9 ms·

The online space (Reddit, HN, others) is so deeply embedded with groupthink that people have lost the ability to see other points of view or debate topics of in

The online space (Reddit, HN, others) is so deeply embedded with groupthink that people have lost the ability to see other points of view or debate topics of interest. To me it's very clear why the government is leaving UNESCO (and over time the UN at large). The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. It used to be a source of soft power for the States, but hasn't been so for the better part of this century. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund it even though it is currently running a massive deficit. It doesn't make sense to continue throwing good money after bad, especially when funds are scarce. Let other nations pick up the funding slack. Likely they will not and the UN will collapse, as it should. Something new can be built from its ashes. Many people agree with this rather pragmatic view. If you want to have a discussion, debate the points I made above instead of hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.

monero-xmr 1y ago
[flagged]
- ivell 1y ago
  It is also the place where world opinion is shaped. West has majority of veto powers which it used to its advantage. West had also condemned other nations in the same forums in the past.
esseph 1y ago
Why is the US the only country in the world denying Israeli crimes in Gaza? That's how I know the UN no longer matters.
- glitchc 1y ago
  Because the rest of the world denies Palestinian crimes in Israel.
  - pxc 1y ago
    Resistance of occupation, including violent resistance, is not a crime under international law.
    - ivell 1y ago
      War crimes conducted for the "violent resistance" does come under international law. There are rules of engagement all parties need to adhere to.
  - esseph 1y ago
    The State of Israel spent so long fighting monsters that it became one.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      The State of Israel literally created the main “monster” it claims to be fighting (Hamas), abd did so for the specific purpose of splitting Palestinian opposition and having a less sympathetic enemy to weaken international criticism of its campaign to cleanse Palestine of Palestinians, which has been fairly overt policy since the occupation began.
  - zipy124 1y ago
    That's a rather bold claim. For instance: Both Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have been sanctioned by the UK, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian civilians." And yet all of these countries also condemn Hamas and their atrocities....
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    They... don’t. The ICC sought warrants for both Israeli and Palestinian leaders (at least one of the Palestinian leaders was subsequently killed by Israel, rendering any charges moot, but the ICC wasn't ignoring the alleged crimes.) Similarly, many countries have sanctioned both Hamas (and/or other groups like PIJ, etc.) and/or individual Palestinians for acts against Israeli civilians as well as Israel and/or Israeli politicians for acts against Palestinian civilians.
- bushbaba 1y ago
  And the Syrian Druze? Christian Syrians. Anyone in the UN speaking up for them. Why just Gaza and not the other civilian casualty events.
lokar 1y ago
These arguments of the form “the US should not do X because of the deficit “ are either ill informed or disingenuous. Go look at where the money goes. This is not it.
Loughla 1y ago
You took out the comment about people howling about change. Why? That seemed the central thesis of your statement. I would argue that it's not practical to burn the current system down without a plan at all for the next system (like the ACA a few years ago. . .) My concern isn't change. My concern is the complete lack of concern for consequences. Like it or not, the US is and has been on the decline in terms of world authority. Leaving a power vacuum, like dismantling the UN, will just open the door for places like China to step in. You think that country has any amount of give a crap about humanity as a whole? Not even a little, I would argue. So, again, for many people, it's not that the UN is perfect (or even functional in my opinion). It's that there is, has been, and seems like there will never be an actual plan. Am I wrong?
- glitchc 1y ago
  > Leaving a power vacuum, like dismantling the UN, will just open the door for places like China to step in. You think that country has any amount of give a crap about humanity as a whole? Not even a little, I would argue. If China wants to foot the bill, let them. As I pointed out, the US hasn't been getting anything in return for the last 25 years of footing the bill, basically since 9/11. China cares about its people. They are currently fighting back against privilege and conspicuous consumption by the elites [1]. The CCP knows that an open revolt would destabilize their grip. After all, they themselves rode a populist wave into power. I think of it like the Tour de France. Sometimes to win the race you need to move into second place, conserve your resources, and let someone else face the headwinds. The comment about change felt like an ad hominem attack. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7827pwlro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7827pwlro
  - zippothrowaway 1y ago
    > As I pointed out, the US hasn't been getting anything in return for the last 25 years of footing the bill, basically since 9/11 You pointed this out but provided no evidence. "I'm paying for these traffic lights with these taxes but all they do is slow me down"
  - notahacker 1y ago
ivell 1y ago
