Dubai invites United Nations to set up headquarters

[Surf n Turf]

Great ideas come from the strangest sources ;)
SnT


Dubai invites United Nations to set up headquarters
The government of Dubai on Thursday announced that it is fully prepared to host the headquarters of the United Nations if its officials decide to move from New York where the organisation is currently located.

According to an official source in the Dubai government, the announcement was made in light of the UAE's — and Dubai's — appreciation of the vital role the United Nations plays in all areas, and in the protection of international peace and security and economic development in particular.
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/government/dubai-invites-united-nations-to-set-up-headquarters-1.568038

[HowardCohodas]

I like it. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

[head]

I like it. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

Yes, Win-win situation.
Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi won't have to travel so far now.

[HowardCohodas]

If we can get out of the UN then we can go forward with the idea of a United Democracies organization. The when there is an international disaster the affected country could be asked, do you want the UN in here to help or the United Democracies with the US taking the lead. Competition always improves all the competitors. :D

[Team Sergeant]

Great idea!!!! I'll be the first to help the UN move!!!!!

[Peregrino]

I like it! Win - Win for real this time.

[Gypsy]

<--- waves buh-bye.

[JJ_BPK]

Tin Hat On...

Moving the most inept, corrupt, wasteful, useless origination in the World, The UN.

to one of the must inept, corrupt, wasteful, useless Muslim countries with Sharia Law,,

Doesn't sit well with this puppy...

Me thinks they have an ulterior motive..

Tin Hat Off...



My $00.0002

[Richard]

Personally - I always felt the UN HQs belonged in Putney, Vermont, the place I always wanted to go and be a postal clerk if there was ever a nuclear war because (1) nobody had any reason to ever want to target the place, (2) in a post-nuclear exchange world there would not be much mail to deliver, and (3) everyone gets along in Putney so maybe it'll rub off on anyone else who moves there.

The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard.

However...YMMV...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[JJ_BPK]

Personally - I always felt the UN HQs belonged in Putney, Vermont, th

However...YMMV...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin


My choice,,,

100 miles South of McMurdo Station, South Pole.

They have have any 10 sq mile patch they want.

Permanently designated as The Country of UN...

[greenberetTFS]

I like it. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.


Great idea and in that order..................;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[MtnGoat]

I like it! Win - Win for all!!

I think I have some moving boxes still.

[PedOncoDoc]

Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN

Great idea and in that order.

You know if we pulled out of the UN first, it might encourage them to move out quicker. :cool:

[abc_123]

Outstanding idea!

Make it so, #1.

[2charlie]

Dubai is broke. It is no wonder they want the UN there. Foreigners have been leaving Dubai in droves since their real estate market crashed and burned. CNBC did a show on this a while back. They have found over 13,000 abandoned vehicles and numerous abandoned properties from people who just left instead of go to jail for not being able to pay their debts. Looks to me like they are grasping for anything they can to bring $ in.

[Sigaba]

If the U.N. ups and moves, Dick Wolf and every other EVP with a cop show set in NYC is going to be screwed out of the well worn "perp with diplomatic immunity" story line.

And who won't pay for all those parking tickets?

More seriously, I'm not a big fan of the United Nations but I like the symbolism of its HQ being in the United States of America.

[HowardCohodas]

More seriously, I'm not a big fan of the United Nations but I like the symbolism of its HQ being in the United States of America.

This symbolism comes at far too high a price in both money and prestige for me. I'm not enough of a masochist to pay that much for all that humiliation, even if sex is involved. :D

[HowardCohodas]

I know everyone is always, "Pull the United States out of the UN!" but would it really be prudent to do this? Like could there be certain repercussions, or would this really be a win-win situation to just pull the U.S. out of the United Nations?

I'd be interested in hearing your concerns.

As for me, whatever good the UN does could be better done by the democracies that pay for it anyway. Thus the proposal for a United Democracies.

Where is the downside? I'm sure I could do without China's veto, Russia's veto and most of all France's veto. My oh my.

[craigepo]

One possible downside:

If I recall my history correctly, just prior to the beginning of the Korean War, the Russian delegation to the U.N. walked out of the U.N. to protest an (unrelated) matter. Immediately thereafter, the vote was taken on whether the U.N. would send troops to Korea. As Russia (and its veto power) was no longer present in the room, the resolution to send UN troops to Korea passed.

