WI: The US withdrew from the UN in 1971

At some point in these discussions someone should probably point out that the US government invented the UN, to further its won interests, as it has, so the POD to change this had to be pretty big.
 
"Governor Tarkin:
The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.'

General Tagge:
But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

Governor Tarkin:
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

Only then does the USA withdraw from the UN.
 
Yeah, to expand upon 49ers romantic comparisons, the PRC was the mistress with the billion-dollar trust fund, and Taiwan was the proud but penniless wife, who still managed to secure a pretty nice divorce settlement after getting dumped. (Certainly, better off than China's toyboy Albania was after China kicked his ass out of the bed.)
nice analogy.
 
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/172680

What if in retaliation for the UN voting to recognize the People's Republic of China and expelling Taiwan, the United States announced that it was withdrawing from the UN completely?

(1) Even Reagan didn't suggest complete withdrawal.

(2) It was Nixon's own diplomacy toward the PRC that made the UN's decision inevitable. He would hardly make this pointless gesture for the sake of Taiwan.

(3) In the extremely unlikely event he djd so, the next Democratic president would rejoin the organization.
 
(1) Even Reagan didn't suggest complete withdrawal.

(2) It was Nixon's own diplomacy toward the PRC that made the UN's decision inevitable. He would hardly make this pointless gesture for the sake of Taiwan.

(3) In the extremely unlikely event he djd so, the next Democratic president would rejoin the organization.

David...

Just to clarify, you're saying in Point 2 that the UN was following the USA's lead when they seated the PRC and booted Taiwan? But the US nevertheless voted against seating the PRC and booting Taiwan?

From the UN's view, was it sort of like "Well, we know the USA is going to recognize them sooner or later, so we might as well let them in, even though the Americans are still gonna make a big production of saying they want them kept out"?
 
David...

Just to clarify, you're saying in Point 2 that the UN was following the USA's lead when they seated the PRC and booted Taiwan? But the US nevertheless voted against seating the PRC and booting Taiwan?

From the UN's view, was it sort of like "Well, we know the USA is going to recognize them sooner or later, so we might as well let them in, even though the Americans are still gonna make a big production of saying they want them kept out"?

Ideally, by 1971, the US would have liked the UN to seat both the PRC and RoC. But it was not possible, and Nixon was sure not going to withdraw from the UN for the RoC's sake.
 
(3) In the extremely unlikely event he djd so, the next Democratic president would rejoin the organization.

I have a question. In that case, the US would lose its Security Council Seat. And if it rejoined, there is no guarantee that it would be granted a permanent seat, as the USSR could veto any move to seat the US again. Or even veto US membership in the UN.

In that case, I don't think a Democratic President would rejoin the UN that refuses to give the US a Security Council seat.
 
Ideally, by 1971, the US would have liked the UN to seat both the PRC and RoC. But it was not possible, and Nixon was sure not going to withdraw from the UN for the RoC's sake.

Considering Republic of Korea & NK are both members of the UN while Taiwan got dumped.
 
Yeah, to expand upon 49ers romantic comparisons, the PRC was the mistress with the billion-dollar trust fund, and Taiwan was the proud but penniless wife, who still managed to secure a pretty nice divorce settlement after getting dumped. (Certainly, better off than China's toyboy Albania was after China kicked his ass out of the bed.)

PRC billion dollar trust fund mistress LOL.
 
Considering Republic of Korea & NK are both members of the UN while Taiwan got dumped.

In the first place, the admission of the Koreas to the UN was in September, 1991--a very different political atmosphere from that of 1971. In the second place, there was a huge discrepancy in power and population between the PRC and the RoC which did not exist between the Koreas. That put the PRC, once it broke through to widespread western diplomatic recognition, in a very strong position to say, "you can either recognize us or Chiang Kai-shek's regime--not both"--and most nations (and the UN) decided that the China to recognize was the much larger one.
 
In the first place, the admission of the Koreas to the UN was in September, 1991--a very different political atmosphere from that of 1971. In the second place, there was a huge discrepancy in power and population between the PRC and the RoC which did not exist between the Koreas. That put the PRC, once it broke through to widespread western diplomatic recognition, in a very strong position to say, "you can either recognize us or Chiang Kai-shek's regime--not both"--and most nations (and the UN) decided that the China to recognize was the much larger one.

In other words: Chiang Kai-shek was at fault ?
 
In other words: Chiang Kai-shek was at fault ?

I don't see where I said that. I just said that the PRC was much stronger than the RoC and that most nations therefore decided that if you could only recognize one, it would be the PRC. To what extent Chiang was to blame for the RoC becoming so weak (i.e., losing the mainland) is a complex question I simply did not deal with.
 
PRC billion dollar trust fund mistress LOL.

For the record, the billion-dollar trust fund was not meant to represent China's financial position, just its overall desirability as a partner: up-and-coming power, huge population, big army etc. And yeah, future prosperity as well.
 
I don't see where I said that. I just said that the PRC was much stronger than the RoC and that most nations therefore decided that if you could only recognize one, it would be the PRC. To what extent Chiang was to blame for the RoC becoming so weak (i.e., losing the mainland) is a complex question I simply did not deal with.

Makes you wonder if Chiang had defeated Mao & Co., ?
 
Top