While UN is not optimal and needs a revamp, it is an organization that has almost all countries of the world as members. There is no guarantee that a new organization is going to be any better. Once US leaves UN, why would any other country believe in US to build a better organization, especially seeing that the existing administration in US itself is chaotic.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  ^ This is the primary meta argument against Trump foreign policy. If you screw your counterparty over in every negotiation, you erode trust and end up without allies. That’s fine in a business setting, if you’re self-capitalized (although Trump famously ran into issues after burning bridges with most banks), because you can do without them. It works less effectively in a forum of sovereign nations, where you’re going to need to deal with CountryX tomorrow and ten years from now. The US is ceding the soft power and web of alliances that are the basis of its economic and hard power. The US, without allies, loses to China strictly on the basis of population. “America first” is “America alone” with an orange spray tan.
Angostura 1y ago
You say “the UN doesn’t work” apparently because “working” means it being a source of soft power for the US. It had several remits, but its most important is probably the one to prevent a world war. It’s designed specifically as a talking shop to help countries find other ways of resolving disputes than kill people - and promote international understanding . It’s far from perfect, but in general it does a pretty good job.
- dartharva 1y ago
  > It’s far from perfect, but in general it does a pretty good job. The current state of the world would definitely beg to differ
  - soperj 1y ago
    Prior to the creation of the UN we had 2 world wars in 25 years.
    - dartharva 1y ago
      And post the creation of the UN we have still had hundreds of wars (conveniently termed "armed conflicts") resulting in uncountable deaths.
  - Angostura 1y ago
    It really wouldn’t
- luckylion 1y ago
  The UN didn't prevent another world war. If you'd want to include an organization, it'd be the UN security council, but not anything else of the UN. And realistically, it's nukes that prevented WW3. It's not a coincidence that the permanent members of the security council, the veto powers, all have nuclear weapons.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  American dollars shouldn’t go to things that aren’t sources of soft or hard power for us, and they should be clawed back from things that are sources of soft power for china.
Hikikomori 1y ago
They should put that UN money where it belongs, the MIC and more bombs for Israel, and why not add more the deficit. This isn't even a joke, its just what they're doing.
tehjoker 1y ago
The UN is dysfunctional because the US blocks every good thing it tries to do like the abomination of the security council vetoing resolutions to stop the US backed genocide in Gaza.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  It’s a bit incomplete to bring up Security Council vetoing without mentioning Russia (currently at war with a sovereign nation) and China (intent on war with a sovereign nation). The UNSC isn’t an arbitrator of good, but an alignment of hard UN outcomes with the first countries to have nukes (and therefore the ability to force the issue militarily if they disagreed with the UN).
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    > China (intent on war with a sovereign nation). This is not proven. Why would China want to wreck Taiwan? Official US, Taiwanese, and Mainland China policy is that there is one China. Taiwan is like Texas being a breakaway republic run by confederates in the USA, though the culture has evolved in a more progressive direction (more progressive than USA) since the original breakup. > It’s a bit incomplete to bring up Security Council vetoing without mentioning Russia (currently at war with a sovereign nation) I'll give you that's bad, but at least it's a fight between nations and not a genocide. I believe the U.S. instigated this fight by advancing NATO territory eastward and my position is there should be peace negotiations immediately.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      > Why would China want to wreck Taiwan? For the same reasons most wars have been fought: belief (primacy of CCP), resources (uncontested access to the Pacific), and the economy (don’t worry about that, ra ra flag). > [Russia and Ukraine] not a genocide One of the definitions of genocide is forced relocation of children and eradication of culture, both of which Russia is doing in the Ukrainian territories it occupies.
- glitchc 1y ago
  Here's a list of vetoes at the UN Security Council: https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick All parties seem to be exercising their right, the US does not have a monopoly on it.
runako 1y ago
> when funds are scarce The US budget is ~$7T annually. There is $50B to spend deporting critical parts of our workforce. There is $1T in defense spending to ensure that we spend more than the next 9(!) militaries combined*. Et cetera. The US spends ~$18B supporting UN programs. This is ~0.003% of the federal budget. The point here is funds are not scarce, and in any case to the extent that one is concerned about spending, the UN spend is not the driver. The rest of your point is consistent, there's no need to use the red herring about lack of money. * I'm old enough to remember the end of the Cold War. Americans were told that as the Soviet threat withdrew, we could expect a "peace dividend" now that we didn't need to spend so much on defense. Inflation-adjusted, we spend more now than at the peak of the Cold War. Given the threat matrix today that includes fantasies such as "US land war against its third-largest trading partner" and the absurd "protracted war against a developing nation currently being fought to stalemate by a country smaller than California," I am not sure this increased spend makes sense. Seems like the only scenario that justifies our military spend is when a President decides to blow a wad of lives & cash in some utterly wasteful conflict.
- pacoWebConsult 1y ago
  The US ran a $1.8T deficit in 2024. That's objectively scarce funds. Even if the UN doesn't drive a significant portion of the spending, they do not serve the people that are going into debt to fund it.
  - runako 1y ago
