The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

Thank you to my partner, I will begin: My partner has made the contention that American individuals and private charities are more effective than the UN. This argument is so absurd that I must insist that it be supported with examples or ignored. The argument that homeowners associations and donation plates have ever eradicated a disease, ended a war or rebuilt a nation is sheer nonsense. My opponent also argues that the United States should not relinquish its influence in the U.N. simply because the two do not always agree. First, the U.N. has very little power without American backing. This is my argument exactly, and represents a concession on the part of my partner to my case that the US should remain in the UN in order to continue to exert American influence internationally. America’s influence within the UN is significant, if not total. It cannot be argued that the “UN has anti-American tendencies" without also arguing that the US is presenting an impressive counter-argument. Should the US step off of its side of the see-saw by leaving the UN, these forces will control the UN much more than they do today. Therefore, any argument that the US should leave the UN is an argument that multi-national anti-American forces should be much more powerful and influential than they are today. The U.S. provides 27% of the Security Council's peacekeeping budget. The US has conducted at least two official wars over the past decade, making international support and participation with our “peacekeeping” efforts more than critical; but necessary for our national sovereignty. Consider: the greatest military threat that the US faces today does not come from massed Soviet-style armies, but from failed states. Therefore, nation building and support for fragile democracies is critical for our national interests. Since the US only pays 27% of the worldwide efforts to succeed in this area of foreign affairs, we can be said to be getting a 73% discount on the costs associated with these activities – making our contributions to the UN a great bargain. In fact, the source that my partner uses to get these figures agrees, saying that the US, "receives a significant return on its investment since the UN advances many U.S. national interests." The Assad regime has been allowed to murder tens of thousands because the Security Council is paralyzed by the vetoes of China and Russia. This is not an effective argument for giving Russia and China even greater influence by removing our significant degree of counter-influence. The Better World Campaign puts the figure of U.S. funding for the U.N. closer to $4 billion in 2012. I'm not sure what relevance Rush Limbaugh's salary has to this debate. The legal amount that the US pays to the UN is a matter of public record, and I have provided that amount in the earlier round, using official sources. The extra payments to the UN are war-associated costs, which are temporary, and will end when the wars end. The US would pay more if it funded these efforts alone. I make reference to the salary of Rush Limbaugh as a means to demonstrate that America’s dues and other contributions to the UN are not expensive. At least, not when compared to Mr. Limbaugh, who’s contract is more expensive than a year’s dues. Considering that the UN has eradicated diseases, ended wars, made international trade and business possible in areas where it would have otherwise been impossible, and provided important development assistance to nations that have later become important trading partners of the US…. I feel that a strong case can be made for having got a good deal for that money. Compared to the contributions that Mr. Limbaugh has provided to this nation, at a similar cost, the bang for our buck looks even better. My argument remains intact: the US, by remaining a member of the UN is exerting incredible influence over the international community. This argument has now been conceded by my partner. Also as a member of the UN, the US can use its position to prevent any concerted attempt by the international community to impose its will on the US, or to supplant our constitution – an ability that would not exist without recourse to war otherwise. My third contention is that membership in the UN provides the American taxpayer with a great bargain – saving this nation billions of wartime dollars. His only real counter-arguments have been that the UN does not always follow the United States, and that our citizens should foot the entire bill for such things as nation-building and disease eradication alone. The admission in the first round by my partner that the US is unlikely to withdraw from the UN is critical to this debate. It proves that we agree that there exist compelling reasons to remain within the UN. He may not agree with these reasons, but he is aware that they exist, and he also understands that these reasons are convincing to important decision makers. This should be seen as a concession.