Why Is The UN So Subservient To The U.S.?

Here we see the EU being subservient, but that’s another blog post.

Why is the United Nations so subservient to the United States? asks a reader. Like most writers, I appreciate feedback about content readers would like to see.

So, let’s brainstorm!


The UN is located in New York City and its international officers and staff are dependent on the U.S. for visas.


The member nations of the UN mostly kowtow to the U.S. for the same reason that blogger Caitlin Johnstone identified to explain why her country kowtows to the U.S.: “Australia is not arming itself against China to protect itself from China. Australia is arming itself against China to protect itself from the United States.”

Examples of actions the U.S. has taken against nations that didn’t do its bidding:


The UN was created to be a fig leaf for U.S. imperial ambitions, and not actually to prevent “the scourge of war” as its charter claims.


Nations are disinclined to use the UN to publicly challenge U.S. hegemony and would prefer to make back channel diplomatic deals with emerging powers like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.


Nations have long seen how ineffectual the UN is at enforcing international law when the U.S. invades and occupies nations to steal their oil, or freezes the assets of other nations that are held in Western financial institutions. Allison Bronowski on the blog Pearls & Irritations wrote about the UN’s institutional role in the preparation of a legal case for Australia to wage war over a “non-sovereign” nation, i.e. Taiwan:

The UN Charter which our governments signed in 1945, contained a cop-out, Article 98. It allowed member states to make ‘reservations and declarations’ exempting themselves from some of its obligations and interpretations.

Of 193 nations, some 110, mainly from the global south, have signed Article 98 agreements with the US, undertaking not to surrender American service people for investigation by the International Criminal Court.

The US made its own reservations and declarations under Article 98, stating that:

  • The US reserves the right to decide whether to comply with Security Council decisions in accordance with its constitutional processes
  • The US reserves the right to use military force in response to an armed attack on a member state without first seeking authorisation from the Security Council
  • The US reserves the right to veto any decision by the Security Council it believes to be against its national interest
  • The US reserves the right to make its own decisions about the use of military force in situations it perceives as a threat to its national security
  • The US is not bound by the decisions of the International Court of Justice if it involves domestic matters [eg Guantanamo Bay or other US military prisons].

These are long term trends, but a more recent development under the Biden administration may explain some things, too. Per investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s article out today, “Trading With The Enemy“:

Another divisive issue, I have been repeatedly told in my recent reporting, is the strident ideology and lack of political skill shown by Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. The president and his two main foreign policy advisers “live in different worlds” than the experienced diplomats and military and intelligence officers assigned to the White House;. “They have no experience, judgment, and moral integrity. They just tell lies, make up stories.”

In other words, with these clowns in charge what is to be gained from working within the international structure for diplomacy that the UN was supposed to offer?

Finally, in case you’re wondering what my friend and I see as UN subservience to the U.S., two recent items:

The UN Security Council refused to set up an independent investigation of the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines.

The UN Security Council blocked the usual broadcast of a hearing, boycotted by the U.S. and UK, to consider allegations by the International Criminal Court (not a UN affiliated body, by the way) that Russia kidnapped thousands of children from Ukraine.

Sometimes the UN as a whole stands up, though. Back in 2016 by a vote of 131-3 it condemned the glorification of Nazism

The U.S. and Ukraine abstained. ‘Nuff said.

Raging Against The War Machine In Maine

Yesterday’s gatherings to rage against the war machine in Maine were among the most interesting I’ve organized. Not only did we get a bunch of new people to fill in the ranks of those missing because they only oppose wars when a Republican is in the White House, but our participants were from a broad range of political parties and tendencies: Green Independent Party of Maine, Communist Party of Maine, Libertarian Party of Maine, and independents were all represented.

Two people said they were Republicans, while two others told me (separately) that they were registered Democrats but did not feel like the party represented their interests and were planning to unenroll.

One person came from New Hampshire to join us, while two others had come up from NYC as one of them has ties to Waterville, Maine.

Professors from the Maine College of Art in Portland and Colby College in Waterville were with us, plus someone who works at the University of New England.

Our messaging was varied and most signs or banners played on one of the nine demands we were organized around for raging on February 19:

Not One More Penny for War in Ukraine

Negotiate Peace

Stop the War Inflation

Disband NATO

Global Nuclear De-escalation

Slash the Pentagon Budget

Abolish War and Empire

Restore Civil Liberties

Free Julian Assange

In addition we had a sign made the night before at my house calling out the Biden administration on revelations by investigative reporter Sy Hersh that the Nordstream pipelines were bombed by U.S. and NATO nations working together under cover of so-called “war games.”

I saw another good sign on this theme in the coverage of the Rage event in Washington DC.

Estimates of that crowd range from 3,000-5,000 (crowds are notoriously hard to count). We had 20 in Bath and 15 in Westbrook, with some overlap. Many of the groups represented said their members had traveled to DC for the bigger rally. Honestly, as an anti-war organizer in Maine, I’m please when we have attendance in the double digits.

We also received coverage from Maine Public Radio and I just finished a follow-up radio interview this morning with the Ric Tyler/George Perry Show. Those two media outlets in Maine are as far apart ideologically as our group was. However, since the corporate media ignores us in these days of draconian narrative control, I’m willing to spread our message on whichever platforms are available. (Just to be clear, I don’t align politically with either of those media outlets.)

What’s next? March 18 is the date we agreed to meet again in Westbrook, where response was positive from many of the hundreds of cars that drove by in an hour.

Want to join us next time? Leave your email address in the comments and we’ll be in touch. Because we don’t have to agree on everything to stand together against the real possibility of a nuclear World War 3.