    The US just signed a new law that will expand the deficit further. (I'll leave as an exercise to determine whether the increase from the law is > or < than the UN spend.) Your argument would have more purchase had not the administration committed to many years of larger deficits only a few weeks ago. A government that does not collect sufficient taxes to fund its priorities can somehow always claim that funds are scarce. But that's a) a choice and b) can be rectified any time by shifting priorities (see: military budget, for ex.) or collecting more revenue. It's fine to say "I don't care that there is a body where nations can defuse conflict without war," but it's disingenuous to pretend there simply is not money for it.
orblivion 1y ago
I used to say that HN was a place where very controversial opinions were respectfully discussed. Granted with some bias, but still a lot of tolerance for unpopular views. Even climate change skepticism or 2020 election skepticism. What got voted down was unwanted tone, essentially. Now it seems that the current administration is too much for people here to handle. I wonder if the mods have noticed the same thing, or maybe they support it at this point.
mbgerring 1y ago
Can you define “dysfunctional and does not work”
- glitchc 1y ago
  What has the UN achieved in the last 25 years?
foobarian 1y ago
The surface arguments for abandoning these kinds of programs (also USAID, recalling diplomats, bunch of research funding) seem straightforward: "there is a deficit, why pay all this money for ostensibly wasteful work, etc." Where I get frustrated is when the admin turns around and massively expands the deficit by throwing cargo ships full of money at other wasteful, in my opinon, programs. That tells me the fiscal responsibility talk was just a pretense to do another kind of money grab and "own the libs" at the same time. And at the end of the day the argument reduces to opinions on what is wasteful and what is not. Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what?
- glitchc 1y ago
  Yes, they are spending funds on things that matter to those that voted for them, and removing funds from things that don't. Sounds like a standard thing that happens in a democracy. When someone you vote for is in power, they will spend on things you prefer to fund instead. > Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what? Okay, what has it done that has aligned with US interests?
mjamil 1y ago
The UN was founded in the shadow of WWII to prevent further global conflicts. It also established a global standard for human rights and to provide a forum to uphold international law. It has also taken on roles to provide development and humanitarian assistance. Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding. With that context in mind, it's difficult to understand your perspective. You've only thrown out your opinion instead of facts, and then - in a preemptive defensive posture - claim any criticism will be insults or ad hominem attacks. You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?) If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century.
- glitchc 1y ago
  > Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding. The US is responsible for more than 25% of the UN's funding and is ~5-6x more than other members of the Security Council [1]. This is disproportionate to its obligations or its population. > You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?) Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft. > If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century. If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this. Truth is it never changed. It is still very much regional hegemons governing their parts of the world. The only difference being that the hegemonic boundaries are not defined by homogeneous geographic regions. If you read the world news carefully, you will realize that all conflicts are tied to the boundaries between two or more hegemons. [1] https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-government-donor https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-government-donor
Apocryphon 1y ago
You don’t think China, the Gulf states, hell, oil-rich Azerbaijan won’t pick up the slack for international legitimacy or national glory? And you think U.S. isolation from the League of Nations was the right move, too?
- glitchc 1y ago
  Let's see. We'll know soon won't we?
  - Apocryphon 1y ago
    Probably not, as even this administration is unlikely to leave the U.N. altogether. Withdrawing from UNESCO feels like “slashing the NPR/PBS budget” virtue-signaling.
marcosdumay 1y ago
> The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. Says the person using an international communication network orchestrated by the UN...
onetimeusename 1y ago
I am not sure it was ever very functional. I am not an expert on it at all but it seems like it had two purposes for the US. 1) prevent Nazis (i.e. another world war which metaphysically it seems people believe Right wing views are responsible for war which leads to very specific outcomes we see today) and 2) prevent countries from becoming communist by opening discussions with them. This article makes the case that the 1965 Immigration Act happened not because anyone in the US wanted it but because the State Dept. pressured Congress to pass it in order to make more allies with Third World countries https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/geopolitical-origins-us-immigration-act-1965 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/geopolitical-origins.... Basically the UN was used as a forum by countries to trash the US which it still is. The USSR propagandized against the US in the Third World. So honestly the whole UN experiment seems like it was kind of a foreign policy wonk experiment that didn't really serve the interests of US citizens especially now that the USSR fell. But I think the philosophical ideas behind it run very strong in elitist thought in the US. These are that 1) Nationalism is an ever present threat to global peace 2) social engineering should be used to prevent Nationalism/Nazis/etc. 3) Immigration is a tool for statecraft and limiting Nationalism in certain countries. 4) an enlightened class of smarter, educated people should be used to counter Nationalism. If any of these goals or assumptions are false the whole thing becomes useless.

