Isn't it time to reduce our financial support of the UN?
If we still haven't given them our dues, I think they should take the hint and kick us out of the organization and move their headquarters out of New York City. The organization is so pointless and their bureaucracy is an unbelievable waste of money. For all the money that's given to them they have little to show for it.
Yes way past due for a long time. Every country should have to contribute the same amount. Another waste of American Taxpayer money. It has done nothing to promote world piece.
Handyman, it has such a spotty record when it comes to world peace. Whenever UN peacekeepers get attacked they scramble out of the country. It doesn't dawn on them that keeping the peace ironically involves more than talking but actual fighting.
Reduce yes, completely get out, no. We have been spinning our wheels for a long time in the U.N. and they are very haughty and disrespectful of the U.S. as a country, it is very plain to see. Some of the countries that have contributed the least, seem to have the most power in decisions in the United Nations. It needs to be made clear that the U.S. will help and be a part, as long as the others do their equal share, in the future.
Their attitude definitely grates. We have to pay the most dues and some little dictator somewhere gets to tell us what to do. It's such a futile exercise.
Except we don't pay our dues. The US hasn't payed dues since 1985, and we have the most power of any nation.
Funny how that's bad when the rich pay the least in taxes, but okay for the US to do the same thing to the UN.
I'm hoping since we haven't paid our dues that they kick us out. And I'm okay with us not paying it at all.
I agree with whonunuwho that we should reduce our support but not quit. Like many bloated organizations, UN needs a major restructuring. Maybe reduce the power of veto (which results in gridlocks) or enlarge the Security Council. I'm sure the "specialists" have submitted umpteen reports on how to go about, but like almost everything else there, very little gets done. Unless it is made more effective, we are wasting a lot of tax payers money.
Excuse me, I am an incurable romantic. I like the idea of the United Nations. Originally, it was not intended to police or govern. Just like the U.S., that role was thrust on the U.N. by events beyond their control. It is a tough role to play. It is too hard to get it right, to get it right.
Personally, I am sick of my fellow Americans and their endless complaints about everything. Our problems would be easy to solve if we weren't so easily distracted. Let's get on task and quit running after every issue as if we really plan on action. We have become a nation of talkers. Meanwhile, we are being fleeced. It doesn't have diddly to do with the U.N.
It is like the Olympics. It used to be strictly for amatures . . . a fellowship of athletes from all corners of the globe. We ruined it. Americans couldn't stand to lose to state sponsored athletes from Socialist countries, where they don't have professional sports.
Never mind that our amateurs held their own, we had to change the rules to allow our pros to compete. Now, the "Dream Team" dominates, but it is a nightmare for young amateurs coming up who miss their chance at the international competition and fellowship.
What about all of the smaller countries without huge budgets? They are usually blown out by hyper-competitive big dogs, now. I'm sure it isn't as much fun as it used to be.
That's it! I know what the problem is. We take the fun and fellowship out of everything.
You really are romantic WD Curry, the UN is one of the most corrupt organizations. There have been several prominent UN staffers who have done some terrible things.
Also, it's trying to act like some world gov't without having an election process.
How is the US going to impose changes on an international body and not come out looking like some bully?
cassie missed one important word at the end "Again". The U.S. always come out looking like bullies. When I don't believe we are trying to be bullies.
Historically, it was President Woodrow Wilson and the USA who started the United Nations (League of Nations) and came up with the promotion of World Peace in the form of nations banding together to accomplish peace and goodwill. The United Nations (UN) building is a reminder of this commitment and is exactly where it belongs. The UN might seem out dated coming from the 20th century, but the UN has done much good; especially during the Cold War.
The UN delivers to countries in need medical attention, peace keeping assistance and supplies after devastating occurrences like an earthquake, war, famine, tsunami, or a revolution. The UN does many goodwill types of things around the world. This is a great thing for the USA to be a member of with other nations.
I think nations globally banding together to accomplish good deeds needs to continue. The United Nations is not a waste of the US taxpayers money (through the US membership dues only). It is a way for our country to positively connect with foreign entities without jeopardizing our country's sovereignty.
However, the UN bureaucracy needs to work within the means. Like any other entity, it should be fiscally responsible for the revenue it receives. The USA should, like all other countries that are members, only have to pay for the dues to belong; nothing more. The UN needs to learn to run solely on this.
Good, somebody with a good education and an intelligent grasp of the situation. aliciaharrell for president!
The UN can do some things well but it is not an agile organization so they would be good for long term assistance. Let's limit the UN to things that they are good at.
The UN was designed for immediate and long-term assistance as needed for the good of the world, planet Earth. The UN does not have a nationalistic perspective unlike the nations that make up the United Nations. Some UN members forget this.
