Recent months have seen growing concern about just how far the U.S. may continue to distance itself from multilateral institutions. Some are even asking if a complete exit from the United Nations—a body we helped establish here in America eighty years ago this year—may be coming.
Which raises the question: Can a country just quit the UN?
We thumbed through the archives to find an answer.
Relationship Status: Complicated
The UN encompasses virtually every nation on Earth. Membership is seen as both a rite of passage and a badge of legitimacy. Even states with hostile relationships toward the broader international community – like North Korea or Iran – have never taken the step of leaving.
But in January 1965, Indonesia did exactly that – the first and only country to ever formally leave the world’s leading international body.
Its exit was symbolic, short-lived and quickly reversed, but it remains a striking case study in the complex relationship between national sovereignty and multilateral diplomacy.
At the time, Indonesia was unenviably situated in the geopolitical chess match between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. When President Sukarno came to power, Indonesia’s rival, Malaysia, was admitted as a non-permanent member into the UN Security Council. On January 20, 1965, outraged at their admission and believing that Malaysia was a “neocolonial puppet,” Indonesia’s charismatic, authoritarian leader announced his country’s stunning withdrawal in a fiery speech, remarking, “To hell with your aid!”
A Quasi-Legal Exit
The departure wasn’t exactly gaveled.
At the time, then Secretary-General U Thant acknowledged the letter from President Sukarno, but left Indonesia’s status vague. Their spot was vacant, not removed.
This ambiguity proved prescient. One year later, after a bloody domestic power shift following an attempted coup, a new military regime in Indonesia sought international legitimacy, notifying the UN of its intent to “resume full cooperation,” and Indonesia returned without having to reapply.
That’s because, when it gets down to it, the UN Charter contains no provision for withdrawal. Article 6 allows for the expulsion of a member who “has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter,” but this has never been used.
The UN Charter contains no provision for withdrawal. Article 6 allows for the expulsion of a member who “has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter,” but this has never been used.
Some legal scholars argue that, under international law, because states have a sovereign right to withdraw from international treaties, that would extend to the UN Charter. Others contend that the unique nature of the UN makes it fundamentally different from other international agreements.
In practice, the ambiguity means that attempts at withdrawal would likely be handled politically, not legally, just as Indonesia’s was.
A Caveat to Representation
On the subject of staying in the UN, it’s worth mentioning that while no country has meaningfully left and none have been expelled, Member States can, however, lose their vote in the UN. This happens a lot more frequently than you may think – with real implications.
Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, countries that fall more than two years behind on payments for their assessed dues lose their voting rights in the General Assembly. This rule applies regardless of the reason for non-payment – whether economic hardship or intentionally withholding funds out of political protest. The loss of the vote is automatic and does not require consensus of the Assembly, but a country may appeal for an exception if its arrears are found by the Assembly to be the result of a situation beyond its control. Currently, five states do not have the right to vote, with just one of those – Sao Tome and Principe – granted an exception.
Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, countries that fall more than two years behind on payments for their assessed dues lose their voting rights in the General Assembly. This rule applies regardless of the reason for non-payment.
The U.S. actually found itself in this very situation in 1998, after amassing significant arrears. It was only after negotiating a debt payment and securing a reduction in the maximum assessment rate from 25% to 22% that the loss of the GA vote was narrowly averted.
Though pulling a state’s voting power applies only to the General Assembly and not to the Security Council (arrears have no bearing on Security Council participation), consequences of losing the GA vote are significant.
On contentious issues where consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by majority vote. Without a vote, states forfeit the ability to steer outcomes, promote their interests and back their allies. Particularly when it comes to lobbying for seats on key UN bodies that set the global agenda, a single vote can tip the scales. Losing the GA vote, then, doesn’t just sideline a nation, it can reshape the success or failure of a state’s foreign policy agenda through the UN.
From Sukarno to the Present
Today, Indonesia is an active member of the UN and an essential partner in UN peacekeeping operations. But the memory of its brief break from the UN lingers – and the prospect of a nation withdrawing from the UN feels much less like historical trivia and more like a political possibility.
A UN without the U.S. – either entirely or as a voting member – would mean less peacekeeping capacity, diminished enforcement of international law and a fractured human rights framework.
In other words, a less safe and less secure America.