While I believe that the U.N. is both corrupt and impotent, its possible that if the U.S. pulled out, there would be little "adult supervision" therein. Serious hijinx could follow.

[HowardCohodas]

While I believe that the U.N. is both corrupt and impotent, its possible that if the U.S. pulled out, there would be little "adult supervision" therein. Serious hijinx could follow.

There is no magic here. The way you deal with corruption in the UN is to starve it of cash. Most of the funding for the UN comes from the US. If we fund a United Democracies instead of a United Nations, cash goes away from the UN. I view that as a very good thing.

[craigepo]

There is no magic here. The way you deal with corruption in the UN is to starve it of cash. Most of the funding for the UN comes from the US. If we fund a United Democracies instead of a United Nations, cash goes away from the UN. I view that as a very good thing.

Agreed. However, refusing to send the check, versus walking away and refusing to participate(thereby not wielding out automatic veto) are two very different issues.

A possibility: take our money and use it to set up a new organization with like-minded countries, while remaining a non-paying participant in the U.N., standing ready with our automatic veto to smite any stupid ideas that might come from the likes of North Korea, China, Syria, or others.

[HowardCohodas]

A possibility: take our money and use it to set up a new organization with like-minded countries, while remaining a non-paying participant in the U.N., standing ready with our automatic veto to smite any stupid ideas that might come from the likes of North Korea, China, Syria, or others.

I didn't make up the idea of "United Democracies" out of whole cloth. That is an actual idea with some interesting support.
United Democracies (http://uniteddemocracies.org/)
United Nations Intervention by United Democracies? (http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/363)

And the best (http://thethirdrail.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/united-democracies-ud/)

So…What is to be done? Just like our tax system (a topic for another day), the U.N. is beyond salvaging.

I propose that we create a United Democracies (U.D.) organization. As the name implies, only countries that meet the published criteria to be called a “democracy” can become members. The criteria would be things such as:

The rule of law – this includes an independent judiciary.
Respect for individual rights – this includes protection for minorities
Freedom of the press and speech
Property ownership


No true democracy has ever attacked another country without provocation. This of course is different than dictatorships like Iraq under Saddam and Iran via Hezbollah.

The founding members would be the United States, Britain, Japan, and Australia. Other countries could petition to be accepted into the organization. Their ability to be called a democracy would be verified by independent, unbiased organizations like Reporters without Borders.

On a pragmatic side, we would kick the UN out of its building in New York city and use the building for the United Democracies. The US would drop its UN membership and use half the money currently used for the UN to support the UD.

This would greatly improve the situation and the UD members could provide real help for trouble spots in the world.

The UN is beyond repair, as witnessed by the oil for food scandal, the Darfur genocide, and basically no accountability. It’s time to move on.

green-bar.jpg

[Sigaba]

There is no magic here. The way you deal with corruption in the UN is to starve it of cash. Most of the funding for the UN comes from the US.While the United States contributes more than any other member to the United Nations, it does not provide most of the funding. Consequently, the U.S.'s ability to affect change by with-holding monies may limited. Source is here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551480,00.html).

Also, according to the United Nations Association of the United States, the U.S. is the single largest beneficiary of the U.N.'s spending. Hence, the financial benefits of moving the U.N. headquarters or leaving the organization all together may not be as big of a "plus" as the legion of "minuses." Source is there (http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=868).

[HowardCohodas]

While the United States contributes more than any other member to the United Nations, it does not provide most of the funding. Consequently, the U.S.'s ability to affect change by with-holding monies may limited. Source is here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551480,00.html).

Also, according to the United Nations Association of the United States, the U.S. is the single largest beneficiary of the U.N.'s spending. Hence, the financial benefits of moving the U.N. headquarters or leaving the organization all together may not be as big of a "plus" as the legion of "minuses." Source is there (http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=868).

If you consider what we contribute with our military assets to "United Nations" efforts, I think you will find that the contribution is more than the 22%. In the non-profit world where my wife lives, this is called "contribution in kind."

I sometimes forget that what is obvious to me is not obvious to others. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to expand on my point.

