Tweet
When we're not off-the-reservation crazy about what we are asking, we get plenty out of it. The UN was successfully used by Bush 41 to build the case for going to war against Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. That was a great example. So was the creation of Irsrael itself, the big defining moment of the fledgling UN. Israel has been both a justification for the UN's existence and a challenge to its ongoing sustainability. It's the most visible element of a body that has so much more going on, and not all of it useful.
In truth, USAID, OPIC, the Millenium Challenge Corp. and other US government aid dispensaries are better and more direct ways to simultaneously ensure the loyalty of client states as well as open up investment avenues in those states for US corporations. But the knee-jerk opposition to any sort of foreign aid, regardless of the cost-benefit analysis, makes it hard.
But the UN is the global body for deliberation. It just is. When a body like that is created, it is done according to the wishes of the great powers at the time of creation. So the UN reflects the balance of power in the post-WWII environment. If we were to defund the UN, that would be tantamount to reopening the discussion to what shape that global deliverative body would take. The US would still have a plenty loud voice in that discussion, but it sure as shit wouldn't be as loud at is was in 1945. Arguably, because China still understands the concept of spending abroad to increase power on a global scale, any UN replacement would look more like China wants it to look and less like the US wants it to look.
So, bottom line, whatever your thoughts and feelings about the UN, there are important practical considerations before taking any sort of principled stand against a perceived injustice created by it.
In truth, USAID, OPIC, the Millenium Challenge Corp. and other US government aid dispensaries are better and more direct ways to simultaneously ensure the loyalty of client states as well as open up investment avenues in those states for US corporations. But the knee-jerk opposition to any sort of foreign aid, regardless of the cost-benefit analysis, makes it hard.
But the UN is the global body for deliberation. It just is. When a body like that is created, it is done according to the wishes of the great powers at the time of creation. So the UN reflects the balance of power in the post-WWII environment. If we were to defund the UN, that would be tantamount to reopening the discussion to what shape that global deliverative body would take. The US would still have a plenty loud voice in that discussion, but it sure as shit wouldn't be as loud at is was in 1945. Arguably, because China still understands the concept of spending abroad to increase power on a global scale, any UN replacement would look more like China wants it to look and less like the US wants it to look.
So, bottom line, whatever your thoughts and feelings about the UN, there are important practical considerations before taking any sort of principled stand against a perceived injustice created by it.
Comment