I wish that they would move the UN headquarters out of the US

I don't like all those world leaders being in a country that would rather assinate them than listen to them.

He's probably been sent there to accomplish exactly that.

I never thought I'd agree but if we're going to diss that institution as much as we have, I think you're right -- THEY ought to pick up and move to Oslo or Brussels or somewhere that advocates and appreciates international cooperation instead of unilateralism.

to move to Montreal.

Many other places would welcome them as well.

I worry about Kofi Annan sometimes -- they seem to be after him, one way or another.

I always envisioned an international zone somewhere, kind of like the Vatican, that would be governed separately from any sovereign nation. I always thought it would be a good place for world affairs like the UN, the Olympics (eh, why not.) and the World Court.

I wish they would go somewhere sane, and safe, this isn't it right now. to take it a little further, I believe we need sanctions placed on us for our behavior in the world.

home somewhere else too - along with all its other sister agencies still in the States.

I bet their staff aren't all that amused by not being allowed to use the UN diplomatic passports in the States (only other countries that don't accept them are not, um, very UN-friendly!), and running the risk of having their staff denied entry when they travel, harrassed, or extraordinarily renditioned on some stupid name error or something.

Heck the other countries would save a lot of bucks on the cost of living allowances to their staff too if they didn't have to be located in NYC or DC or wherever. What exactly is in it for them to stay in the US when the US government policy is so openly hostile? (I ask this sarcastically, since I know the US would throw a tantrum if this were ever seriously suggested - and I know the staff at at least one agency has done just that after a bad incident for one of their staff at an airport, and somehow I'm betting these things happen quite a bit.)

This is a huge plank of their agenda. It's a large part of the reason the League of Nations failed and the gap between WW1 and WW2 was only 21 years.

"international" city in the world. I would support a move to London.

God knows with the US denying visas to Venezuela and Cuba that it is obvious that the UN doesn't belong in the US.

The UN was based in London for the first two years of its existance. I'm not sure why it moved to New York in the first place.

that the UN is more than a skyscraper on american soil.

Thomas Hammarberg, secretary general at the Olof Palme International Center gives a few suggestions on how to deal with the crisis between the UN and the US without ending up in counterproductive anti-americanism:

1. Debate about the actual issues is needed. Many times the positions taken by the US administration is based on very shallow analysis. One example is the aggressive criticism of the International Criminal Court in Hague which is based on a mixture of ideology/patriotism with no basis in how the court actually works.

2. The international community must be more forceful in their condemnation of US transgressions of HR and Int. Law in their "WOT". If a state other than the US had rounded up citizens from forty other states and imprisoned them without even a trial like the US, the reactions would not be as timid. This weakness is wrong for a number of reasons. It sends an unfortunate and unhelpful signal to other countries who are tempted to ignore HR and it is not helpful in the relation with the US. The international community does not gain any respect from the US public opinion by compromising on fundamental values. Further, there is no room in the US debate for namby-pambiness.

3. Liberate the US from the temptation to engage in extortion politics by reducing US contributions to the UN. Up till now the US congress in many ways functions as an extra general assembly for which the UN secretariat must deliver results according to their liking in order for payments to be delivered. The decrease in funds which would occur as a result would initially make things difficult for the secretariat but the current situation where the US pays for a quarter of the secretariat budget is not sustainable.


What do you think?

especially ending the extortion that is used by the US to get its way.