Why doesn't the UN move from NYC?

[indianablue]

I mean it obvious are present government is trying to undermine it at every turn.

I think the EU shoudl flip the bill and build a new UN building somewhere in Europe.

The UN has it's fault just like any other organization.

[aquart]

1. And thank you for undermining the economy of NYC.

JUST what we need.

[theboss]

4. It would probably be a benefit to New York economically

That's a lot of prime real estate that is not taxed, a lot of parking meters that are not paid, and a lot of assholes running around with diplomat license plates.

[Retired AF Dem]

5. You are

the Boss. :)

[jwcomer]

7. wrong on every point.

All of which are minor compared to the local commercial spending of UN workers. Losing any multi-billion dollar organization would be a loss to the local economy. BTW, the real estate isn't American soil, it is international. Ergo, there is no real estate tax to consider and likewise no trade-off to consider for alternative uses of that space. As for parking tickets and diplomatic licenses, those are for the diplomats, not the UN workers. The diplomats are associated with embassies which are not associated with the UN.

[theboss]

9. It was once American soil

It's not like there was a corner of Manhattan that has been designated an "international zone" since the Dutch arrived. I assume that if the UN left, the city could reclaim the land through eminent domain and sell it to a developer...or at least build a football stadium.

And any business that went into the UN site would have workers that contributed to the local economy. Would there be less drunken Saudis running up huge bar bills at Scores? Possibly. But I think Manhattan would find a way to make due.

[KamaAina]

16. I believe the land would revert to the Rockefellers

who donated the site for the UN, if the UN ever left.

I was looking into this when I had this idea that Ground Zero would make the perfect NYC site for the UN. Oddly enough, Tweety Matthews had the same idea on his show a few weeks later.

[theboss]

19. That would make sense

I guess it would be based on the deed. I'm not really sure what happens when private land is given to an internationl organization. It's also possible that the Rockefellers' right has expired. I do imagine that would be one hell of a court battle.

[evil genius]

2. no way

They'll never leave New York. Also, wow, the grammar. It sucks.

[theboss]

3. New York has better hookers....

If I were living on an expense account and had diplomatic immunity, New York is where I would want to be.

[Taxloss]

36. Not London?

You have no idea what you're missing.

[theboss]

40. How about this?

New York has better 6'3 transvestite hookers who look like Lawrence Taylor.

[Taxloss]

42. OK, you win.

But Bangkok could still whup your ass!!

[theboss]

43. But New York and London have better restaurants

Plus if the UN was in Bangkok, half the delegates would die of syphilis each year.

Life is full of trade-offs.

[Taxloss]

44. You're right.

We have to wait for the time the UN is into BDSM, not corruption and nymphomania. Then we'll get some progress.

[peacetalksforall]

6. It's no longer a requirement for the UN to be where a good number of

ignorant people don't want them. Yes, sadly, they should consider it.

We will isolate ourselves into oblivion just the way the rednecks and fundamentalists want it.

[Cleita]

8. If the UN sells the NY real estate back to the USA, maybe

they could buy a nice island someplace where they could operate from without any interference from other sovereign nations. I think new tenants would probably pick up the economic void for NYC. I don't know how they would defend it, but apparently NYC can't be defended very well either with the sociopathic morons in power that we have now.

[theboss]

10. Maybe we could put the UN in a hollowed-out volcano somewhere

Sorry, but I like the idea of it being on some fortified island.

[Cleita]

15. Didn't Onasis have an Island in the Mediterranean?

An island in the Mediterranean would not only be in a strategically important position worldwise, but would be hours away from the great capitals of Europe and their armies if anyone should choose to invade it.

[theboss]

17. Why would anyone invade the UN?

Large debating societies generally are not the key to world domination.

[Cleita]

20. No one rational would, however,

I wouldn't put anything past the sociopaths in power in our country. Bush/Cheney might do it just to make sure the UN is destroyed like the original plans their evil minds intended.

You know they are crazy and I put nothing past them anymore no matter how stupid or insane it might appear to be.

[tabasco]

21. 17 major peacekeeping operations = debating society?

Been listening to too much a.m. radio?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/

[theboss]

24. Okay...okay...

First of all, it's a joke.

Secondly, people need to stop thinking of the UN as a separate country or something. It's not. It's an organization. Anyone who "attacked" the UN would be essentially declaring war on every country on Earth at once.

Also, the UN does not have its own troops. It has troops from its member nations' armies. The nations themselves are doing the peacekeeping under a UN banner.

