3 ms·

The U.S. is actively hostile to the UN as an entity, and to what it stands for, and has been for a long, long time - now, the mask has come off.

gottorf 1mo ago
> the UN as an entity, and to what it stands for What do you imagine the UN stands for? Let's not make the mistake of judging a program by its name or intention and not by its output. Mind you, this is the same UN on whose Human Rights Council sat such eminent proponents of human rights as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Cuba. Besides, the US historically funded about a third of the UN, out of 193 member states. It's farcical to suggest that the US is "actively hostile" to the thing that wouldn't even exist without its backing.
- madaxe_again 1mo ago
  The UN stands for the UN charter - which the U.S. was a signatory of, of course - but from the 70’s onwards, US support for the UN waned to the point where we are today, where a withdrawal is not inconceivable. As to what specifically the U.S. has opposed… The Vienna convention. ICESCR. CEDAW. UNCLOS. Basel convention. Migrant workers convention. Convention on biodiversity. Convention on rights of the child (even North Korea signed this one, but the U.S. opposed it, still does). Comprehensive test ban treaty. Ottawa, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions. Convention on cluster munitions. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (separate to the TBT). BBNJ/High seas treaty. Finally, the Paris agreement. This isn’t even an exhaustive list. Just realised I forgot about the Rome statute and the ICC. Oh and the arms trade treaty. And the framework convention on climate change. The UN is supposed to be a supranational authority over all nations. The U.S. views it as a blunt force instrument to use against others, but disregards its authority in almost all respects. It’s even codified in the constitution, as passing a UN treaty requires a ⅔ majority of senators present, unlike any other type of legislation which just needs a legislative majority. Finally, in January this year, the U.S. left 31 entities such as UNESCO, the WHO, and the HRC. So, what part of reality is farcical to you?
  - drnick1 1mo ago
    > The UN is supposed to be a supranational authority over all nations. It's not. It's mostly a U.S. institution. And those 31 entities that you mentioned are expensive and useless to Americans.
    - madaxe_again 1mo ago
      Fuck yes man, nuke the children.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]

gottorf 1mo ago

> the UN as an entity, and to what it stands for What do you imagine the UN stands for? Let's not make the mistake of judging a program by its name or intention and not by its output. Mind you, this is the same UN on whose Human Rights Council sat such eminent proponents of human rights as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Cuba. Besides, the US historically funded about a third of the UN, out of 193 member states. It's farcical to suggest that the US is "actively hostile" to the thing that wouldn't even exist without its backing.

madaxe_again 1mo ago
The UN stands for the UN charter - which the U.S. was a signatory of, of course - but from the 70’s onwards, US support for the UN waned to the point where we are today, where a withdrawal is not inconceivable. As to what specifically the U.S. has opposed… The Vienna convention. ICESCR. CEDAW. UNCLOS. Basel convention. Migrant workers convention. Convention on biodiversity. Convention on rights of the child (even North Korea signed this one, but the U.S. opposed it, still does). Comprehensive test ban treaty. Ottawa, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions. Convention on cluster munitions. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (separate to the TBT). BBNJ/High seas treaty. Finally, the Paris agreement. This isn’t even an exhaustive list. Just realised I forgot about the Rome statute and the ICC. Oh and the arms trade treaty. And the framework convention on climate change. The UN is supposed to be a supranational authority over all nations. The U.S. views it as a blunt force instrument to use against others, but disregards its authority in almost all respects. It’s even codified in the constitution, as passing a UN treaty requires a ⅔ majority of senators present, unlike any other type of legislation which just needs a legislative majority. Finally, in January this year, the U.S. left 31 entities such as UNESCO, the WHO, and the HRC. So, what part of reality is farcical to you?
- drnick1 1mo ago
  > The UN is supposed to be a supranational authority over all nations. It's not. It's mostly a U.S. institution. And those 31 entities that you mentioned are expensive and useless to Americans.
  - madaxe_again 1mo ago
    Fuck yes man, nuke the children.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]