The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 is now pending before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. If I recall correctly, the last time a bill was introduced (by Ron Paul) to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations, it failed by about a 7-1 margin. But hey, at least it made it to a floor vote. That's further than most bills get.
The bill is very comprehensive, providing, "Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any participation in any conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out."
I think leaving the U.N. is a good idea, for some of the same reasons that Brexit was a good idea. The United Kingdom opted out of a number of key European Union agreements and institutions, such as the Schengen Agreement (abolishing border controls within the E.U.); the Economic and Monetary Union (mandating adoption of the euro); the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and the area of freedom, security and justice (harmonizing extradition policies and so on). Similarly, the U.S. has declined to ratify a number of U.N. treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; the Law of the Sea Treaty; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; the Ottawa Treaty (banning landmines); and the Kyoto Protocol (limiting greenhouse gas emissions). It has declined to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court or to accept compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
This raises the question, why belong to a club if you disagree with, and opt out of, so much of what they propose? What makes it worse is that, when the U.S. hasn't opted out of a U.N. treaty obligation, it has often simply violated it. Examples would include the U.S.'s refusal to abide by the World Court's judgment in Nicaragua v. United States, the U.S. invasion of Grenada, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq (both of which occurred without the approval of the U.N. Security Council).
If the point of membership in the U.N. is to confer legitimacy on the U.S.'s uses of force by saying they're backed up by international law, the U.N. is actually worse than useless to the U.S. in those cases in which the U.S.'s uses of force violate the Charter. If we're going to refrain from ratifying these other treaties because we don't want to be bound by their terms, then why not rescind the U.N. Charter for the same reasons, so we don't get called out as scofflaws for using our military as we see fit? Membership in the U.N. contributes to a breakdown in discipline and morale in the U.S. military, when soldiers like Ehren Watada refuse to fight without U.N. authorization.
Structurally, the U.N. is also obsolete. One of its six main organs, the Trusteeship Council, no longer has a purpose, now that all the colonies that were entrusted to it have become independent. The U.N. Security Council has countries like France, which are no longer global superpowers, as permanent members, while wealthy democracies like Germany, Japan, and South Korea don't have a permanent seat. If, as Trump has proposed, these countries should be expected to bear more of the financial burdens for maintaining peace and security, they may as well be given a seat at the table. But, because that would require unanimous approval of the existing permanent members, it would probably be necessary to scrap the existing Charter and start fresh with a new one. The U.N. lacks a democratic component that would help address the issue of many of its members' governments being brutal dictatorships that often end up serving on U.N. human rights councils.
The U.N. was also geared toward preventing international conflicts similar to World War II, rather than the proxy wars and civil wars, like what's going on in Syria, that are so common these days. The U.N. Charter doesn't have a provision like Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing each state a republican form of government and protection against domestic violence. Therefore, it has to stand by and do nothing throughout most of the conflicts and civilian massacres of our time.
My guess is that if the U.S. were to withdraw from the U.N., it would have the same effect on the U.N. that Brexit will have on the E.U. The organization will lose one of its economically and militarily strongest members, but have an easier time reaching consensus due to the absence of a powerful dissident. We'll probably see more anti-Israel resolutions getting passed, but it won't matter since Israel and the U.S. will remain powerful enough to act unilaterally when they feel their interests are threatened.
There could also be a domino effect, with countries like the Philippines that are tired of the U.N.'s sanctimonious condemnations withdrawing as well. The question arises, what is the point of having an organization around that mainly exists to issue recommendations, rather than take action? The original idea many people had was that the U.N. would evolve into a world government, but since that didn't happen (much like the original idea behind the Non-Proliferation Treaty of achieving complete worldwide nuclear disarmament didn't happen), it's probably time to rethink the whole project.
(The E.U., too, was always intended to evolve into a European superstate, and without the U.K. in the way, that might actually happen. That probably accounts for why other E.U. member states are starting to impatiently ask the U.K. when they're finally going to get around to leaving. Their strategy now is to build the superstate in the U.K.'s absence, and get the U.K. to join it later, once the political winds have changed.)
