $1.9 billion a year. [5] Even taking into account military spending, the entire United Nations operation costs only $15 billion a year. The actual annual dues for America’s membership are $362 million – less than talk radio host Rush Limbaugh’s salary of $400 million. [7] I expect this rebuttal to cover all arguments that the UN is too expensive for the US. The notion that the "UN is corrupt and ineffective" is easy to demonstrate as false, and so I will postpone saying so in much detail until next round. Overview:The international Community will not disappear simply because the United States stops interacting with, and attempting to influence it. In fact, it is likely that America’s role in the world will weaken under such circumstances. This kind of decision would benefit tyrannies, and harm democracy, as well as limit the sovereign authority and international influence of the American Constitution. It is also less expensive than right wing talk-show hosts. [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.un.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.un.org... [6] http://www.un.org... [7] http://articles.businessinsider.com...