WASHINGTON D.C. — The debate I atteneded on whether the U.S. should either reform or just withdraw from the UN was disappointing. Jeff Gayner of “Americans for Sovereignty” made the usual (and compelling) arguments for full US withdrawal — the UN is corrupt, the UN tries to impose rules that go beyond what our government would allow itself to do, the UN takes hypocrisy to new heights by putting countries like Sudan on the human rights commission etc. He said the UN should be replaced with a comunity of democracies (he didn’t use that exact phrase, but that was the general idea) and went as far as to endorse Congressman Ron Paul’s bill that has the US withdrawing from the UN and telling the UN to move their offices somewhere else.
Unfortunately, the person representing the other position in the debate, Jon Utley of “Conservatives for Peace”, made very superficial arguments in defense of the UN — the UN gives the US legitimacy and legality — without elaborating or offering that any reform was needed at all. He tried to explain that the oil-for-food corruption was the fault of the Clinton administration for want to keep sanctions in place against Iraq.
Tell me, are there UNiks out there that the UN itself must absolutely be saved, or would a brand new organization, without the UN’s historical baggage, be sufficient?