Actually, as biased as that statement sounds, dudeman isn't far off.
The error is that the UN doesn't really benefit directly from America being a part of it.
Despite the impression it may give, the UN doesn't have a lot of money. In comparison, the state of California has a bigger budget than the UN (which, for the 2002-2003 year, only has proposed 2.6 billion).
The reason is that the UN doesn't really do much AS the UN. This is what I was getting at before in the other thread (which I'm avoiding because it's strayed pretty far off-topic); there's NO democracy in international politics - that's not a statement of cynicism, I'm serious: there's no democracy.
Democracy is when a bunch of states vote on legislation and the majority wins. States govern themselves as one body.
The UN doesn't do this (again, this isn't an opinion, it's how the UN WORKS). They gather a bunch of delegates, and they vote on RESOLUTIONS. Resolutions are when states agree to follow a certain outline; whether or not they have to is completely different.
If a state goes against a resolution, they're not charged a fine or sent to some kind of prison. That's because the state governs itself, and no one can interfere with that. What DOES happen is that other delegates get upset, and impose their own restrictions on that state (this is why states use economic sanctions; because it's really the only thing they can do).
This is how the UN gets work done; if there's a problem with health in children in a third world country, they won't necessarily go straight for the UN's limited budget to handle it (because, again, they don't have that much money). They's get the delegates in the World Health Organization, and hold a session determining which countries will contribute how much of their money towards said cause.
Again, the interaction between states ISN'T a democracy. It's an anarchy by definition - there's no government higher than the state's own government. Thus, the states are NOT governed.
Also, a note on the ICC which I mispoke on: The UN cannot do anything THEMSELVES to imprison Milosevic, Karadzic, or, if he was found guilty, Bill Clinton. They pass a resolution to see which states would help carry out said resolution. Again, the UN doesn't have the power to enforce law, they can only agree if other countries will help in resolutions.
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
PS - Yes, the UN would be pretty defunct without the US. Of course, it would be pretty defunct without any of the countries which share veto power, which includes Russia, China, France, and Britain.