I totally support your point, glad you raised it. In my opinion, the UN has lost its credibility as it has failed to make peace in the world or at least failed in what was expected of it. The organization passed a resolution against the Iraq War, condemning US actions but US still went for the criminal war which broke out on the basis of lies by the Bush-Cheney administration. The UN failed to stop the US military to slaughter innocent Iraqi civilians including women, children and the elderly. We must reduce our financial support for this organization, it has appeared to be useless, towing the agenda of so-called superpowers!
The UN doesn't have the power to stop a country from engaging in war, it can only act as a mediator. That's why the size of this organization needs to be reduced.
The UN is not a dictatorial or authoritative police force. It was designed to be a mediation, charitable and helpful entity throughout the Earth. A nation can ignore the UN sanctions unless they wish to be or remain a UN member.
A large percentage of UN funding is used for their peacekeeping operations, many of which are directly related to American interests. The Abyei mission resolution, for instance, was drafted by America. Obama's resolution to go after the Lord's Resistance Army, has American military personnel working with the UN's Congo peacekeepers. There are peacekeepers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are there to help with the mess we have made. Peacekeepers in Lebanon and Israel are also closely tied to American interests. And while we may supply the largest share of funding, the troops are largely supplied by less developed countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, which means that from our perspective, the UN essentially represents an inexpensive mercenary squad.
That's only one reason amongst many for why we should stay in the UN.
Yes, the UN peacekeepers do good deeds where they can; clean up much (regardless of which nation is at fault). The Middle East is indeed a hot bed of unrest which historically began with the advent of civilization. The UN is needed in such places.
Cutoff all funding. The UN is a bunch of thugs and dictators who hate is. Russia and China block anything that needs to be done anyway. The mUN can't even stop Syria from slaughtering its own people.
The UN does not have jurisdiction to stop Syria from slaughtering its own citizens. No nation does (except Syria). If it had, the Soviets would not have slaughtered many in Russia and the Eastern Block during the 20th century as dissidents.
I disagree. The UN can do what it wants. All the have to do is tell Syria to knock it off or the world will but a stop to it for them. It has done so in other areas. Iran is even a better example of its uselessness.
It is best the UN does not have the jurisdiction you think it ought, for if the UN could tell Syria to "knock it off," the same goes for any other country including the USA. This trend would lessen all countries' sovereignty - something to avoid.
The UN, being a government body, is of course inefficient. There is so much US control of this body that it is not as independent as it should be. However, with all of its flaws, it serves a useful purpose and should be supported.
Soviet Russia made the mistake of withdrawing one time and it cost them a unified Korean peninsula when the United Nations forces saved an almost conquered South Korea. Now China and Russia are blocking intervention in Syria because it would set a precedent for intervening in Russia and China, if what is happening in Syria were to happen in their countries.
If you think the United Nations with the USA as a member is cumbersome and inefficient, wait until you see what other countries would like to do to us, if we aren't there! If it's broke, fix it.
You're right perspycacious, being in the UN at least we have some influence. But the case is to be made to reduce the UN to things that they do well and reduce the bureaucracy.
What exactly does the UN do well? It is a corrupt organization that will never bring about peace.
I recognize that the UN is able to provide food aid, basic sanitary and medical services to a hotspot, and that groups are willing to have the UN work as mediator in a conflict. It is able to do that in the long term better than any country.
They should honestly startr paying us, rent alone for that shit building is about 36 million dollars a year and then you need to take into account all the crazy criminal acts those diplomats commit without any form of punishment.
We should reduce our support. Even better would be to cut all U.S. funding to the UN and relinquish our membership. The UN is actually counterproductive in terms of achieving the goal of world peace. Allowing a group of bureaucrats who often have ulterior motives to put heavy sanctions on countries who aren't in the in crowd only breeds more animosity and distrust among nations.
As far as their efforts to treat diseases and feed the starving, problems like this would be better addressed through private charitable organizations that individuals could voluntarily give to.
Lastly, the UN's policies are mostly influenced by special interest groups and ultra wealthy individuals who have access to the levers of power. That is why they are plagued by corruption and bias just like any government.
by Deng Xiang6 years ago
Do you support globalisation? Why or why not?This debate will continue indefinitely, but it is worthwhile to keep in mind how we can make the most out of globalisation and minimise the harmful effects it creates.
by Jack Lee4 months ago
It is announced that the Trump administration has decided to cut funding to the United Nations. One of the best and bold decisions by an American President.
by Credence24 months ago
Someone needs to tell Trump that the United Nations is not rubber stamp of American Foreign Policy?-----Excerpt from a Guardian ArticleDonald Trump has threatened to withhold “billions” of dollars of US aid from...
by Ryan Miller5 years ago
The United States have been active member of the United Nations since its inception in 1945. However history provides examples of anti-UN sentiment that have arisen throughout the US and beyond; the stalemate of the...
by Akriti Mattu3 years ago
How powerful do you think is the UNO ( United Nations Organization) in the contemporary world ?
by Zubair Ahmed6 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.