monero-xmr 1y ago

[flagged]

ivell 1y ago
It is also the place where world opinion is shaped. West has majority of veto powers which it used to its advantage. West had also condemned other nations in the same forums in the past.

esseph 1y ago

Why is the US the only country in the world denying Israeli crimes in Gaza? That's how I know the UN no longer matters.

glitchc 1y ago
Because the rest of the world denies Palestinian crimes in Israel.
- pxc 1y ago
  Resistance of occupation, including violent resistance, is not a crime under international law.
  - ivell 1y ago
    War crimes conducted for the "violent resistance" does come under international law. There are rules of engagement all parties need to adhere to.
- esseph 1y ago
  The State of Israel spent so long fighting monsters that it became one.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    The State of Israel literally created the main “monster” it claims to be fighting (Hamas), abd did so for the specific purpose of splitting Palestinian opposition and having a less sympathetic enemy to weaken international criticism of its campaign to cleanse Palestine of Palestinians, which has been fairly overt policy since the occupation began.
- zipy124 1y ago
  That's a rather bold claim. For instance: Both Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have been sanctioned by the UK, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian civilians." And yet all of these countries also condemn Hamas and their atrocities....
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  They... don’t. The ICC sought warrants for both Israeli and Palestinian leaders (at least one of the Palestinian leaders was subsequently killed by Israel, rendering any charges moot, but the ICC wasn't ignoring the alleged crimes.) Similarly, many countries have sanctioned both Hamas (and/or other groups like PIJ, etc.) and/or individual Palestinians for acts against Israeli civilians as well as Israel and/or Israeli politicians for acts against Palestinian civilians.
bushbaba 1y ago
And the Syrian Druze? Christian Syrians. Anyone in the UN speaking up for them. Why just Gaza and not the other civilian casualty events.

lokar 1y ago

These arguments of the form “the US should not do X because of the deficit “ are either ill informed or disingenuous. Go look at where the money goes. This is not it.

