Realists, Not Globalists: What U.S. Critics Get Wrong About the U.N.

Realists, Not Globalists: What U.S. Critics Get Wrong About the U.N.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley at a Security Council debate on trafficking, New York, March 15, 2017 (EuropaNewswire photo by Luiz Rampelotto via AP).

If you want to write about the United Nations these days, you need a thick skin.

The Trump administration’s decision to cut funding to the U.N. in its first proposed federal budget, announced last week, has unleashed a vitriolic argument in the U.S. about the organization and its values. This is not new. The American left and right have long debated the U.N. in heated terms, often with little reference to what it really does.

This debate last peaked a decade ago, after the Security Council refused to endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The darker corners of American bookstores were soon lined with anti-multilateral screeds with titles such as “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N. Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights.” As an aspiring U.N. researcher at the time, albeit one without any designs on America’s firearms, I had a closeted addiction to this dross.

Keep reading for free.

Register below for instant access to the rest of this article (no credit card required). You'll also get our free newsletters and two pieces of expert analysis each month. Simply click one of the icons below to instantly login with a social account, or use your email address:
Or skip to premium access for just $12 for the first 12 weeks.
After 12 weeks you'll be charged $77 annually.