The UN from the start was implicitly aimed at the goal of world government. In recent years that reality has gone beyond the paranoid fantasies of right-wingers and has been affirmed by many UN leaders and globalists. There is no way to make this essentially sinister organization right. I have no problem with a forum where the countries of the world can get together to talk. But any common international political action should only be pursued with countries with whom we actually share common interests. NATO, for example, was such an organization, a gathering of like-minded countries sharing a common concern. But a political body that includes the entire human race is an inherent monstrosity.

I do not call for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from the UN, as many on the right do, because that would be too abrupt and needlessly offensive. I propose that the U.S. build a public case against the UN, so that the whole world understands our objections to it, and then, when the time is ripe, we would withdraw. Some critics of global government feel it’s already too late for us to do that, because the UN has become powerful and withdrawal would hurt us. See my article “The Twilight of Self-Government?” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/6/193805.shtml

I voted for “Critical and based on specific national interests.” We should belong to it, because for all its faults, it does head off wars — likely has prevented a few. But we shouldn’t take any crap from any country in it. If the King of Lower Catatonia wants to try any nonsense we should immediately tell him in no uncertain terms where to get off. And we should keep home-grown U.S. Tranzis from using the UN as a way to convert the whole world into their dream of multi-culti diversity-obsessed “democratic” nothingness. We should leave other cultures and nations that aren’t bothering us the hell alone and mind our own business. That being said, I add that Larry Auster makes some excellent points in his comment above, and this screed is being dashed off before I’ve read Larry Auster’s piece on the UN referenced in his comment, which I’m going to read right now.

Maybe we would be better served if the UN were like the Olympics: hosted by a different country every few years; voluntary but expected; a bit of pomp and circumstance from and for the guests; and a bit of showing off by the host. I imagine diplomats and bureaucrats and politicians would still want to go —after all, they would love the stage— and the desire for such a stage would provide motivation comparable to that of athletic competition. More importantly, however, limiting the gatherings would limit the tendency of the UN legislators to go off on a tangent. Also, such limitations might tend to focus the representatives on creating worthwhile agreements. There would be a sense of urgency. For instance, I imagine that if the 2002 quadrennial UN conference were scheduled to end this week, then the discussions of the Iraq situation might be more intense and, just perhaps, more productive. As it is, and correct me if I am wrong, the UN sits constantly. Might this not provide an incentive towards irresolution in both debate and decision? In addition, while personal conferences are important, can we not admit that in this day and age all nations of consequence have the means call each other, book flights, and set up meetings if necessary? Finally, Americans, and New Yorkers especially, could get a break from footing the bill. Excuse me to end on a possibly crass note, but, really, when has the UN run at a fiscal profit to the US or even NYC? Let’s end the hypocrisy and let some other City host the show once in a while. We would not only be sharing the honor and duties of hosting, but we would reserve to ourselve the option, if circumstances warrant it, of walking out.

We need to stay in the U.N.When the Communist delegation of Russia walked out of the securiity council, as a publicity stunt in 1950-51 the U.S. resolution for the Korean War got past Russia’s veto.Our Security Council veto power should be used to good effect while we have it.