The idea of the US withdrawal from the UN is becoming more and more popular in this country. In fact, the White House has not been making mystery of being irked by its UN membership: several years ago, the US even stopped paying its yearly due into the organisation budget, doubting its tax-payers money was spent for a good cause, but not for maintenance of UN functionaries. However, it was obvious Washington just wanted to show who is the real master of the situation. But the game was spoiled a bit by television magnate Ted Turner, who paid the US debts before the UN from his own means. Though, this altruism cannot last eternally. All the more today, when this is the United Nations Organisation, which first of all hinders the US from launching a war against Iraq. Whether the UN attempts in this field are fruitful is not clear. Nevertheless, if not for most of the UN members, the war would have been started long ago.
Washington certainly cannot so easily withdraw from the organisation. For all that, the US was in its time one of the countries, which initiated the UN creation. Though, the world situation was different in 1940-1950s. When the US and the USSR were opposed to each other, the UN was an arena of the two super-powers collision. An endless diplomatic game in the organisation lobby was one of the elements of this fight for influence.
Today, the US simply does not need it. It has become the only superpower, which is able to defend its interests in almost any point of the planet, so the US more and more feels the burden of the obstacles the UN puts in its way. In fact, the UN has no mechanism to settle difficult conflict situations: let us at least remember bombardments of Yugoslavia, when the UN was practically a kind of supernumerary. Though, tradition and inertia are still in power. So, Washington still pretends the UN opinion is important for it, however the White House does not keep back its irritation with the Security Council malcontents.
According to democratic traditions, the withdrawal from the UN must be initiated from the bottom, i.e. from “average American citizens.” This part is plaid by the John Birch Society. The organisation, since it was founded in 1958, speaks in support of the US withdrawal from the UN. The high time for the Birchist idea seems to have come: both parts interests contradict to each other, so the UN is dangerous for Americans.
The John Birch Society initiated consideration of the US withdrawal from the UN by Utah and Idaho Houses of Representatives. And lawmakers did not fail to live up to the society members hope: at least, one of Utah Chamber of Representatives committees supported the initiative.
This process will most likely pick up speed. The moment the John Birch Society has chosen is very good: the White House will for sure feel sympathy with “public opinion,” for this opinion coincides with the US administration “general line,” while the US administration is completely sure of its activities legitimacy (and of its own impeccability, too).
It is superfluous to forecast, what will happen with the UN, in case the US withdraws from it: the organisation will simply die a slaw death.
Vasily Bubnov PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Vera Solovieva
Read the original in Russian: http://world.pravda.ru/world/2003/5/16/43/7361_UN.html
The behavior of the Russian inspector satellite, which was launched in the autumn of 2017, puzzles military officials in the United States
Ukrainian bloggers draw a parallel between the events in East Timor and the Crimea. Any comparison has a right to exist, but a detailed analysis of the situation does not give a promising forecast to Ukraine
Vladimir Putin is planning to attend the wedding ceremony of Austria's Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl on the way to Berlin