The bill is very comprehensive, providing, "Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any participation in any conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out."
I think leaving the U.N. is a good idea, for some of the same reasons that Brexit was a good idea. The United Kingdom opted out of a number of key European Union agreements and institutions, such as the Schengen Agreement (abolishing border controls within the E.U.); the Economic and Monetary Union (mandating adoption of the euro); the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and the area of freedom, security and justice (harmonizing extradition policies and so on). Similarly, the U.S. has declined to ratify a number of U.N. treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; the Law of the Sea Treaty; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; the Ottawa Treaty (banning landmines); and the Kyoto Protocol (limiting greenhouse gas emissions). It has declined to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court or to accept compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
This raises the question, why belong to a club if you disagree with, and opt out of, so much of what they propose? What makes it worse is that, when the U.S. hasn't opted out of a U.N. treaty obligation, it has often simply violated it. Examples would include the U.S.'s refusal to abide by the World Court's judgment in Nicaragua v. United States, the U.S. invasion of Grenada, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq (both of which occurred without the approval of the U.N. Security Council).
If the point of membership in the U.N. is to confer legitimacy on the U.S.'s uses of force by saying they're backed up by international law, the U.N. is actually worse than useless to the U.S. in those cases in which the U.S.'s uses of force violate the Charter. If we're going to refrain from ratifying these other treaties because we don't want to be bound by their terms, then why not rescind the U.N. Charter for the same reasons, so we don't get called out as scofflaws for using our military as we see fit? Membership in the U.N. contributes to a breakdown in discipline and morale in the U.S. military, when soldiers like Ehren Watada refuse to fight without U.N. authorization.
Structurally, the U.N. is also obsolete. One of its six main organs, the Trusteeship Council, no longer has a purpose, now that all the colonies that were entrusted to it have become independent. The U.N. Security Council has countries like France, which are no longer global superpowers, as permanent members, while wealthy democracies like Germany, Japan, and South Korea don't have a permanent seat. If, as Trump has proposed, these countries should be expected to bear more of the financial burdens for maintaining peace and security, they may as well be given a seat at the table. But, because that would require unanimous approval of the existing permanent members, it would probably be necessary to scrap the existing Charter and start fresh with a new one. The U.N. lacks a democratic component that would help address the issue of many of its members' governments being brutal dictatorships that often end up serving on U.N. human rights councils.
The U.N. was also geared toward preventing international conflicts similar to World War II, rather than the proxy wars and civil wars, like what's going on in Syria, that are so common these days. The U.N. Charter doesn't have a provision like Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing each state a republican form of government and protection against domestic violence. Therefore, it has to stand by and do nothing throughout most of the conflicts and civilian massacres of our time.
My guess is that if the U.S. were to withdraw from the U.N., it would have the same effect on the U.N. that Brexit will have on the E.U. The organization will lose one of its economically and militarily strongest members, but have an easier time reaching consensus due to the absence of a powerful dissident. We'll probably see more anti-Israel resolutions getting passed, but it won't matter since Israel and the U.S. will remain powerful enough to act unilaterally when they feel their interests are threatened.
There could also be a domino effect, with countries like the Philippines that are tired of the U.N.'s sanctimonious condemnations withdrawing as well. The question arises, what is the point of having an organization around that mainly exists to issue recommendations, rather than take action? The original idea many people had was that the U.N. would evolve into a world government, but since that didn't happen (much like the original idea behind the Non-Proliferation Treaty of achieving complete worldwide nuclear disarmament didn't happen), it's probably time to rethink the whole project.
(The E.U., too, was always intended to evolve into a European superstate, and without the U.K. in the way, that might actually happen. That probably accounts for why other E.U. member states are starting to impatiently ask the U.K. when they're finally going to get around to leaving. Their strategy now is to build the superstate in the U.K.'s absence, and get the U.K. to join it later, once the political winds have changed.)
