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

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

Get instant access to the rest of this article by creating a free account below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:
Subscribe for an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review
  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.