A bill to pull America out of the United Nations has been proposed. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act would completely remove the U.S. from the United Nations and pull out all U.S. funding for the body.
According to Snopes.com there have been efforts to pull the United States out of the UN since the UN was created in 1945. This bill has been put before the house every year for the last 20 years, but has languished in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and never made it to a vote.
But it is a good idea?
While there are other reasons to support or oppose the UN unrelated to the issue of Islamist extremism, Islamist regimes and their supporters have used the United Nations as a means of advancing their agendas and covering up their human rights violations.
We assess the pros and cons of the United Nations through the lens of tackling radical Islam.
The United Nations re-elected Saudi Arabia to a seat on its human rights council (UNHRC) this November. This empowers Saudi Arabia to vote on issues of how the UN fights for human rights globally. This is a country where women are not allowed to drive, where critics of the regime face imprisonment, lashes or worse and where the state-sanctioned Wahhabi creed is allowed free reign to govern according to its draconian interpretation of sharia law.
The mechanism for selection, in which countries are put forward in regional groups, meant that Saudi Arabia was elected unopposed, since the Asia group put forward only four countries for four places. If the UNHRC has countries like Saudi Arabia on it, what’s the point in having such a council at all?
UN engagement has also failed to reign in Iran. UN Security Council resolution 2231 “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” Yet in defiance of this resolution, Iran has continued to develop ballistic missiles which are “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” according to a report by the United States, Britain and Germany.
Iran, protected by Russia at the UN, was able to claim these tests do not violate the resolution.
These two example, among many, show that the UN is clearly incapable of enforcing its own standards and holding Islamist regimes to account.
The system has instead become one that provides the veneer of legitimacy to these governments. Far from moderating them, it actively encourages their crimes.
This must be stopped.
The UN provides an international framework whereby all countries can come together to try and make the world a more peaceful place. Of course it isn’t perfect. But it’s the best — and only — system we have.
The network of watchdog organizations, human rights committees, rapporteurs and others that staff the UN provide the basic infrastructure essential to holding Islamist regimes and groups to account.
Through the UN, former Secretary General Ban Ki Moon was able to raise and document reports that Iran had violated a weapons embargo by funneling money to Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran, Asma Jahangir, records Iran’s unjust detentions and treatment of activists, so that others can hold Iran to account.
UNICEF Somalia has spearheaded the local struggle against female genital mutilation (read Clarion Project’s eye-opening interview with the head of UNICEF Somalia, Sheema Sen Gupta).
The UN Refugee Agency registers and looks after refugees from the Syrian Civil war and other conflicts involving jihadi terrorism, providing humanitarian aid for hundreds of thousands of people.
Without that assistance, the impact of jihadi terrorism would be far greater that it already is.
There are many ways in which the UN could improve. But to reject the organization entirely robs us of a vital institution which is invaluable in the struggle against radical Islam.
Should the US leave the UN? Send your thoughts to [email protected]