It's Debatable: Should the United States withdraw from the United Nations?

In this week's "It's Debatable" segment, Rick Rosen and Charles Moster debate whether the United States should withdraw from the United Nations. Rosen retired as a professor from the Texas Tech University School of Law and is a retired U.S. Army colonel. Moster is founder of the Moster Law Firm based in Lubbock with seven offices including Austin, Dallas, and Houston. 

Rosen - 1

The United Nations was founded after World War II “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war …” by “maintain[ing] international peace and security ….” Sadly, the UN has never come close to achieving this objective. The world has witnessed countless conflicts since its formation. Today, prospects for world peace are even more remote considering Russia’s war with Ukraine, the Israeli-Hamas conflict, numerous civil wars, China’s pledge to invade Taiwan, Venezuela’s threat to take part of neighboring Guyana, Iran’s vow to eradicate Israel, and North Korea’s warning of nuclear strikes against South Korea and the United States.

As observed nearly 40 years ago: “Far from being a help in the effort to ensure peace with freedom and justice, the UN has become the home of a double standard of morals, of a crooked view of world relations.” And last September a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar stated: “The UN has contributed to dramatic failures—often as a result of indecision, either when member states can’t agree, as in the war in Syria; when their agreement falls far short of what’s needed, as in Bosnia or Rwanda; or when they selectively apply, or don’t apply, international norms to suit their interests, as in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Moreover, the UN is wholly incompetent in other areas. For example, the UN’s World Health Organization helped China cover-up the seriousness of COVID by falsely asserting China had contained the virus and by refusing to declare a public health emergency of public concern. Thereafter, the virus spread worldwide killing millions.

The UN has also failed to meet one of its principal tenets: developing “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” The quintessential illustration is the UN’s singular focus on Israel. For example, this year most of the General Assembly’s condemnatory resolutions have been lodged against Israel. In October it approved a resolution calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire, ignoring the fact a ceasefire existed until

Oct. 7 when Hamas attacked Israel. At the same time, the General Assembly rejected a resolution condemning Hamas for its Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

While there are calls for United Nations reform, the institution is beyond redemption—it is corrupt, unwieldy, and structurally incapable of accomplishing its mission. Consequently, the United States should withdraw from the United Nations and work with like-minded nations to form an international body capable of addressing threats to peace and stability.

Moster - 1

Rick presents many legitimate reasons why the U.S. should withdraw from the United Nations. I suppose that among the many debate columns we have written, this may be one of the most difficult topics to defend.

From a macro perspective, the UN has had little or no effect on ending the most severe conflicts particularly involving the members of the Security Council which are each granted the right to veto major efforts to bring about world peace. This is perhaps the greatest systemic failing of the UN. It was clearly in play during the Cold War which has now become exceedingly hot and at its most lethal stage since the dreaded Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 which we seem to be reliving every day.

It is abundantly clear that the UN is powerless to end the horrific bloodshed in Ukraine and now Gaza. It has incredulously refused to condemn what only can be described as the most egregious acts of barbarism since the Holocaust. Impotence has been superseded by culpability.

It sure seems like Moster is ready to concede this one - but not so fast. Here’s my rejoinder: The Great Cosmic Filter looms heavy today.

By that, I am referring to the explanation posited by most astrophysicists as to why there has been no proof of intelligent life in the universe since we started listening in earnest over 60 years ago for a stray signal apart from the random static ever present – something, well – intelligent. Despite the expenditure of millions of dollars and utilization of the most sensitive and sophisticated radio telescopes,

nothing has been picked up at all. Not a beep, pop, or ping. It sure is deathly quiet out there and that’s the point.

The Great Cosmic Filter theorizes that extraterrestrial societies which reach a technological level of sophistication characterized by nuclear weapons invariably annihilate themselves. Thus, all across the universe, civilizations just like ours are committing suicide. This Great Cosmic Filter brought on by high intelligence filters out life itself.

The United States and Russia alone possess sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy their respective populations and the rest of the planet in less time than it takes to watch the evening news.

The preeminent Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the hands of the fatal “Doomsday Clock” to but 90 seconds before midnight otherwise known as Armageddon, the closest it has ever been since its debut in 1947. Hey, I’m not making this up.

So, is this ranting or reason? Here’s the simple point. Yes, the UN is malfunctioning, but it is the only alternative we have to global extinction.

It has been mostly ineffectual, however, there have been some successful resolution of disputes since its founding in 1948 which are hardly recalled, for example, successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries including Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, Namibia, and Tajikistan.

Although rarely in the news, it has fought hard to battle world hunger, eliminate the scourge of disease, and other critical areas of need. These successes are not adaptable to the shallow attention span of the American public and do little to increase the ratings and income of media on both sides of the spectrum whether CNN or Fox News.

That said, my major rejoinder and answer to Rick’s salvos is existential. If we have any chance to beat the outcome predicted by the Great Cosmic Filter it is under the auspices of the United Nations. Our intellect which brought forth the means of our demise must rise above our petty and destructive instincts. It is the only alternative to suicide.