With respect to your second reference, I surely hope you are pulling our leg. Can you defend item 6? Perhaps I'm just too cynical. Judge for yourself.
6. The United Nations is highly cost-effective.

The UN has a 2008-2009 regular budget of approximately $4.2 billion (just over $2 billion per year) and the July 2007-June 2008 peacekeeping budget totals $6.8 billion. By comparison, the annual budget of the New York City Department of Education is approximately $17 billion. In addition, recent reports by the US Office of Management and Budget, the US Government Accountability Office, and the RAND Corporation have all found UN peacekeeping operations to be highly effective and efficient.

Perhaps they were talking about highly effective and efficient at
Standing by while the protectees are killed.
Raping their protectees.
Running at the first moment there might be actual danger.


That's just off the top of my head. Further research will provide you with more examples.

[Sigaba]

If you consider what we contribute with our military assets to "United Nations" efforts, I think you will find that the contribution is more than the 22%. Since you're the one making the argument that "most of the funding for the UN comes from the US," how about you provide the information to support your own assertion?

(Incidentally, the article from Fox News places the U.S.'s share of UN peacekeeping missions at 26% for 2010-2011.)

[HowardCohodas]

Since you're the one making the argument that "most of the funding for the UN comes from the US," how about you provide the information to support your own assertion?

Although "most" was a "throw away" based on my memory of something I read recently, I'll try to do that. No matter the final figure, I don't think it endangers my point, do you?

I'll also vet the sources I cite so that they are not considered risible. Don't you think that's a good idea?

[Sigaba]

Although "most" was a "throw away" based on my memory of something I read recently, I'll try to do that. No matter the final figure, I don't think it endangers my point, do you?

I'll also vet the sources I cite so that they are not considered risible. Don't you think that's a good idea?Howard--

I think you might position yourself to make a more precise argument but I do not know that I would agree. I think the U.S. should stay in the United Nations and that the UN should stay in NYC.

MOO, the U.N. is like any other organization that has lost its way. The best opportunities to reform it are going to come from within. In my view, political corruption is a global problem. The U.S. could go a long ways towards asserting unequivocally the importance of its values by being in the vanguard of reform. Whether New Yorkers are cleaning up the mess in Albany or Americans are draining the swamp that is Washington, D.C., delegates to the UN in NYC will have easy access to a bird's eye view of the action.

Moreover, I believe that the U.S. leaving the UN is a bad idea in light of the jihadists' effort to destroy the concept of the sovereign state. The UN represents two forms of international relations among states: collective security and spheres of influence.

Right now, the UN's emphasis on collective security adds a lot of weight to the argument that our membership in that organization is against our best interests, especially since the UN's focus on "sustainability" is presently centered around the controversial issue of "global warming." But what if the U.S. were to participate more actively in the discussions to refocus the discourse on sustainability to issues that advance America's interests?

Penultimately, as we're engaged in a coalition war against global terror, having the UN on American soil gives our allies (and potential allies) a safer haven for dialog than they might have if they move shop to Dubai.

Finally, there is the historical significance of the United Nations. There's a lot of talk in America today about the "lessons of Munich" in 1939. But what about the "lessons" of Versailles?

Just my $0.02, which are worth even less today because Starbucks has raised its prices. Again.

[Sigaba]

Entire post
Would have the League of Nations failed had the United States been a member?
Is "our way or the highway / you're with us or against us" a sustainable approach to diplomacy?
Are all member nations of the UN "petty dictators"?
What if Sarkozy's preference for Atlanticism gives way to France's Gaullist tendencies?
What if Russia seeks to re-establish itself as a great power?
Does China really believe that the Cold War is over? (Imagine the strategic public diplomacy coup the PRC would enjoy if it were in the vanguard of U.N. missions. Communists in blue helmets handing out little red books.
What if regional powers seek to establish condominiums in areas of strategic importance to the United States?

While the folks at Foggy Bottom could keep an eye on scenarios 1-4 (and many others) if the U.S. were outside the U.N., there's something to be said about direct access.

[HowardCohodas]

While the folks at Foggy Bottom could keep an eye on scenarios 1-4 (and many others) if the U.S. were outside the U.N., there's something to be said about direct access.

