U.S. May announce "temporary" suspension of U.N. membership if war veto

http://www.instapundit.com ^ | 3/6/03 | Stephen Pollard

[Baron von Smash]

...Stephen Pollard writes in The Telegraph that the U.S. (and Britain?) may stage a U.N. walkout if the obstructionists carry the day at the Security Council:

Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.

[Z-28]

oops, sorry all for the triple post ... a glitz of some kind occurred posting.

[DoughtyOne]

At the cost of paying 1/3 of all UN fees, even though there are 170 nations? No thanks.

[Arkinsaw]

Actually, I think we should stay in in order to veto everything. No telling what they will do without us to veto.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

P.S. D-Day June 6, 1944, Invasion of Europe only had a total of 156,000 troops including ALL allied forces.

yea ..... and not a single Abrams M1A1!

[CatoRenasci]

This would be a VERY BAD IDEA, because if we leave, we can't exercise our veto, and all sorts of anti-American and anti-Israeli mischief will be passed. For the historically challenged, I refer you to the Korean War (timely and topical): the only reason the UN was able to act was the Soviet Union walked out. If we walk, there will be a plethora of resolutions passed against us. They may be meaningless, but the will give aid and comfort to our enemies and will complicated the public relations battle both at home and world wide.

No, the thing to do is not walk out, just to send a low level functionary who will monitor debate, say nothing, and wield the US veto when necessary. He won't even need a staff, just a cell phone, a beeper (to know when the votes are) and an expense account to live well in NYC. That would show our contempt for the UN far more clearly (every day in their faces, the only American a twenty-something recent college graduate new to the diplomatic service who is there only to veto their stupidities, but not to actively participate) than a withdrawal.

[Bulldogs22]

"To tell the truth, I've thought, for some time, that many in the international community are hoping this will happen."


I think your right. What do you think they would do?

[Ford Fairlane]

make it permanent

AMEN

did you know, if the UN quits using the property their offices are on, it all goes back to the Rockefeller estate?

[yield 2 the right]

Yes, it is long overdue!

[Redcloak]

As much as I'd like to see us tell the UN to take a flying leap, I don't see this happening. Bush is simply calling the Axis of Weasels' bluff.

All this talk of vetos has been a bluff. It was intended to prevent a vote from coming up in the first place. But now Dubya says that he's asking for a vote anyway. So put yourselves in Chirac's shoes, or Schroeder's, or Putin's. Do you want to be the guy who casts that first NO vote? The one who "betray's America"? Of course not.

If France's vote is the first of the bunch to be called in the roll, they may vote YES but they'll most likely abstain and pass to the next weasel. The next weasel will do the same thing. If they do this in alphabetical order, it will be up to the Russians to cast that NO vote. Of course, they don't want to be the only ones (that matter) in the NO column, so they'll fold too.

To borrow Bush's analogy, none of them has the cards.

[John H K]

A little misleading, as that's all that landed the FIRST day. There were a heck of a lot more people than that landed each day after that.

[B-Chan]

Oh, my, yes. That would be wonderful, if true. Please, please be true.

So much for the New World Order groupies worrying about a blue-helmet takeover of Argyle, Texas. Back to the drawing board!

[LayoutGuru2]

Are you series? This is hugh!

[TLBSHOW]

Would be the best news of the century!

[GailA]

Save the kiddie's park where the useless nations wants to build their new HQ kick the useless nations out of the USA entirely.

[Bogey78O]

Beer was the last good thing to come out of the UN in NY.

[DoughtyOne]

I still say the United Nations' flag is good for something.

Come on baby, just a little bit longer.  My graphic is getting worn out.
I do hope it will live to see the day.

[dwills]

unfortunately, this will never happen

bush ain't dumb enuf to give the dems the tagline: bush, the diplomatic failure

this is already the line of the day, despite the fact that france etc. voted against iraq sanctions all through the clinton years

too damn americans already think the 'allies' are important to our national security and bush being honest and casting them off would play right into the dems' 'unilateralist' mantra

[ewing]

Holy schnikes!! This is great

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

A little misleading, as that's all that landed the FIRST day. There were a heck of a lot more people than that landed each day after that.

Yes I know, my grandfather came in on the 8th.

[ArcLight]

The Telegraph is a very credible news source, but I still regard this report as utter nonsense. The US still needs to work with the UN on such issues as the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea. What's to be gained from a walkout? As the Brits say, this reporter's gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.