Bill for US to leave the UN

[FaxModem1]

Business Insider

A bill has already been introduced in Congress to remove the US from the United Nations
Natasha Bertrand 23h 95,325
Donald Trump
Donald Trump speaking at a "thank you" tour event in Mobile, Alabama, in December.REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
A bill introduced by Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers earlier this month calls on the US to "terminate" its membership in the United Nations and effectively sever all ties with the organization.

The bill, titled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, was proposed on January 3. It is cosponsored by a handful of Republican lawmakers, including North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Tennessee Rep. John Duncan Jr., and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

Biggs said in a statement on Monday that he cosponsored the bill because he believes that "our sovereignty as a country is harmed by our membership in this body."

"We need to take a long look at our relationship with the United Nations to ensure that American interests are protected first and foremost," Biggs said. "I'm grateful to Congressman Mike Rogers for introducing this legislation."


Rogers and the bill's other cosponsors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The bill proposes barring the US from committing funds or troops to UN peacekeeping operations worldwide and stipulates that the UN must vacate property owned by the US government. It would repeal the 1973 Environment Program Participation Act, strip UN employees of diplomatic immunity in the US, and repeal the US's membership and participation in the World Health Organization.

The bill's language is strong, and it's an extreme long shot to garner the necessary support to pass the House and move on to the Senate. Rogers tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a similar bill in 2015.

"I suspect foreign governments will be more interested in what the administration does with regard to the UN," said Stephen Biddle, an adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

"This proposal doesn't strike me as something that's likely to rise above the noise," Biddle said, "but it does play into the administration's narrative about opposing multilateral institutions and withdrawing from global leadership roles."

Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University, said that the bill looks like messaging and "sheer position-taking" by Rogers to Trump voters. Rogers doesn't serve on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Binder noted, "and thus would have little opportunity, resources, or leverage to push his bill through."

Samantha Power
Samantha Power, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations.REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
President Donald Trump has characterized the UN as "just a club for people to get together, talk, and have a good time" and promised that relations between the US and the UN "will be different" during his presidency.

Trump's criticism of the organization came after the UN Security Council passed a resolution in late December calling on Israel to halt building settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Trump, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urged the US to vote against the resolution, which was sponsored by Egypt. But the US ultimately abstained, and the resolution passed.

Many Republican lawmakers have accused the UN of having an "anti-Israel" bias that aims to isolate and weaken the Jewish state. Arizona Sen. John McCain said the UN vote marked "another shameful chapter in the bizarre anti-Israel history of the United Nations." House Speaker Paul Ryan called the vote "absolutely shameful" and vowed that "our unified Republican government" would work to reverse the resolution.

Few, if any, mainstream Republican lawmakers have gone as far as to advocate a full withdrawal of the US from the UN. In 2015, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he thought he'd be "happy to dissolve" the UN because he didn't like "paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States."

But some have said they would support defunding the organization, which received $594 million - roughly 22% of its total budget - from the US in 2016.

Earlier this month, BuzzFeed reported that the House Freedom Caucus was drafting a bill, proposed by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, to sever financial ties with the organization. Republican Sens. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and McCain said that they would support the initiative.

"I anticipate this vote will create a backlash in Congress against the United Nations," Graham said in a statement shortly after the Israel resolution passed. "The United Nations will regret this vote and I hope the Obama administration will realize the massive mistake they made on their way out of the door."

Nikki Haley, Trump's pick to replace Samantha Power as the US ambassador to the UN, said during her Senate confirmation hearing last week that the UN is a body that is "often at odds with American national interests," and called the US's decision to abstain from the Israel vote "a terrible mistake."

She said that while the US should reexamine its "disproportionate" financial contribution to the UN, she doesn't think there should be "a slash and burn" of the US's support for the organization.

"I want to bring back faith in the UN," Haley said. "I want to show that we can be a strong voice at the UN. I want to show that we can make progress and have action at the UN."

So, thoughts?

[Tribble]

What are the odds of this passing? And if it does, how much would it matter?

I think the UN is worthwhile overall, though I must admit parts of it are a joke - just look at the UN Human Rights Council for instance.