After some sleep, this discussion reminded me of this.

False dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

[Richard]

Although my experiences with various organizations of the UN have been somewhat mixed, my experiences at the theater levels of operations have been such that the more opportunities we have to 'influence' a situation - either directly (e.g. as voting members of a policy enforcing group such as the UN Security Council) or indirectly - only add to the chances of a more favorable outcome for all concerned. Granted, the 'perception' of a favorable outcome may not occur in all scenarios, but the 'opportunity' is far greater with us being a 'player' in the UN than with us being an 'outsider.'

And as far as the UN being located in the US and NYC - I think many see it being located there as a symbol of the underlying tenets of the US Constitution, of the freedoms we profess to cherish and the level of power we're willing to expend to defend them, of the perceived stability and altruism (relatively) of our government and nation, usw. - and I would think its moving to another location (other than, perhaps, someplace with exceptional historic symbolic meaning such as Jerusalem) would be a catastrophic mistake.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[HowardCohodas]

Although my experiences with various organizations of the UN have been somewhat mixed, my experiences at the theater levels of operations have been such that the more opportunities we have to 'influence' a situation - either directly (e.g. as voting members of a policy enforcing group such as the UN Security Council) or indirectly - only add to the chances of a more favorable outcome for all concerned. Granted, the 'perception' of a favorable outcome may not occur in all scenarios, but the 'opportunity' is far greater with us being a 'player' in the UN than with us being an 'outsider.'


I'm sorry to disagree with you. The trade-offs for the benefits you mention are just too much for me to stomach. I cannot see how a collection of greedy, anti-Semitic, pro slavery nations and the UN's incredibly corrupt management ever being superior to a collection of democracies performing many of the same humanitarian tasks.

Having a code is always superior the UN's form of depravity. If I didn't believe that in my heart and soul, I could never derive such pleasure with interacting with you guys. Or maybe, I'm still just a 60s dreamer. :eek:

[Utah Bob]

Never happen. The diplomats wouldn't go along with it.
No strip clubs over there.

But how can we get it on the ballot?:D

[Sigaba]

I don't think Sigaba meant that if the U.S. pulls out of the UN that China will take over the UN and have troops marching around the U.S., that would not happen.

What he meant as I read it was imagine the big propaganda coup China could create, basically having their military do much of the UN missions, so you'd have Chinese communist soldiers going into all these Third World nations and making it look like China, and socialism, are "good."Yes, this is the outcome I had in mind.

IIRC, the Soviets got a lot of mileage out of mocking the U.S. for its treatment of non-Europeans. What might the Chinese communists say today? Would the costs of countering the propaganda be greater or less than the costs of remaining in the United Nations and helping that institution reform itself?:confused:

[Surf n Turf]

Oh lord, where to begin --- Sigaba, sorry late getting into this, today was busy
SnT

The U.S. could go a long ways towards asserting unequivocally the importance of its values by being in the vanguard of reform. --- delegates to the UN in NYC will have easy access to a bird's eye view of the action.

The UN started on 24 October 1945 – Don’t ya think that a 65 year “bird’s eye view” of American exceptionalism would be adequate to understand our “values”, and use them in forming more Constitutional Republics across the globe ?

Moreover, I believe that the U.S. leaving the UN is a bad idea in light of the jihadists' effort to destroy the concept of the sovereign state.

Who might be leading the “fight” for a one-world Government, Fighting for a “tax” on all international stock / money transactions --- if not the United Nations. It would appear to me that the UN is set to attempt the destruction of sovereign state, and replace it with ----you guessed it – THE UNITED NATIONS.


The UN represents two forms of international relations among states: collective security and spheres of influence.
Right now, the UN's emphasis on collective security adds a lot of weight to the argument that our membership in that organization is against our best interests

Ya Think --- there is always a danger, that alliances formed for the purposes of collective security can also service as a basis for an aggressive coalition. Other scholars and diplomats, however, feel the collective security concept is misguided. Although they are pledged to defend each other, many countries will refuse to do so, if such an act is not in their own best interests or is thought to be too risky or expensive. In addition, it has been argued, collective security arrangements will turn small struggles into large ones, and prevent the use of alternative (nonviolent) problem solving, relying instead on the much more costly approach of military confrontation.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/collsec.htm


But what if the U.S. were to participate more actively in the discussions to refocus the discourse on sustainability to issues that advance America's interests?