Loughla 1y ago

You took out the comment about people howling about change. Why? That seemed the central thesis of your statement. I would argue that it's not practical to burn the current system down without a plan at all for the next system (like the ACA a few years ago. . .) My concern isn't change. My concern is the complete lack of concern for consequences. Like it or not, the US is and has been on the decline in terms of world authority. Leaving a power vacuum, like dismantling the UN, will just open the door for places like China to step in. You think that country has any amount of give a crap about humanity as a whole? Not even a little, I would argue. So, again, for many people, it's not that the UN is perfect (or even functional in my opinion). It's that there is, has been, and seems like there will never be an actual plan. Am I wrong?

glitchc 1y ago
> Leaving a power vacuum, like dismantling the UN, will just open the door for places like China to step in. You think that country has any amount of give a crap about humanity as a whole? Not even a little, I would argue. If China wants to foot the bill, let them. As I pointed out, the US hasn't been getting anything in return for the last 25 years of footing the bill, basically since 9/11. China cares about its people. They are currently fighting back against privilege and conspicuous consumption by the elites [1]. The CCP knows that an open revolt would destabilize their grip. After all, they themselves rode a populist wave into power. I think of it like the Tour de France. Sometimes to win the race you need to move into second place, conserve your resources, and let someone else face the headwinds. The comment about change felt like an ad hominem attack. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7827pwlro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7827pwlro
- zippothrowaway 1y ago
  > As I pointed out, the US hasn't been getting anything in return for the last 25 years of footing the bill, basically since 9/11 You pointed this out but provided no evidence. "I'm paying for these traffic lights with these taxes but all they do is slow me down"
- notahacker 1y ago

ivell 1y ago

While UN is not optimal and needs a revamp, it is an organization that has almost all countries of the world as members. There is no guarantee that a new organization is going to be any better. Once US leaves UN, why would any other country believe in US to build a better organization, especially seeing that the existing administration in US itself is chaotic.

ethbr1 1y ago
^ This is the primary meta argument against Trump foreign policy. If you screw your counterparty over in every negotiation, you erode trust and end up without allies. That’s fine in a business setting, if you’re self-capitalized (although Trump famously ran into issues after burning bridges with most banks), because you can do without them. It works less effectively in a forum of sovereign nations, where you’re going to need to deal with CountryX tomorrow and ten years from now. The US is ceding the soft power and web of alliances that are the basis of its economic and hard power. The US, without allies, loses to China strictly on the basis of population. “America first” is “America alone” with an orange spray tan.

Angostura 1y ago

You say “the UN doesn’t work” apparently because “working” means it being a source of soft power for the US. It had several remits, but its most important is probably the one to prevent a world war. It’s designed specifically as a talking shop to help countries find other ways of resolving disputes than kill people - and promote international understanding . It’s far from perfect, but in general it does a pretty good job.

dartharva 1y ago
> It’s far from perfect, but in general it does a pretty good job. The current state of the world would definitely beg to differ
- soperj 1y ago
  Prior to the creation of the UN we had 2 world wars in 25 years.
  - dartharva 1y ago
    And post the creation of the UN we have still had hundreds of wars (conveniently termed "armed conflicts") resulting in uncountable deaths.
- Angostura 1y ago
  It really wouldn’t
luckylion 1y ago
The UN didn't prevent another world war. If you'd want to include an organization, it'd be the UN security council, but not anything else of the UN. And realistically, it's nukes that prevented WW3. It's not a coincidence that the permanent members of the security council, the veto powers, all have nuclear weapons.
landl0rd 1y ago
American dollars shouldn’t go to things that aren’t sources of soft or hard power for us, and they should be clawed back from things that are sources of soft power for china.