[Dragon Angel]

I wonder how this would affect Israel and Palestine. The United States has been a key obstacle in Palestine's recognition... Would this torpedo any influence it has in such decisions now?

If so, would the United States have any power whatsoever if Palestine decided to petition again?

[Zixinus]

From what I can figure out, this is really just theatre and not a real, serious plan. It's meant to make underhanded move to drag the argument down to showing force and power (you make the decisions we want you to make or we'll pull the money out!), as well as spitting on another one of Obama's decisions. Whether it would actualy be done if it was passed is another issue.

The UN's primary purpouse is to have a common, public diplomatic platform for all nations. It works as that, mostly. When it tries to be more, that's when it usually fails either due to impotence or sabotage.

[Tribble]

I wonder how this would affect Israel and Palestine. The United States has been a key obstacle in Palestine's recognition... Would this torpedo any influence it has in such decisions now?

If so, would the United States have any power whatsoever if Palestine decided to petition again?

I imagine Palestine may become a UN member and that there would be more UN resolutions and sanctions against Israel. This is as far as I will go with regards to that topic as I want to avoid derailing this thread and turning it into yet another Israel v Palestine debate.

From what I can figure out, this is really just theatre and not a real, serious plan. It's meant to make underhanded move to drag the argument down to showing force and power (you make the decisions we want you to make or we'll pull the money out!), as well as spitting on another one of Obama's decisions. Whether it would actualy be done if it was passed is another issue.

The UN's primary purpouse is to have a common, public diplomatic platform for all nations. It works as that, mostly. When it tries to be more, that's when it usually fails either due to impotence or sabotage.

I agree and I don't think that this will pass. If it did, what kind of impact would a US withdrawal have on the rest of the world?

[The Romulan Republic]

At this rate, the US is going to be regarded by the rest of the world as an NK-esque rogue state before long.

And yeah, Palestine would benefit from this. On the other hand, with the US veto removed (much as I dislike the veto power altogether), the UN would likely effectively become a mouthpiece for Russian and/or Chinese interests in many ways.

Hell, maybe Putin gave his new Republican buddies the go-ahead on this. Okay, maybe not, but he certainly stands to benefit.

[Elheru Aran]

This is one of those things that get rolled out with every new President. Same thing with a few of the executive orders that got signed the other day-- those were things that tend to get flipped with every change of party from what I understand.

The difference is this has to pass Congress, and there are still enough Democrats to make it problematic for them to simply majority-vote it out.

[The Romulan Republic]

True, but at the end of the day, if GOP unity in Congress holds, they can shove through whatever the hell they want, with literally the only real obstacle being a Democratic filibuster.

So the question is:

a) How many Republicans would object to this in the current climate of insane partisanship, Russian collaboration, and Republican UNLIMITED POWWWARR!!!?

And b) How many of those Republicans will be swayed to support it anyway by the need to appear sufficiently Right wing reactionary to their nut job primary base?

[Terralthra]

This bill has been introduced in every Congress since 1997. Even when the House and Senate were Republican-controlled before, it never even got out of committee. Nonsense bills get introduced all the time. Do a little research, then save your energy for the real fights.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is that past Republican Congresses were:

a) Not quite so radical, and b) Not representative of a party in semi-open collusion with Vladimir Putin.

I hope you're right and it'll go nowhere. But I do think their is more reason for concern this time around.

[mr friendly guy]

What are the odds of this passing? And if it does, how much would it matter?

I think the UN is worthwhile overall, though I must admit parts of it are a joke - just look at the UN Human Rights Council for instance.

Arguably the most important aspect of the UN in terms of geopolitics is to stop the big powers going to a hot war with each other, since they can negotiate in the UN. They might get into a war with another power's client state, but not a hot war with each other. In that respect, aside from China's intervention in the Korea war, the UN has done its job. Arguably that is a plus for the UN since the PRC did not get the seat reserved for "China" at the time. That seat was held by Taiwan at the time. Moreover China wasn't a big power then.