Again, the UN was started in Oct 1945 (65 years ago) – don’t ya think we have tried “active discussions” to ”advance America’s interest” – failed missions in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, East Timor.
Success in peacekeeping (for America) is measured by the absence of UN participation.
In Kosovo, KFOR was born of an end-run by the United States and its NATO allies against the UN.

as we're engaged in a coalition war against global terror, having the UN on American soil gives our allies (and potential allies) a safer haven
Also the Intelligence Services of our adversaries, terrorists with “diplomatic” passports, covered dependents and staff, etc.

Finally, there is the historical significance of the United Nations. There's a lot of talk in America today about the "lessons of Munich" in 1939. But what about the "lessons" of Versailles? Again.

I wonder – Do you want us to conclude that a “League of Nations” would have struck a “better deal” and prevented the Second World War?

Versailles Treaty -- "It certainly means the explosion of the moral principles of the Allies as the upholders of some new kind of politics – or a new way of dealing with politics in a period of inhumanity – as a weapon of diplomacy, and it works. The German delegates have to take whatever it is that they're bidden to accept. But there is a price to pay, and that price is in the embitterment of the majority of the German population. They were convinced that what happened to them was an injustice, so that the very way in which the Treaty of Versailles was forced on the German people stored up the material for the next round. "The problem with revenge is that it never ends. "One act of revenge creates another. It's endless. The way in which Versailles was conducted was disastrous.
Jay Winter, Cambridge University.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_winter_21_versailles.html

Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revenge. “In a very short time, therefore, Germany will not be in a position to give bread and work to her numerous millions of inhabitants, who are prevented from earning their livelihood by navigation and trade....
Those who sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women, and children."
John Maynard Keynes - The Economic Consequences of the Peace
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_keynesversailles.html

Lessons of the Versailles Treaty
Never conclude a war with a demand for reparations on the defeated country that has the potential for “hyper-inflation”.
Never conclude a war as a world wide depression is about to take place.
Never conclude a Treaty where resentment caused by the treaty causes extreme nationalism, and the eventual rise of a National Socialist party.

Lessons of the Versailles Treaty – Term of Surrender
War Guilt clauses
Disarmament
Territorial concessions
Occupation
Impossible War reparations
Germany was not pacified, conciliated, nor permanently weakened. The treaty's terms were extremely harsh and didn’t work. Result WWII.
SnT

[HowardCohodas]

The UN represents two forms of international relations among states: collective security and spheres of influence.
Right now, the UN's emphasis on collective security adds a lot of weight to the argument that our membership in that organization is against our best interests

Although I am a great admirer of Dr. Henry Kissinger, his devotion to carefully architected spheres of influence to stabilize the world always seemed to me to be more like balancing a nail on its point. All it takes is a sneeze or for someone's feelings to be hurt to bring it all down.

[Sigaba]

Good stuff, SnT.:cool:The UN started on 24 October 1945 – Don’t ya think that a 65 year “bird’s eye view” of American exceptionalism would be adequate to understand our “values”, and use them in forming more Constitutional Republics across the globe ?Where to begin? I'll start at the beginning by seeing your rhetorical question and raising you!

