There are some things where it is almost essential for there to be some degree of international agreement, the radio frequency spectrum for example which by its physical nature is transnational is better managed by international agreement in order to avoid unwanted interference between spectrum users. Reasonable people, knowledgable about physics may well agree with the above statement. But, do we need any more the behemoth that is the United Nations? After all, to take the issue of radio spectrum, the International Telecommunications Union existed long before the existence of the United Nations (1865) and could again exist as an independent organisation and not as it is today, an agency of the UN.

I used to think, many years ago, that the UN was a force for good, a civilising influence and a restraining influence on a world that was both mostly uncivilised and which stood on the brink of nuclear destruction. But, as the years have gone by I have become much more cynical about the UN, its effectiveness and how it is managed. The UN’s peacekeeping forces have been both ineffective in keeping peace and its forces are all too often corrupt and abusive. The World Health Organisation has increasingly become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party and many of the problems that Western nations face with excessive, inappropriate and unwanted migration come courtesy of various UN agreements and conventions. For example we cannot get rid of potentially dangerous illegal migrants who destroy their identity documents in large part because of the Statelessness Conventions. Then there is the immoral spectacle of countries with some of the worst human rights violations on the planet being appointed to the UN’s Human Rights committees.

The UN has failed to live up to its early promise and instead has become part of the problems that the world faces today.

Another person who is asking awkward questions about the UN is Lloyd Billingsley of Front Page Magazine although his criticisms of the UN are about the Communist influence that he says were there in the UN from the beginning. Mr Billingsley then went on to list the very great numbers of failures that can be laid at the UN’s door such as its failure to back the Hungarians when they rose against Communism in 1956 and neither did they do the same for the Czechs when they revolted against Communism in 1968. When you look at Mr Billingsley’s list you can see how Communists have had far too much influence over the UN and how the UN has failed to stand up to an ideology that murdered 100 million people.

Mr Billingsley is not suggesting that there should be no international agreements between nations, just that the UN is not the place to do it. I tend to believe that Mr Billingsley is correct when he said that the most effective thing that could be done and one of the things that will improve the world would be for an American President to take the USA out of the UN.

Mr Billingsley said:

An EXITUN project would not be a departure from the president Trump’s practice to date. The president pulled the United States out of the Iran deal and the Paris climate accords. President Trump nixed NAFTA and replaced it with the USMCA.

In similar style, the president could promote an Alliance of Free States, AFS or “the Allies,” for countries that respect human rights and hold free elections. The others can stay in the UN, which as the late Richard Grenier (The Marrakesh One-Two) used to say, would be better headquartered in Mogadishu.

All told, EXITUN would be a fine project for President Trump and a good test for whoever plans to follow him in leadership.

I find it difficult to disagree with Mr Billingsley on his assessment of the UN. I completely agree with his suggestion that the free nations should form their own bloc and not have their views diluted by the tyrants and dictators who currently hold the balance of power in the UN. If the USA, the rest of the Anglosphere and other Western nations walked out of the UN then not only would the UN be financially and morally wounded, but might even be cut down to size. It might just become more effective, less corrupt and less dominated by those who see the nation state as a moral wrong. The UN might even just die due to terminal irrelevance and be replaced with something far more respectful and useful for individual nations and their peoples.