If and as unlikely as that sounds, the US leaves the UN, that removes one barrier to a hot war happening. However the fact that other powers also have nukes, would most probably be a stronger deterrent against a hot war happening between the great powers.

[Knife]

I say the Dems should sit this fight out and watch the GOPers squirm when it either comes close to passing or passes.

[Simon_Jester]

Given that the bill has to pass both the Senate and the House, and I would think it does...

YES. I really, really think that the Republican party 'back bench,' along with the party leadership, needs to grasp that making stupid proposals that will damage the country is a bad idea. I am not sure they actually grasp this at the moment. Because they've spent the last six to eight years as the dubiously-loyal opposition to a Democrat-dominated government. During this time they spent basically every single moment from start to finish trying to bring down said Democrat-dominated government.

Well, they've succeeded. The dog has managed to find one more burst of speed, and has latched its teeth onto the car's bumper. At which point the dog has to ponder the eternal question:

Now what the hell do I do?

A lot of the answers are unsatisfactory.

The mindset that led the dog to chase the car is not compatible with the dog managing to avoid getting its fool neck broken after catching the car.

Likewise, there is a certain mindset that carried the Republicans to this position of power. That brought them here. With Donald Trump at the helm of the most powerful position in the government. Because the Republican Party has been systematically preparing a Donald Trump-shaped hole for him to step into, by encouraging their base to vote for "tough men" who have the trappings of wealth, and who lie big and lie often. A lot of the people who thought Bush Junior would make a good president probably think, by simple extrapolation, that Trump will make a great president. Why wouldn't he? He's a bigger version of the same thing- bigger wallet, bigger bankruptcies, bigger bullshitting, bigger id, bigger ego.

So again, there is a mindset that brought the Republican Party to this place. And continuing to use this mindset is not compatible with the party, and the nation, avoiding getting our collective neck broken.

It is a truism that elections have consequences, and one of the consequences is that if you win big, you have only yourself to blame if bad things happen. Finding a cheap way to teach at least a few congressional Republicans this lesson would be a very, very good idea.

[Terralthra]

Sigh. I don't think anyone here pays any real attention to the House of Representatives. Nonsense bills get introduced all the time. They don't go anywhere because everyone knows they're nonsense bills. Seriously, this bill has been proposed in every Congress since the 105th Congress, 20 years ago. Some rep with an isolationist bent (previously Rep. Ron Paul, usually) proposes it, it gets referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the committee never bothers to discuss or vote on it, and it dies.

This happens every legislative session, with a bunch of bills, by both parties. Seriously, there are major problems right now, and you focus on a garbage bill that some Alabama fucktard proposed for pure grandstanding?

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe it'll be the same, but do you understand that this is taking place in very unusual political circumstances?

No one thought Brexit would happen. They were wrong.

No one thought Trump would win. They were wrong.

We are facing a level of Republican dominance we haven't had in many years, by a Republican Party that has abandoned all pretence of responsible, bi-paritsan government, and is rapidly abandoning any pretence of being interested in accountable, democratic, or law-abiding government, or even basic patriotism (thanks for the win, Vladimir!) as well.

So can you understand why some of us might be concerned that the unthinkable has now become possible?

[Terralthra]

Maybe it'll be the same, but do you understand that this is taking place in very unusual political circumstances?

No one thought Brexit would happen. They were wrong.

Incorrect. Polling indicated a close race all along.

No one thought Trump would win. They were wrong.

Incorrect. Polling indicated a close race, with 538 giving Trump around a 37% chance the day of the election.

We are facing a level of Republican dominance we haven't had in many years, by a Republican Party that has abandoned all pretence of responsible, bi-paritsan government, and is rapidly abandoning any pretence of being interested in accountable, democratic, or law-abiding government, or even basic patriotism (thanks for the win, Vladimir!) as well.

So can you understand why some of us might be concerned that the unthinkable has now become possible?

You mean other than the 108th and 109th Congress in 2003 through 2006, when both the House and Senate were Republican-controlled with a Republican President? Let's see, what happened then?

In 2003, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 was introduced by Ron Paul, R-TX. It was referred to the House Committee on International Relations, where it was never debated nor brought for a committee vote.

