JRPomazon
Member
Posts: 162
Original Join Date: 14 Jul 2003
|
Post by JRPomazon on Jan 22, 2017 5:20:07 GMT
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193Our current president claims he can renegotiate with companies, countries and other entities in order to ease the financial burdens on the US. That's everything from Government contracts with companies like Boeing (who have provided the aircraft used for Air Force One) to Mexico (About Walls and wall related accessories). The US currently fronts 8 billion for the function and operation of the UN, which is more than most countries combined. The news of such a bill being drafted tells me that we're going to be playing yet another game of chicken with the world at large, something probably to the tune of everyone else paying their fair share or we take our toys and play somewhere else. After all, America First. The US isn't the only country putting itself first, with the likes of Britain leaving the EU as well. One might even suggest that this would benefit Russia as it would weaken the international community as a whole with many of the larger superpowers disbanding their ranks. Despite our more than conservative leanings in this country, I imagine there would be too much push back for such a bill to get through, at least initially. We are certainly living in interesting times.
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Jan 22, 2017 10:03:24 GMT
The US mostly does what it wants, no matter what the United Nations wants, so this is mostly a symbolic gesture. But it's also an important symbolic gesture. While it may not have direct ramifications, it will negatively impact our diplomatic relations with most of the other world powers -- especially western Europe.
It also represents the growing trend of cutting ties and turning inward. The last time a lot of nations did that, we ended up with global conflict. Hopefully we're not sliding in that direction. The League of Nations famously collapsed after WW1 for a multitude of reasons, the main ones being nations going ".....Nah, we're gonna do our own thing, piss off."
Distaste for the UN started to grow considerably during and after the Iraq War, especially among conservative voters. The UN was fine when we were in a position of absolute leadership. As soon as other powers started dissenting, though, it stopped being fun. Now it's a big thing with Trump's diehard fanboys. Especially after he made leaving the UN part of his stump speeches.
His proposal almost sounded like hiring out the US military as a glorified mercenary force. Protection for pay. We'll help you, but only if you fork over cash or some other form of reimbursement.
Either way, it does not bode well for international relations. Especially if it's coupled with leaving NATO. Which I imagine is the next step. Without NATO or the UN, China and Russia will most certainly feel less restricted in their behavior. Europe was only a powerhouse while united, especially with the US on standby. Now that power structure is being torn down.
So unless Britain plans on fully restoring the Imperial era navy at exceptional cost....
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Jan 22, 2017 22:59:24 GMT
The UN is already ineffective in the extreme. China has aggressively pushed their tenuous claims to the South China Sea so much that the Prime Minister of Vietnam has asked the United States to take a larger part on events. I don't necessarily think leaving the UN is a good idea--I think it's a bluff to negotiate strong leverage from. But I don't think the UN is actually doing much, either for us or for the world.
I don't want to think that a war is in our future, but it's true that the isolationist policies Trump represents decrease the economic incentives which have maintained the Pax Americana. The existence or absence of the UN will not stop such a war from happening--it won't even significantly slow it down if superpowers decide they want to mix it up. But if we leave it people will say that's what caused it, even if that's demonstrably not true.
|
|
JRPomazon
Member
Posts: 162
Original Join Date: 14 Jul 2003
|
Post by JRPomazon on Jan 23, 2017 20:41:57 GMT
I certainly don't argue with the idea that the UN doesn't seem to have the strength to do much these days, it still holds some level of symbolic importance not only in the US but for the rest of the world. It's the last sandbox we have to show that the world can be one entity instead of a cluster of countries both big and small. If the US leaves, there is no telling what would happen to the fragile binding that holds it together.
But perhaps the US leaving wouldn't change much and business would just resume as usual, who can say?
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Jan 23, 2017 23:08:22 GMT
The most likely thing would be Amerexit, where the legislation to leave is passed and on the books, but ignored in practice. Just like parliament doesn't have the will to act on Brexit, Congress won't have the will to act on whatever Trump passes.
The other problem with the UN which I failed to address is one it shares with the European Commission; they are appointed positions politicians tend to be sent to when their political geese are cooked in proper elections, but people in power still owe them favors. Ignoring the undemocratic aspects of losing an election to get promoted, that means we're sending representatives who have reasons to actively dislike their constituents. In the case of the EU, the European Commission has passed or pushed quite a few bits of legislation which would be shot down immediately in any legislature where representatives needed to be reelected. They could get away with this because, like the Board of the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court, these positions are by appointment, not election.
If you want the UN to actually wield enough power to be an effective peacekeeping entity, you have to regard the UN as a fourth branch of government and not something member governments dabble in. This undemocratic representation has to go. The appointees dislike their constituents, which makes them push for changes their constituents don't want. The bad blood has finally hit a fever pitch with Brexit and Trump. Representatives should be elected officials and not appointees. But good luck getting the UN to agree with ever passing that.
|
|