How much of the first sixty five years was spent using the U.N. as a stage for the American-Soviet rivalry and inhibited America's ability to maximize its leadership in other areas unrelated to the Cold War?
How long did it take the United States to square away its own values with its practices? (Not for nothing did contemporaries refer to the Second Anglo-American War and then the American Civil War as the "second American Revolution.")
Who might be leading the “fight” for a one-world Government, Fighting for a “tax” on all international stock / money transactions --- if not the United Nations. It would appear to me that the UN is set to attempt the destruction of sovereign state, and replace it with ----you guessed it – THE UNITED NATIONS.My reading of Our Common Future, the UN's blue print/road map for/to its idealized end state for international relations is that the sovereign state would remain the central actor in international relations, and that liberalism (and I don't mean American liberalism) and capitalism would be the driving forces for global change. Some advocates of the Green movement would like to think (and would have us think) that a single world government is the end state, I think this view works best if one is unfamiliar with that document. YMMV.Comments on the debate over the relative merits of a collective security versus a spheres of influence approach to international relations.Here, I think I may have not made my point clearly. IMO, the UN does not represent an "either/or" approach to international relations -it merges sensibilities of both collective security and spheres of influence. The fact that the UN is tilted more along the lines of collective security than many would like does not mean it can't be tilted back the other way. (And if the U.S. is not a member, it will be tilted back by the French, the Russians, and the Chinese--if not also the British.)Again, the UN was started in Oct 1945 (65 years ago) – don’t ya think we have tried “active discussions” to ”advance America’s interest” – failed missions in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, East Timor.To your list, I would add the UN's failure in 2002/2003 to take Iraq to task for its leader's refusal to comply with existing resolutions mandating that he prove that he had dismantled his WMD projects. And then I would ask two (rhetorical) questions.
How does one balance the UN's many failings with its successes during the Korean War and the Second Gulf War?
Does the fact that the UN got it right on two instances where, from America's perspective--if not also the world's--failure would have been catastrophic raise the possibility that, at least until the Korean War officially ends (an armistice is not a peace treaty)--to say nothing of GWOT, it may be more useful to America's interests to stay in the U.N.?
Comments, analysis, and quotes on the League of Nations and the Versailles TreatyWith respect, I think you may be misreading either my (deliberately vague) reference to Versailles (by which I meant the proceedings of the negotiations and not just the treaty) or Professor Winter's remark as he and I share the same view. (And I'm sure he'd be soooo fracking relieved to learn that I agree with him.:rolleyes:)

The received wisdom of diplomatic historiography--which has moved well beyond Keyne's's contemporary account (which actually supports my position in part)--is that Versailles was a disaster because its war guilt clause and punitive economic measures reflected the 'triumph' of a spheres of influence approach to foreign relations. (Also, the interpretation that Versailles led directly to World War II is a political argument that has not borne up well to historical inquiry. War, even when necessary, is always a choice.)

Moreover, because the United States declined to cooperate in its own scheme for collective security and then took a spheres of influence approach to international relations via "isolationism," America undermined its ability to moderate the impulse among many member states to return to the business as usual practice of "spheres of influence" diplomacy. Consequently, efforts to revise Versailles and to take additional confidence building measures towards collective security were compromised by the absence of America's leadership as a great power AND the perception held by some members--especially Japan--that the U.S. itself was practicing a "spheres of influence" approach to foreign relations. (Oh crap. Flashbacks to studying my least favorite interval of modern American diplomatic history.)

The subsequent turn to "autokracy" and the ongoing insistence that Germany pay for World War One enabled radical elements in Germany to beat the drum of "the stab in the back" and helped to set the conditions in which the din resonated within more and more Germans.

To be clear, I have been and shall remain a critic of the United Nations. The organization needs reform. If it doesn't, the U.S. should think about leaving. But I do not think America is at that crossroads and even if it were, the fact that we're presently at war, the decision making process should be particularly deliberative.

YMMV.

[Detonics]

I'd like them to move. Somewhere far, far away. The bigger question is if the CIC will dust off a copy of U.S. State Department Document 7277 anytime soon....

[HowardCohodas]

WTF!

Texas team preparing for Haiti mission told to stand down (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6821324.html)

A Texas search and rescue team and other similar units mobilized to help earthquake victims in Haiti have been told they are not needed.

Members of Texas Task Force 1 have been on standby in Houston since Thursday to head to the devastated island nation.

But the United Nations mission in the country has declared the search and rescue teams already in the nation are sufficient to handle to the task and the Texas team and others prepared to deploy would not be needed.

The Texas unit, which has been on standby at Ellington Field in southeast Houston, was made up of 80 members including doctors and engineers. Four dogs were also part of the team.

[Sigaba]

When and where do you think the line should be drawn? I realize this is not a cut and dry answer per say, but where do you draw the line? When do we say enough is enough and get out? I am not trying to be a smaer ass or confrontational I just wonder how many lives (somilia etc) trillions of dollars and years we have to throw away before we say it is beyond saving?Brush--

If the U.N. doesn't hold the line with Iran, I would think it would be time for an "agonizing reappraisal" (to paraphrase John Foster Dulles).

