The U.N.: In or Out
A debate in which the authors state their views, argue with each other, rebut and counter-rebut. The subject is not merely whether America should be in or out of the U.N. and its related agencies but whether these organizations have any useful role at all to play in world affairs. Conrad supports the U.N., van den Haag dismisses it as useless or worse, and in general their exchanges reflect the conflict of views that exists in American society on this issue. However, both take such extreme positions and repeat them so often-as arguments are conducted in many of the proceedings in the U.N. itself-that the debate does not contribute much to the cause of public enlightenment.
Related
Multilateralism is a means, not an end, and there is no more multilateral body than the UN. That may make it unwieldy at times, but the UN's inclusiveness is the key to the legitimacy only it can confer. The organization thus remains an essential force in international politics, and one the United States benefits from greatly.
The United Nations has usurped power from its members, threatening American interests. The time has come to deliver an ultimatum: Either the United Nations reforms quickly and dramatically or the United States will end its participation.
Why did most of the world abandon Washington when it went after Saddam Hussein? The war in Iraq could never have been an easy sell, but nor should it have been such a difficult one. The Bush administration badly botched the prewar maneuvering, presenting a textbook study in how not to wage a diplomatic campaign.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.