UN-Necessary

The limited good works of the United Nations don't outweigh the anti-Western tilt that has occurred over the past 50 years. It's bias, incompetence, corruption, and overall ineffectiveness are the sad results of a reasonable idea that went bad.

The UN will never change. In fact, its advocacy for rogue regimes, its championing of perpetual pseudo-victims (i.e., the palestinians), its hypocritical organizations (e.g., the "Human Right's Council) that allow oppressive regimes (e.g., Libya or Iran) to go without sanction but imply that liberal democracies are international outlaws (e.g., the recent anti-Israel resolution), its bloated bureaucracy populated by do-nothing functionaries on perpetual vacation in The Big Apple, it's obvious corruption and inability to perform its role as "peacekeeper" are all an acknowledged part of its sordid history.

When the U.N does something particularly egregious, I have thoughts of advocating that all U.S. funding should be pulled or of quitting the organization outright. But that would be a mistake—not because the UN is a beacon of hope in a troubled world. It isn't. In fact, more often than not, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution. But it's long past time that the United States change its relationship with the U.N.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Reduce our financial support to the average of annual dollars committed by each of the five security council members. The U.S currently pays about $3 billion out of a $5.4 billion UN budget. That's more than 185 members countries combined. The taxpayers of the United States have no obligation to fund an organization that generally works against their interests, and to do it generously. Donald Trump—please take note.

2. Ask the United Nations to move its headquarters out of the United States. Here are a few possibilities for the new location that would meet the needs of the current U.N. anti-Western mindset:

• Tehran, Iran—where female bureaucrats could walk the streets in Burkas, or
• Moghidishu, Somalia—where armed gangs might help UN bureaucrats to better understand what oppression actually feels like, or
• Tripoli, Libya—where the UN would have a wonderful opportunity to explore a failed state close up, or 
• Lagos, Nigeria—where U.N. officials would be close to Boko Haram so that they might better understand "violent extremists" who traffic in child sex slaves, or
• Gaza City—where the UN security council could pass still more anti-Israel resolutions as they experience the palestinians' inability to govern themselves, or
• Caracas, Venezuela—where UN officials can study the wonders of the socialist model as they stand in food lines and avoid violent mobs protesting a loss of economic and political freedom, or
• Pyongyang, North Korea—where UN officials could examine just how ineffective their sanctions really are, or
• Cali, Mexico where UN officials can experience the wreckage wrought by the international drug cartels up-close and personal.

There are so many wonderful site locations in the emerging world, it should leave U.N. officials breathless with anticipation for the move.

3. Finally, hold the U.N. accountable for its actions and commitments. The U.N. is very good at selectively holding accountable those countries that are out of favor, so why not demand accountability from the U.N? For example, as part of an incentive to stop Israel from crushing the Islamic terrorist organization, Hezballah, UN "peacekeepers" committed to stopping missiles from being smuggled into southern Lebanon. Why not establish a financial penalty, say $100,000 per missile that would be paid to the aggrieved party (i.e., Israel) for each missile that slips through due to the U.N.'s purposeful incompetence? There are thought to be 40,000 Iranian missiles that the U.N. has allowed to be smuggled into Lebanon? That would be ... what? $4 billion dollars in penalties paid to Israel. That's about 3/4 of the U.N.'s annual budget. I suspect it might get the attention of the corrupt, incompetent fools who were supposed to meet their obligation to Israel. Then again, maybe not.

For those who believe that good intentions are far more important than actual results, the U.N. is a true winner. It exemplifies the idealistic notion that there really is "an international community" that will work together against those who want to do ill. Unfortunately, the real bad guys skate while those who do have good intentions and a liberal society under the rule of law tend to be demonized.

It's time we change our relationship with the U.N. Consider my proposal as a starting point.