We must remain committed to the idea of the UN because it is the only option we have.

Rosen - 2

I do not doubt that the world is closer to a nuclear apocalypse. I also concede that the UN has had some successes. Ironically, one its greatest achievements—securing South Korea’s independence from North Korea—was only made possible by the Soviet Union’s boycott of the Security Council meeting approving UN intervention in the conflict. Nevertheless, the UN is generally ineffectual and at times an obstacle to peace.

First, the UN is not responsible for averting a nuclear war; the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is. MAD is the understanding that a nuclear attack by one nation would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack such that both the attacker and the defender would be annihilated. Preserving a strong, credible nuclear deterrent—not the UN—is essential to preventing nuclear war. This is particularly true because the major nuclear powers can veto any Security Council action to preserve or restore international peace.

Second, the current Israeli-Hamas conflict demonstrates that the UN’s involvement in hostilities is often counterproductive. On Oct. 7, Hamas committed the greatest atrocity against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Vowing to launch similar assaults, Hamas fighters returned to their “sanctuaries” embedded among Gaza’s civilian population, including in schools, hospitals, and mosques—all constituting violations of international humanitarian law. Hamas recognized that any Israeli response to its barbaric acts would result in civilian casualties; indeed, it counted on civilian deaths to serve its strategic objectives. Hamas knew that a compliant media would dutifully report civilian casualties (whether accurate or not), and the UN would condemn Israel and insist on a ceasefire, thereby giving Hamas time to reconstitute and to break the ceasefire by attacking Israel again (as it did on Oct. 7).

Through its Gaza Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN knew about Hamas’ unlawful terrorist infrastructure but did nothing to prevent or eliminate it. Instead, the UN incentivizes Hamas’ use of civilians to shield its military operations. Given the strategic advantages Hamas obtains from noncompliance with international law, it has no reason to avoid placing civilians at risk. And it can rely on UN intervention and protection once it instigates hostilities.

Sadly, the Israeli-Hamas conflict is only one of many actual or threatened wars, and the UN is singularly inept in preventing or stopping any of them. The United States simply does not have an interest in continuing to support the UN.

Moster – 2

I cannot dispute the points raised by Rick as to the failure of the UN to bring about world peace, however, that is an exceedingly tall order. Much like an iceberg, the significant accomplishments of the UN are mostly below the public level of perception, unseen, and underappreciated.

UN relief organizations such as UNICEF, the World Food Program, and the World Health Organization (WHO), work around the clock to improve the lives of “at risk” populations around the globe. WHO has been particularly effective with regard to its immunization program to eradicate smallpox, HIV, and other outbreaks such as measles which were reduced by 68%. Given the millions of lives spared, I am hard pressed that anyone – including my able debate partner – can maintain that the UN has been ineffectual. It clearly has not been.

In the same vein, the World Food Program has made amazing strides to eliminate the scourge of hunger from the face of the Earth. Notable accomplishments have been efforts in Nigeria to feed over 1.2 million people annually and sanitation programs in Yemen which improved the health of over 700,000 people.

That said, the UN has been unsuccessful on the world stage in advancing international peace. The world is beset with violence and carnage as evidenced by the Middle East. In my view, the greatest systemic failure of the UN is the ability of a single nation in the security council to negate the overwhelming consensus of the world body by casting a singular veto. The elimination of this organizational defect would advance the goal of international stability exponentially.

I disagree with Rick’s view as to the seeming effectiveness of our nuclear policy, so-called MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), to abate the very real possibility of all out nuclear war. What he fails to mention is the risk of miscalculation or mistake which would be the likely culprit in precipitating a nuclear exchange. Unknown to most people, there have been numerous incidents in which the U.S and Russia could easily have initiated a nuclear confrontation based on faulty data.

A classic example occurred in 1980 when a malfunctioning computer chip falsely reported that 200 missiles were launched en route to the United States. Thankfully, the Secretary of Defense, withheld disclosure of this frightening occurrence to then President Jimmy Carter for a few minutes which allowed the true cause to be determined. If events had unfolded differently, none of us would likely be around to read this debate column.

A similar situation transpired in 1995 when a launch of a research rocket by Norway was misinterpreted by Russia as an ICBM launch. For the first and only time in history, the “nuclear briefcase” of a world leader – Boris Yeltsin – was activated as he scrambled to decipher the nuclear launch codes. Again, by mere good fortune – his delay in implementing this grim protocol, led to the discovery that a mistake had been made. Global catastrophe had been averted.

We cannot rely on happenstance to protect all of us from a grisly death. Given the unprecedent mobilization of nuclear forces by the U.S. and Russia we are back to the “bad old days” of the Cold War and worse by many orders of magnitude.

Our only saving grace to avoid extinction is through global cooperation.

Yes, the UN is flawed and its deficiencies, particularly of late, are glaring. However, it is the only construct separating all of us and the world from submitting to a death sentence meted out by the Great Cosmic Filter.

If we abandon the noble mission of the United Nations, our luck will most certainly run out.

This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: It's Debatable Should the United States withdraw from United Nations