In 2005, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005 was introduced by Ron Paul, R-TX. He made a brief speech. It was referred to the House Committee on International Relations, where it was never debated nor brought for a committee vote.

Now, in 2017, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005 was introduced by Mike Rogers, R-AL. It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has not scheduled any debate nor a committee vote.

Hm, are you perhaps sensing a pattern? Introducing bills has practically zero cost for a member of Congress, and a bill like this - guaranteed not to move - is solely for grandstanding and getting attention, which you are giving it. Stop.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding polling, it was my understanding that Brexit was generally expected to lose. Their were even, as I recall, people who acknowledged that they voted for it as a protest vote, not expecting it to pass.

As to Trump... certainly he was dismissed by many until quite late in the primaries, and even in the general election, while their were periods where the polling was very close, Clinton was frequently far in the lead, while Trump never lead by much except in outliers. I will also point out that 538's estimation of Hillary Clinton's chances was among the more conservative by their own admission.

Edit: In any case, the point remains that Brexit happened, and Trump happened. The rabid isolationists are rising, and emboldened. That is the context in which these fears exist.

[FireNexus]

Regarding polling, it was my understanding that Brexit was generally expected to lose. Their were even, as I recall, people who acknowledged that they voted for it as a protest vote, not expecting it to pass.

As to Trump... certainly he was dismissed by many until quite late in the primaries, and even in the general election, while their were periods where the polling was very close, Clinton was frequently far in the lead, while Trump never lead by much except in outliers. I will also point out that 538's estimation of Hillary Clinton's chances was among the more conservative by their own admission.

Edit: In any case, the point remains that Brexit happened, and Trump happened. The rabid isolationists are rising, and emboldened. That is the context in which these fears exist.

Trump and Brexit polled well within the margin of error. Nobody thought they would happen because they were disregarding the evidence that they might because they were such unpleasant and unusual possibilities.

If you were to poll the entire congress, both parties, regarding whether the US should leave the United Nations, it would not be anywhere near "Yes". The GOP has gradually moved to crazier and crazier territory in the last few decades, but "leave the world stage entirely" is still a fringe position even in their party. Show me evidence that a near majority of just GOP legislators are willing to vote yes on this, and we can start to be alarmed.

If you continue to say "Nobody thought Trump/Brexit would win" anytime something bad is brought up as a possibility, without reserving it for times when the actual data (and not your feeling based on the GOP caricature you seem to place in your mental model of Republican members of congress) implies we're too close for comfort, you're going to become the boy who cried Brexit and even if you end up being right people will happily continue ignoring the danger because you tend to overreact to every possible danger like it's your first election after joining the high school progressive club.

[Ralin]

If you were to poll the entire congress, both parties, regarding whether the US should leave the United Nations, it would not be anywhere near "Yes". The GOP has gradually moved to crazier and crazier territory in the last few decades, but "leave the world stage entirely" is still a fringe position even in their party. Show me evidence that a near majority of just GOP legislators are willing to vote yes on this, and we can start to be alarmed.

If the US left the United Nations I don't think that would mean leaving the world stage. I think it would mean a sharp rise in Trump giving the United Nations as a whole and its members in particular orders backed by threats.

[Zixinus]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't leaving the UN actually weaken the US due to creating isolation? The US has controlling power in the UN with things like being members of the security council.

[Ralin]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't leaving the UN actually weaken the US due to creating isolation? The US has controlling power in the UN with things like being members of the security council.

To people who believe in non threat and bribe based diplomacy, yes that does seem likely.

[LaCroix]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't leaving the UN actually weaken the US due to creating isolation? The US has controlling power in the UN with things like being members of the security council.

I would weaken Israel, for sure, for it would allow the UN to place sanctions on them, officially. The Us could try throwing their weight around and keep people from embargoing them, but if the UN countries go ahead and do so, Israel would not be a happy camper, even it the US try to increase trade with Israel to provide the needs.

Right now, the US can protect Israel by simply saying "No" repeatedly. After leaving the UN, it would cost money.