Posted on 02/10/2018 9:50:36 AM PST by Kaslin
President Trump’s first State of the Union speech made it evident that his “America First” foreign policy will eschew diplomacy, multilateralism, free trade, and protection of refugees and migrants. This is why now, more than ever, those within the broader liberty movement should support U.S. involvement in the U.N. and other multinational institutions.
The U.S. has a pivotal role in this as a permanent Security Council member, and wields great power in promoting American values on the global stage. As of 2016, Pew research shows that 64 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the UN, whereas 29 percent have an unfavorable one. In terms of actual support of active U.S. involvement within the UN, a 2017 poll by the the non-partisan Better World Campaign, which works to strengthen US engagement inside the UN, shows that 88 percent of Americans support an active role of the U.S. within the UN to solve difficult global challenges.
First, let's dispel the notion that the UN is a perfect system, or that the U.S. will agree to support every initiative within the organization. It is by no means a zero sum game, and is, in fact, the exact opposite. If anything we should use our involvement with the UN to promote American values, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. There’s no better example to show that off in the global hub that is New York City where the U.N. headquarters is located.
It’s undeniable that there are a number of problematic issues internally within the UN on things such as accountability, corruption, and questionable membership of countries in certain committees. A lack of U.S. involvement, however, does not help for increased multilateralism and institutional reform; rather, it will greatly exacerbate it and leaves a gaping void of U.S. leadership in its stead.
Save some small to medium conflicts there has been no world war since World War II, and most importantly no nuclear war since before the creation of the UN. Through the height of Cold War and the ever looming threats of another World War the world still had a place to come to the table to resolve its issues.
The same holds true today with the modern political landscape. Involvement in the UN also gives the U.S. an opportunity for backdoor diplomatic meetings with our adversaries mainly Iran and North Korea. Even if these meetings don’t produce favorable results, it still gives all parties an opportunity to seek alternatives to escalation, sanctions, and worse case scenarios such as another world war.
To understand the present we must also understand a little bit of the past. Ever since its founding, the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations (LoN), have both largely drawn scorn and repudiation from those critics skeptical of U.S. involvement in global institutions. The most notable early example of this is H.L. Mencken, who is generally seen as the leading anti-war intellectual of the 1920s and was adamantly opposed to the U.S. joining the League of Nations.
These strains of skepticism have carried into modern politics as well, particularly from former Congressman Ron Paul who has time and time again called for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN. Just recently, Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers, along with cosponsor Thomas Massie, introduced the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017,” which calls for the complete withdrawal of the U.S. from the UN. While this initiative inevitably failed, it encapsulates well the skepticism with which many conservatives and libertarians continue to see U.S. engagement within the UN.
During the postwar San Francisco Conference, the UN. was created and fully ratified on October 24, 1945. In the coming year, the remaining operating parts of the LoN was transferred to the United Nations. Its founding documents were the UN Charter followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Both of these documents have libertarian themes throughout, and they’re based on certain inalienable human rights and the rule of law.
These values in many ways are antithetical to the Trump administration’s protectionist and anti-immigrant worldview. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there has been a lot of widespread support (albeit not universal) of free trade within the UN and in particular the World Trade Organization (WTO). Just recently, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres stressed the importance of free trade and industrialization in on the African Continent in his announcement on the annual Africa Industrialization Day. Furthermore, the very purpose of the WTO is to promote reducing trade barriers and tariffs in order to promote global free trade.
We must ask ourselves what does the U.S. pulling out of the most important multilateral institution in the world do for global stability? It does little and ultimately undermines the U.S.’s role in the world, and leaves that gaping void to be filled by the likes of China and Russia. We should actively promote democratic values, the rule of law, peace, free trade, and immigration, but we should do so within these various international bodies where the world comes together.
Hay!, Haiti turned out GREAT!
....no wait, it didn’t....
Even PR seems to want to become Venezuela.
False. Today's NYC "values" are not that American anymore... It could be argued that the presence of the UN outlaws has deeply hurt the Rule of Law in the City. The UN should move to Harare, Zimbabwe if they are looking for a place to "fix".
“Bad company corrupts good character”
Freddie who?
I’d just like to add that although Staten Island is part of New York City, we are pretty conservative out here :-) and you are right about the prostitution and narcotics that are rampant at the UN when there are gatherings. My policeman friends and people that work for the UN have told me some incredible stories
“Save some small to medium conflicts there has been no world war since World War II, and most importantly no nuclear war since before the creation of the UN. Through the height of Cold War and the ever looming threats of another World War the world still had a place to come to the table to resolve its issues.”
Other than the Korean War this is a B.S. statement. The most important agreements to end or stave off conflict were not hosted by or conducted at the U.N., they were bilateral agreements between the major parties concerned, and independent of the U.N.
Yes, there has been a U.N. sponsored anti-nuclear-proliferation agreement, forming the group of nations that have signed onto it. However, the facts are that some of its signatories have violated it on numerous occasions, making it worth less than the paper it’s printed on.
The main reason there has been no nuclear wars is that M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) apparently works, as a deterrent to using nuclear weapons in conflict, even when you have them. M.A.D. more than the U.N. and more than any agreements is primarily why there has been no nuclear wars.
The author gives the U.N. more credit than it is due.
“These values in many ways are antithetical to the Trump administration’s protectionist and anti-immigrant worldview. “
How in the H did this writer get this crap on Townhall???
Not Freddie Krueger.
Sorry. Credibility killer.
Next!
Biography
Freddie Whitlow is a graduate of West Virginia University. He works as a research assistant at Georgetown University Law Center. He is a Young Voices Advocate.
Articles
Why Pro-Liberty People Should Care about the UN and Multilateralism
LOAD MORE (nothing after that)
Looks like our intrepid “urinalists” is all in for the u.n. Kinda made me a little woozy for a second.
There is no reason the United States cannot develop treaties and humanitarian efforts with with other countries outside of the UN. There is no reason to contribute to and participate in a corrupt, anti-Semitic anti-US, Socialist, feckless committee of envious blue helmeters who run at the first sign of a fight.
Is there a place for an international diplomatic clearinghouse? Certainly, at least in theory. Is that proper place in New York City? The author offers a vague invocation of "American values" that are apparently intended to be promoted by osmosis or some sort of contagion. There is, naturally, no metric to confirm that any such process even exists, much less is working or even workable. The diplomats do get in some great shopping, to be sure. It isn't quite the same thing.
The cold truth is that the UN is a bloated, self-aggrandizing, wasteful, expensive, and corrupt mess that benefits the international diplomatic classes and is signally absent a track record of success in accomplishing the aspirations listed by the author. Nor are its numerous skeptics bad people for having the temerity to point this out, or cheapskates for not wishing to charge a country's taxpayers to fund an organization that actively works against their own interests.
I recognize that through some likely accidents of History, SI is part of NYC.
I think most Manhattanites view NYC as being just Manhattan and the “outer boroughs” (Counties apparently, in the NYS gov’t structure) are part of “the other”.
The UN in NYC is on Manhattan (exclusively?). I’d chopper ‘em to JFK and give them a one-way jet trip. It could only improve the ‘hood.
All Manhattan and I would spit in front of it every time I passed it.
Prime real estate wasted.
Crimes committed but they can’t be touched.
It’s just one big party when they have meetings.
Just as worthless as the LON was before it.
As a matter of fact, wasn’t the league of nations around BEFORE WWII?
This writer’s premise is that the UN stopped WWIII from happening.
And admits it’s like its predecessor the LON.
I dont get the logic there.
And he leaves out the tiny REAL reason three’s been no WWIII
Nukes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.