The case against the United Nations grows stronger every day, but in many ways it's the same argument all over again. In 1996, conservative Senator Jesse Helms wrote a scathing critique of the U.N. in an article published in Foreign Affairs. He slammed its power grabs and out of control bureaucracy leading to rising costs, and offered an ultimatum: either the U.N. implements reform orAmerica withdraws its support. Hardly a word of what Helms' wrote over ten years ago has changed in its applicability.
One problem with Helms' piece, however, was that he didn't go so far as to explain how America's warfare state is intimately linked to the U.N. If he had done so, he might have been able to make out a stronger argument. As libertarians we can venture, with characteristic courage, where the late Senator Helms did not. We can take heart in this respect, with the sentiments expressed by prominent personalities such as Ludwig von Mises, Doug Bandow and Ron Paul, who have all expressed varying degrees of doubt as to the U.N.'s effectiveness in bringing about durable peace.
It is worth making a general point about how the U.N. operates. If we look beyond the glossy publicity proclaiming the noble spirit of cooperation found at the U.N., we find that it operates in much the same way as the American Congress. Undisguised logrolling ("I'll vote for your boondoggle if you'll vote for mine"), shady backdoor deals and incestuous relationships with Non-Governmental Organizations, are ever-present features. The inevitable outcome of such machinations is that politics - not principle - wins the day when it comes to deciding where and when the U.N. will intervene. This in itself should make us think differently about the United Nations.
But the real argument against the U.N. is much more terrifying. American Presidents have been increasing their powers at the expense of Congress and the Judiciary, especially in the area of foreign affairs, since the founding of the Republic. But since 1945, they have been assisted in this respect by the U.N. While constitutional scholars generally agree that the Constitution permits only Congress to commit the nation to war, Presidents have in recent times ignored this provision and have committed troops willy-nilly in aid of their ambition to make America the policeman of the world.
The first major instance of this was by President Harry Truman, who set the precedent by committing Americato war against North Korea, ostensiblyto enforce a U.N. resolution. Of course, the Korean War was a collective security action in name only, since it was American command that led the operation and made key decisions (such as the decision to cross the 38th parrallel and invade North Korea). The operation did not adhere to the U.N. Charter's requirement that a Military Staff Committee comprised of generals from many countries collectively manage the planning of the mission.
It's the same story with the First Gulf War. The majority of the resources committed to repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait were provided by American taxpayers, and America once again directed the mission. Although President George Bush I, unlike Truman, obtained a Congressional resolution authorizing him to take military action, he also made it clear that he didn't think such a resolution was necessary. According to Bush I, a President has inherent authority to enforce U.N. resolutions, even if that means mangling the clear words of the Constitution.
Members of Congress, who due to their lack of spines would rather not take on an active role in foreign policy (lest they be blamed when things go wrong), have displayed a singular lack of willingness to stand up to the President and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. As such, Americanow has an out-of-control presidency, and part of this is due to the escape clause from the American Constitution that the U.N. provides.
Yet liberal and conservative interventionists, who embody the fiercely independent American spirit but subvert it for warmongering ends, see the U.N. as restraining America's right to be an imperalist power. However, the interventionists need not worry that the U.N. will reduce support for their disastrous policies. That the U.N. leads to greater, rather than less, interventionism is evident from the many botched peacekeeping missions that Americahas been drawn into. Somalia, for example, was so devastating a failure that it even inspired a movie - Black Hawk Down.
On paper, the United Nations exists to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". In practice, it has been abused by the great powers to carry out their own goals. This much should be obvious from the regular power struggles that go on within the organization. Developing nations such as India are now vying for a permanent seat on the Security Council, but none of the existing members really want to see their own influence diluted with the addition of new members. Various reform models have been proposed, but none are likely to institute fundamental change in the way the U.N. operates. Even if the U.N. were somehow made more democratic, the great powers (or nations such as Israelthat are backed by a great power) are likely to ignore resolutions they find inconvenient, as they have done in the past.
The American Government uses the United Nations as an instrument for its nefarious schemes, and if American power declines and the other great powers find themselves in a relatively more advantageous position, then so will they. It would be better if America withdrew, and charted its own course in foreign affairs using the principles of non-interventionism.