Withdraw from the U.N.?

That would be Bad, I believe

This article, from Capitalism Magazine, by Edwin Feulner in 2003, thinks the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N., and that, barring that, the U.N. charter should be changed to allow "vital interests" to be a reason to go to war instead of "self-defense," even when the war is pre-emptive.

He also says, "The United Nations also risks becoming a debating society because the countries that pay next to nothing have the same power as the countries that contribute the most. The United States, for example, provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s general operating budget. By contrast, France, Great Britain, China and Russia combined contribute less than 15 percent. However, as members of the Security Council, each of those nations enjoys veto power over the U.S."

Finally, he says "the U.N. needs to start taking its job as international human rights watchdog seriously. In 2001, the United States was removed from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We're back on now. But today, Libya chairs the commission."

Responding to Mr. Feulner:
I disagree with him on all 4 of these points.
1) The U.S. withdrawing from the U.N. would be a cowardly and selfish thing to do. The U.N. has high ideals, and works high-mindedly to make a better world. If our leading economists and politicians believe we could better serve the world by withdrawing, they better damn well make a cogent case, instead of "we're not getting our way, so we're going to withdraw."

The article says something about moving the U.N. headquarters to Baghdad from New York. This is the first I've heard of this. Is this the U.S. planning to abandon the U.N.? I hope, on the contrary, it is a move toward making the body less U.S. dominated. It serves the people, and the people are largely poor. The U.S. only accounts for x % of the world population. It accounts for x% of the world's wealth. The world needs us.

2) I think only "self-defense" should be a U.N. approved reason for going to war. Pre-emptive defense of a nation's "vital interests" is just too flimsy, when leaders can define that however they want. The whole world has a vital interest in safety, so that automatically pre-empts war, in my opinion.

3) His logic is flawed, in that the U.N. doesn't risk becoming a debating society because higher paying countries can be vetoed by lower paying ones. Action requires consensus, and effective leaders can build that consensus. Humanity all wants pretty much the same thing. Operating on that principle, I believe the U.N. can be an extraordinarily effective institution. Also, contribution to budget shouldn't necessarily define priorities of action for the body. Can't we all agree to focus on reducing suffering?

4) There's nothing wrong with Libya chairing, if however hypocritically, the human rights commission....as long as the most improvement possible comes from it. Maybe if Libya set the standard, despite it's past, it would be setting the best example. On the other hand, if a self-righteous America, which many in the world hate, chaired the commission, we would just draw criticism for our own human-rights problems, such as in jails/prisons, or with the detainees in Cuba.