Hikikomori 1y ago

They should put that UN money where it belongs, the MIC and more bombs for Israel, and why not add more the deficit. This isn't even a joke, its just what they're doing.

tehjoker 1y ago

The UN is dysfunctional because the US blocks every good thing it tries to do like the abomination of the security council vetoing resolutions to stop the US backed genocide in Gaza.

ethbr1 1y ago
It’s a bit incomplete to bring up Security Council vetoing without mentioning Russia (currently at war with a sovereign nation) and China (intent on war with a sovereign nation). The UNSC isn’t an arbitrator of good, but an alignment of hard UN outcomes with the first countries to have nukes (and therefore the ability to force the issue militarily if they disagreed with the UN).
- tehjoker 1y ago
  > China (intent on war with a sovereign nation). This is not proven. Why would China want to wreck Taiwan? Official US, Taiwanese, and Mainland China policy is that there is one China. Taiwan is like Texas being a breakaway republic run by confederates in the USA, though the culture has evolved in a more progressive direction (more progressive than USA) since the original breakup. > It’s a bit incomplete to bring up Security Council vetoing without mentioning Russia (currently at war with a sovereign nation) I'll give you that's bad, but at least it's a fight between nations and not a genocide. I believe the U.S. instigated this fight by advancing NATO territory eastward and my position is there should be peace negotiations immediately.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    > Why would China want to wreck Taiwan? For the same reasons most wars have been fought: belief (primacy of CCP), resources (uncontested access to the Pacific), and the economy (don’t worry about that, ra ra flag). > [Russia and Ukraine] not a genocide One of the definitions of genocide is forced relocation of children and eradication of culture, both of which Russia is doing in the Ukrainian territories it occupies.
glitchc 1y ago
Here's a list of vetoes at the UN Security Council: https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick All parties seem to be exercising their right, the US does not have a monopoly on it.

runako 1y ago

> when funds are scarce The US budget is ~$7T annually. There is $50B to spend deporting critical parts of our workforce. There is $1T in defense spending to ensure that we spend more than the next 9(!) militaries combined*. Et cetera. The US spends ~$18B supporting UN programs. This is ~0.003% of the federal budget. The point here is funds are not scarce, and in any case to the extent that one is concerned about spending, the UN spend is not the driver. The rest of your point is consistent, there's no need to use the red herring about lack of money. * I'm old enough to remember the end of the Cold War. Americans were told that as the Soviet threat withdrew, we could expect a "peace dividend" now that we didn't need to spend so much on defense. Inflation-adjusted, we spend more now than at the peak of the Cold War. Given the threat matrix today that includes fantasies such as "US land war against its third-largest trading partner" and the absurd "protracted war against a developing nation currently being fought to stalemate by a country smaller than California," I am not sure this increased spend makes sense. Seems like the only scenario that justifies our military spend is when a President decides to blow a wad of lives & cash in some utterly wasteful conflict.

pacoWebConsult 1y ago
The US ran a $1.8T deficit in 2024. That's objectively scarce funds. Even if the UN doesn't drive a significant portion of the spending, they do not serve the people that are going into debt to fund it.
- runako 1y ago
  The US just signed a new law that will expand the deficit further. (I'll leave as an exercise to determine whether the increase from the law is > or < than the UN spend.) Your argument would have more purchase had not the administration committed to many years of larger deficits only a few weeks ago. A government that does not collect sufficient taxes to fund its priorities can somehow always claim that funds are scarce. But that's a) a choice and b) can be rectified any time by shifting priorities (see: military budget, for ex.) or collecting more revenue. It's fine to say "I don't care that there is a body where nations can defuse conflict without war," but it's disingenuous to pretend there simply is not money for it.

