I’m trying to be rational about this, but I must admit, I could have easily framed this in one of the “Confronting My Biases” posts. I was emotionally through with the U.N. when it stood back and allowed the U.S. to virtually go it alone in Iraq, though Saddam Hussein had breached the cease-fire agreement by blocking U.N. inspections. It was also clear that U.N. officials were taking bribes from Iraq to undermine blockades of the country. What has the U.N. done for peace and security lately? It didn’t stop Putin from invading Ukraine twice. It not only did nothing to support Israel after Hamas’s terror attack, it has been aggressively anti-Isreal since, while U.N. workers have been outed as pro-Hamas agents. The membership is largely hostile to the U.S. and U.S. interests. Why should this country pay to support a largely useless, anti-American organization whose goal is world governance?
Your first Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of February is…
Would it be unethical to let the United Nations go under?
On the other side of the argument, having an international organization with the U.N.’s mission is obviously a good idea. The question is how much it is worth to the nation, ours, to keep it going. I regard the U.N. as a slightly more defensible use of taxpayer funds than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Ethics Alarms 
[T]he United States also owes the United Nations … $43.6 million for tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, said the senior U.N. official in the briefing.
Hahahahaha.
My take on this issue is from a perspective of realpolitik, which prioritizes national interests and power balance over ideology and ethics.
How has the United Nations advanced the interests of the United States and its allies such as Israel in the last decades? The truth of the matter is that the UN advances the interests of declared enemies of the United States and Israel, such as Hamas and Iran. The United Nations is worse than useless when it comes to protection of human rights, as its actions are not informed by ethics but by political interests of its members. Example: the obsession of the UN with Israel compared with the indifference to massacres in Iran and Nigeria. I do not see how neither the actions nor the existence of the UN are in the interest of the USA. So my preference would be to starve the UN of resources and stay in the UN and on the Security Counsel to paralyze this organization to prevent the UN from doing anything harmful.
You can make the following ethical arguments to justify throttling the UN: 1) the UN is an unethical organization e.g. rife with antisemitism 2) the USA government has a higher ethical responsibility to the interests of the USA and its people (the MAGA argument).
Just like my subscription to Netflix, the US has a contractual annual subscription to the UN’s services regardless of the benefits or lack of. The debt should be paid. Especially now when our international goodwill isn’t at its peak. If we wish to no longer fund the UN we need to clearly state the intention to stop, not just be grumpy when we get the bill sent to the debt collectors. I do realize it’s complicated, but in its simplest form this is a debt the US has committed to and didn’t announce its intention to stop as far as I’m aware. If it did, then we can happily not pay the UN fees we cancelled.
I could make a breach of contract and good faith argument. Has the UN fulfilled its commitments or honestly pursued its mission? The usual penalty for not paying dues is that the member is kicked out of the club. “Go ahead, make my day!”
Non-payment makes a pretty clear statement.
1) the UN is an unethical organization e.g. rife with antisemitism.
If someday someone actually describes fairly how Israel was re-founded, and the extent of the errors and crimes it had to commit to reestablish itself, then the topic of Israel in realpolitik terms could be discussed fairly and productively. That is not the case however, so all opposition to the US collusion with Israel cannot ever be addressed rationally.
Israel (and Jewry generally) always place themselves at the center of things and always assume a role in all matters. Especially controversial ones. So, it follows that Israel (the primary Jewish project of the 20th century) will get focus that other nations won’t.
My question about the UN is: What will be the effects on a world PR level if the Trump admin declares it will not longer fund UN? How could the ethical question be answered if the ramifications are not addressed?
let it go under, than Mamdani can use the building to house the illegal imigrants of his sanctuary city.
The United Nations only did anything of worth in Korea, when taking action didn’t break on the wall of Soviet vetoes. It hasn’t achieved anything since then except being a forum for terrorists and tyrants to air their hate-spew. Remember Arafat addressing the UN with a gun at his side? How about Hugo Chavez saying he could still smell the hellfire and brimstone when he spoke after GWB? Then there were all the parking scofflaws. The international criminal court was threatened as a destination for GWB and his lieutenants to stand in the dock, but they never talked about sending a squad car or two over to Afghanistan to pick bin Laden up. The sooner this organization picks up and tows ass out of NYC, the better.
Having a trustworthy organization with the UN’s mission would be worth it. But whatever the UN’s putative mission, its true mission today is to bash Western civilization, launder money (including to terrorist groups), and provide prestigious sinecures to the useless children of the global ruling class.
There’s just no value in that for us.
”How about Hugo Chavez saying he could still smell the hellfire and brimstone when he spoke after GWB?”
Worse was:
https://youtu.be/lGDQbswBIWo?si=d4Em9J7nA9qhQcuG