Why are we in the UN?

There are a number of people, primarily on the Right, who think of the UN as worse than useless and actually harmful to the US. “Imperfect” doesn’t begin to describe the UN, but decades of US foreign policy under both parties can’t be completely wrong. Hopefully. Maybe looking at the pros and cons of the US-UN relationship will shed some light on the matter.

CON: The UN is irrelevant

To get an idea why the United Nations has difficulty being relevant, imagine trying to get 192 nations to agree on anything. This is an oversimplification of course, but it gets at one of the main impediments to effective UN actions. It takes a majority of those nations to form a resolution in the General Assembly. Consider that only 89 of them are rated as politically free or only 83 of them are rated as even moderately economically free, and one begins to understand why the General Assembly isn’t exactly the beacon of humanity that it’s made out to be.

To do anything really substantial, the Security Council needs to be involved. This requires the unanimous consent of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Getting these countries to agree on the color of an orange would be a challenge.

PRO: The UN is occasionally relevant

There are some things on which the vast majority of people can agree, such as refugees should be sheltered. The UN operates a number of agencies that are, in effect, global charities.

CON: The UN is toothless

Then there are things on which the not-so-free majority of countries can agree, such as covering for each other when a minority gets oppressed or a democratic movement gets crushed. While the UN may be of minimal utility as an observer in international conflicts, it is astonishingly inept when dealing with human rights issues within a country’s borders (Somalia, Sudan, Yugoslavia, etc.).

PRO: The UN is toothless

If the UN was capable of operating as an armed world government, it would not suffer the presence of a national superpower like the US or, someday, China. Since the UN Security Council is composed of the victors of World War II (and France), they are the ones who would have the most to lose from switching the UN from a confederacy to a federation. This switch could never happen without the Security Council’s consent, so the UN’s toothlessness is assured for the foreseeable future.

CON: Enemies of the US have bases of operation in New York City

The countries that have permanent missions to the UN have them in New York City, even if they don’t have diplomatic relations with the US. This gives these countries the ability to move non-official cover agents in and out of the US, not to mention diplomatic pouches filled with who-knows-what.

PRO: Enemies of the US need to keep their agents in New York City

While I’m not aware of the US ever opening a diplomatic pouch, all of the other tools of spycraft are available to watch over the people working at these UN missions. It’s not that an Iranian secretary is going to accidentally drop a map of nuclear sites; it’s that the CIA can gather all of the dirty laundry on the people who do the negotiating at the UN. Having an envelope full of the proverbial blackmail photos can help the US (or its allies) get an edge in day-to-day international disputes.



The UN may have devolved into letting the inmates run the asylum, but it is a massive bureaucracy with many moving parts that the US government seems to think is worth greasing once in a while. Whether the pros really outweigh the cons, however, is an open question.