IMO, other benchmark events might include (but should not be limited to):
the revelation of another scandal involving the systematic misappropriation of funds or the sexual misconduct of UN workers.
making significant progress in all of the reform measures discussed here (http://www.un.org/reform/), but especially in those measures discussed here (http://www.un.org/reform/mgmt_reform.shtml).
During the interval, I think we Americans should do exactly what we're doing on this thread--debating the issue, giving each other a exposure to different perspectives on the topic, providing each other opportunities for more thought and more research. This way, if it becomes time to have a public debate on the topic, those for and those against leaving the U.N. will have timely, articulate, well-rehearsed arguments that will resonate on both sides of the political aisle. Nothing will send a clearer message to the UN than a nonpartisan statement from the American people: "It isn't us, it is you that is the problem."

My $0.02.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Think about it without emotional evolvement.

The UN's largest building, the Secretariat, was finished in 1950. Was there another "center of world wide prosperity" in 1950?

Talk to any person who's been to a Dubai hotel; they will tell you it's 30 years in the future. You think the worlds leaders might want to be there?

Our day to day operations depend on international funding. Last year the Fed bought 80% of new government debt for 2009. China and other nations have said no go ect. ect.; don't be a dumbass.

There’s no conspiracy other then where the money goes. What do you expect from a country whose central bank who stopped showing their M3 (total quantity of money in circulation) in 3/23/06? :(

[Surf n Turf]

Good stuff, SnT.:cool:Where to begin
How much of the first sixty five years was spent using the U.N. as a stage for the American-Soviet rivalry and inhibited America's ability to maximize its leadership in other areas unrelated to the Cold War?
How long did it take the United States to square away its own values with its practices? (Not for nothing did contemporaries refer to the Second Anglo-American War and then the American Civil War as the "second American Revolution.")

The Cold War – American Distraction ?
"The world, I am quite sure, is a better place for that conflict being fought in the way that it was and won by the side that won it.... For all its dangers, atrocities, costs, distractions, and moral compromises, the Cold War—like the American Civil War—was a necessary contest that settled fundamental issues once and for all." -John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15beschloss.html?ei=5089&en=3725eb10bf24d9de&ex=1294981200&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

“The traditional or orthodox school had held that the Cold War was the result of unprovoked Soviet aggression, which left the Free World no choice but to organize in defense of civilization. Gaddis gained his professional reputation as the leading expositor of an interpretation of the Cold War known as post-revisionism, during the 1970s and 1980s., which emerged during the Vietnam era as a variant of New Left history. The revisionists placed the blame squarely on the United States, which pressed relentlessly to take advantage of Soviet weakness after World War II in order to stave off what was perceived as the imminent collapse of capitalism.”
https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1109/article_detail.asp

IMO, the UN does not represent an "either/or" approach to international relations -it merges sensibilities of both collective security and spheres of influence.
How does one balance the UN's many failings with its successes during the Korean War and the Second Gulf War?
What Success – expound please

Does the fact that the UN got it right on two instances where, from America's perspective--if not also the world's--failure would have been catastrophic raise the possibility that, at least until the Korean War officially ends (an armistice is not a peace treaty)--to say nothing of GWOT, it may be more useful to America's interests to stay in the U.N.?
Agree

The received wisdom of diplomatic historiography-- is that Versailles was a disaster because its war guilt clause and punitive economic measures reflected the 'triumph' of a spheres of influence approach to foreign relations. The subsequent turn to "autokracy" and the ongoing insistence that Germany pay for World War One enabled radical elements in Germany to beat the drum of "the stab in the back" and helped to set the conditions in which the din resonated within more and more Germans. War, even when necessary, is always a choice.)

Treaty of Versailles
In Europe, the cause of WW2 could be traced 20 years earlier. At the end of WW1, the Treaty of Versailles failed as an instrument to maintain peace as it seemingly served the agenda of depriving Germany of her status as a sovereign nation. Such deprivation, along with the subsequent hyperinflation and global economical depression, set up the grounds for the rise of the Nazi Party. Many scholars note that Europe might had saved had the Western Allies abandoned the policy of appeasement, which was done in the interest of curbing the expansion of communism.
http://ww2db.com/intro.php?q=5

America undermined its ability to moderate the impulse among many member states to return to the business as usual practice of "spheres of influence" diplomacy.