orblivion 1y ago

I used to say that HN was a place where very controversial opinions were respectfully discussed. Granted with some bias, but still a lot of tolerance for unpopular views. Even climate change skepticism or 2020 election skepticism. What got voted down was unwanted tone, essentially. Now it seems that the current administration is too much for people here to handle. I wonder if the mods have noticed the same thing, or maybe they support it at this point.

mbgerring 1y ago

Can you define “dysfunctional and does not work”

glitchc 1y ago
What has the UN achieved in the last 25 years?

foobarian 1y ago

The surface arguments for abandoning these kinds of programs (also USAID, recalling diplomats, bunch of research funding) seem straightforward: "there is a deficit, why pay all this money for ostensibly wasteful work, etc." Where I get frustrated is when the admin turns around and massively expands the deficit by throwing cargo ships full of money at other wasteful, in my opinon, programs. That tells me the fiscal responsibility talk was just a pretense to do another kind of money grab and "own the libs" at the same time. And at the end of the day the argument reduces to opinions on what is wasteful and what is not. Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what?

glitchc 1y ago
Yes, they are spending funds on things that matter to those that voted for them, and removing funds from things that don't. Sounds like a standard thing that happens in a democracy. When someone you vote for is in power, they will spend on things you prefer to fund instead. > Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what? Okay, what has it done that has aligned with US interests?

mjamil 1y ago

The UN was founded in the shadow of WWII to prevent further global conflicts. It also established a global standard for human rights and to provide a forum to uphold international law. It has also taken on roles to provide development and humanitarian assistance. Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding. With that context in mind, it's difficult to understand your perspective. You've only thrown out your opinion instead of facts, and then - in a preemptive defensive posture - claim any criticism will be insults or ad hominem attacks. You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?) If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century.

glitchc 1y ago
> Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding. The US is responsible for more than 25% of the UN's funding and is ~5-6x more than other members of the Security Council [1]. This is disproportionate to its obligations or its population. > You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?) Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft. > If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century. If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this. Truth is it never changed. It is still very much regional hegemons governing their parts of the world. The only difference being that the hegemonic boundaries are not defined by homogeneous geographic regions. If you read the world news carefully, you will realize that all conflicts are tied to the boundaries between two or more hegemons. [1] https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-government-donor https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-government-donor

Apocryphon 1y ago

You don’t think China, the Gulf states, hell, oil-rich Azerbaijan won’t pick up the slack for international legitimacy or national glory? And you think U.S. isolation from the League of Nations was the right move, too?

glitchc 1y ago
Let's see. We'll know soon won't we?
- Apocryphon 1y ago
  Probably not, as even this administration is unlikely to leave the U.N. altogether. Withdrawing from UNESCO feels like “slashing the NPR/PBS budget” virtue-signaling.

marcosdumay 1y ago

> The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. Says the person using an international communication network orchestrated by the UN...

onetimeusename 1y ago

I am not sure it was ever very functional. I am not an expert on it at all but it seems like it had two purposes for the US. 1) prevent Nazis (i.e. another world war which metaphysically it seems people believe Right wing views are responsible for war which leads to very specific outcomes we see today) and 2) prevent countries from becoming communist by opening discussions with them. This article makes the case that the 1965 Immigration Act happened not because anyone in the US wanted it but because the State Dept. pressured Congress to pass it in order to make more allies with Third World countries https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/geopolitical-origins-us-immigration-act-1965 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/geopolitical-origins.... Basically the UN was used as a forum by countries to trash the US which it still is. The USSR propagandized against the US in the Third World. So honestly the whole UN experiment seems like it was kind of a foreign policy wonk experiment that didn't really serve the interests of US citizens especially now that the USSR fell. But I think the philosophical ideas behind it run very strong in elitist thought in the US. These are that 1) Nationalism is an ever present threat to global peace 2) social engineering should be used to prevent Nationalism/Nazis/etc. 3) Immigration is a tool for statecraft and limiting Nationalism in certain countries. 4) an enlightened class of smarter, educated people should be used to counter Nationalism. If any of these goals or assumptions are false the whole thing becomes useless.