by Zach Bigalke

Created on: June 07, 2007

The only objection I have heard so far to continuing American membership in the United Nations is that American military costs are not being paid by the world organization. This absurdity is neither the intent nor the duty of the United Nations. The United Nations neither sanctioned nor called for war on the Baathist regime in Iraq. Its stated goals do not include warmongering; thus it is ludicrous to classify American troops involved in foreign occupations as "U.N. policemen".

The United States and United Kingdom forged ahead with a broader replacement for the League of Nations in the waning days of World War II. The stated goals of this ambitious undertaking were: global security; global economic development; cooperation in international law; social justice; and international human rights. Nowhere in the U.N. Charter or in subsequent documents does the United Nations state as a goal a desire to overthrow governments that it deigns unpalatable. This is a uniquely American philosophy borne in self-centered hegemonic beliefs of American predominance and superiority.

The United States has, since the accession of George W. Bush to the office of the Presidency, taken to belittling U.N. achievements and the organization's importance in global affairs. To withhold dues would be to state a dislike for the millions of charitable projects by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other organizations striving to create a safer and more equitable global community. The aim of the United Nations and its branches is to provide better opportunities for all of Earth's citizens - not just those in rich and developed countries.

Pulling out of the United Nations would be detrimental for both the U.N. and for the United States. The U.N. would lose its strongest and richest member state; the United States would incur the ire of states who already view the American government as a polarizing oligarchy. Member states harboring antipathies against America would be emboldened by the hegemon's self-removal from the rule of international law. Openly-hostile states, still members of the United Nations, would gain support from U.N. allies in perpetrating greater atrocities on American soil. And, even without these doomsday scenarios, to turn away from a strong diplomatic alliance and forfeit such a lofty stature in said organization would be tantamount to throwing a baby in a Dumpster. The United States, under the control of President Truman, conceived and realized this beneficial organization; to walk away would be to spit on our own American history.

Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.