Sphere of Influence / Collective Security – My take
As the world’s only remaining “super power” it is American presence in its “sphere’s of influence” that has kept the world in relative “order” since WW2. All the nations of Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. have spent little of their GNP on “military protection” as they have lived under the American nuclear umbrella for 50 years. This protective sphere of influence has allowed ALL of these countries to prosper, and permitted their citizens to remain free in democracies of various stripes.
The fact of the matter is that America does NOT need, nor want, “collective security”. America will defend itself, without reliance on some Foreign Governments whims and politics. Witness the support (or lack thereof) in our current battle in the GWOT in Afghanistan – Notice how many allies are NOT there, supporting out efforts.
SnT

“Since the Second World War, the United Nations generally, and the U.N. Security Council in particular, has sought to manage great power relations. As an organization, the United Nations is not suited to undertaking this responsibility. During the Cold War, the Security Council remained in stalemate as a result of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Subsequently, most key diplomacy involving U.S.-Soviet relations, including arms control agreements and disputes over security matters, was handled on a bilateral basis and not through the Security Council. More recently, the Security Council has been fractured because of disagreements over a variety of issues, the effects of which have been seen, for example, in the Security Council's failure to uphold its own resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG-1700.cfm

FROM A PREVIOUS POST -- Moreover, I believe that the U.S. leaving the UN is a bad idea in light of the jihadists' effort to destroy the concept of the sovereign state.
is that the sovereign state would remain the central actor in international relations, and that liberalism and capitalism would be the driving forces for global change


United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
The UNPA’s 500 parliamentary endorsers, from over 80 countries, including Canada’s Senator Romeo Dallaire, have all signed the campaign’s appeal.
“In addition to the support of 519 current parliamentarians, the UNPA campaign has been endorsed by the European Parliament, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the Canadian House of Commons, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Pan-African Parliament and (most recently) the Latin American Parliament’s Commission on Political Affairs.
Andreas Bummel is head of the UNPA Secretariat, which is headquartered in Berlin.
“The enthusiastic response of these politicians demonstrates that lawmakers elected at the national level readily appreciate the logic of having elected representatives at the global level and now want to take action,” says Bummel. The appeal “asserts that solutions to the world’s major economic, environmental, humanitarian and other problems require that `all human beings engage in collaborative efforts’, including a gradual implementation of democratic participation and representation on the global level.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3774

Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give citizen representatives, not only states, a direct and influential role in global policy. The assembly would not replace existing UN bodies but would be an additional means to integrate parliamentarians more effectively into the shaping of globalization.
http://en.unpacampaign.org/about/unpa/index.php?PHPSESSID=e1cfe2175192531dd938808f5ba8ac bb


To be clear, I have been and shall remain a critic of the United Nations. The organization needs reform. If it doesn't, the U.S. should think about leaving. But I do not think America is at that crossroads and even if it were, the fact that we're presently at war, the decision making process should be particularly deliberative.
YMMV.

Reform of the United Nations – enhancing its relevance and effectiveness for the world’s people in the 21st Century – is a priority concern of the Member States. At the 2005 World Summit world leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a strengthened United Nations with enhanced authority and capacity to effectively and rapidly respond to the full range of global challenges of our time.
http://www.un.org/reform/

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has become an absurdity on the world stage. Current members of the UNCHR include many of the world's worst human rights abusers, such as Sudan, Syria, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. (Other members of the 53-nation commission with appalling track records in human rights include China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Algeria.) Zimbabwe and Sudan remain the most oppressive nations in Africa. In Zimbabwe, 7 million people face starvation by man-made famine. In Sudan, the modern-day slave trade is thriving with the complicity of the Sudanese government, with thousands abducted in recent years. Yet the U.N. has not condemned the brutal regimes in Harare and Khartoum.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG-1700.cfm

Good Discussion – Wish I could write faster. :)
Maybe I should purchase “Dragon Naturally Speaking”, as nmap has suggested
SnT