I'm always amazed by the fundamental misunderstanding of the UN here. It doesn't have any real independent power; its members are not citizens of the "UN."

[Cleita]

26. So don't you think they should be located somewhere

that is not within the borders of a sovereign nation? I have had a problem with this for some time. Now that our country is turning into something like Nazi Germany, it seems that any neutrality the UN should have would be compromised. I mean as it is, our country is always withholding it's dues to make it behave in accordance with our wishes. I don't find this a position of neutrality.

[theboss]

29. Since when is the UN neutral?

"The UN" has no free will. It has the combined opinions of its member states. And it frankly has no authority except in very narrow regions of the world where - again - its beauracracy has been given authority.

The best way to think of the UN is as a tool that is used - in theory - to resolve disputes between countries. Of course, it's done that about three times in 60 years, but who's counting.

Where it has been more successful is in the charity wing - Unicef and such. But again, it's not "UN" money and "UN" people do this good work. It's members' money and members' people being directed by a common beauracacy.

Now, following that rant, should the UN be moved? Maybe. I don't think it provides any benefit to New York. But I don't think its unduly influenced by being in the US. The US wasn't able to control the USSR and its allies when they were running half the show.

[Cleita]

32. Well, we didn't have the same government then.

Also, part of the reason for a UN is so sovereign states like the USSR can act up without interference as long as they can't influence the total outcome of the debate and that the debate can be held freely without fear or interference. I know that the UN didn't start out this way, but this is the way it should evolve into being.

Although the BFEE haven't gotten really heavy handed, I fear it's coming. The character attacks on Koffi Annan are just beginning after he declared the invasion of Iraq a war crime. I think we will watch this kind of tactic escalate from now on.

[theboss]

35. Right...we had Nixon and Reagan....

Who were such open-minded internationalists. (Actually, in fairness to Nixon, he was probably more of an internationalist than Johnson). And the UN was terrific at stopping the USSR from acting up...in Hungary...in Czechoslovakia...in Afghanistan.

[Cleita]

37. That wasn't their job back then. It seems that it's only in the past

few decades that they have been sending peacekeepers to hot spots. I also think that they should have stopped our invasion of Iraq, but they didn't. At least they didn't help Bush to invade, which is probably why he's so petulant about that. Also, wasn't it us who convinced the Russians to invade Afghanistan?

I also wondered why Russia was allowed to stomp all over eastern Europe, but the West apparently awarded them all this territory after WWII, you know Churchill and Truman. I don't know what that was about but I wondered. I think it was some silly cold war doctrine about containing them within certain borders so the West could remain Democratic or some such claptrap.

[theboss]

38. Oh my...so much bad history...so little time...

First of all, the UN has been sending troops to "hotspots" throughout its history. There was a little thing in the 50s called the Korean War that was a UN operation.

Second of all, no, Carter most assuredly did not ask the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. That was considered a bad thing when it happened.

Thirdly, the USSR was not "awarded" territory at the end of WWII. Their armies happened to be in Eastern Europe. Stalin basically conned a sick Roosevelt and an exhausted Churchill into believing that he would help Eastern Europe build democracies. And then he immediately installed Pro-Soviet Communist governmments in all of them. At that point, what are you gonna do?

[Retired AF Dem]

48. Pro-Soviet governments?

at the end of a gun barrel.

[tabasco]

28. A fundamental misunderstanding is to call it a debating society.

That was my only point. If it was a joke - haha.

[theboss]

30. That's essentially what it is

It lacks the authority to be much more.

I do thing its charitable wing has some benefit.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

22. You're funny

[Maple]

11. The UN has a standing invitation

to move to Montreal. Cosmopolitan, sophisticated and very welcoming.

[KamaAina]

14. Not to mention bilingual in the UN's two primary languages

by ffar the world's largest city with people fluent in both. Have you guys got a site ready for them? Maybe you could blow up the just-vacated Big O and build it there??

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. New York is very welcoming, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan.

Bush does not represent the whole country. :eyes:

Further, one presidency does not make the foreign policy forever.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Let's Give The Wingnuts Another Victory

At least with the UN in New York it keeps a presence in the world's media capital and remains a major pain in the ass to the John Birch/American First/wingnuts who live in their conspiratorial worlds of Bildibergers and One World Governments and pay no attention to the NeoCon thugs who are doing just exactly that.

Warts & all, the U.N. remains a noble experiment in global communications and dialogue...it has created a sense of a true international community; one that is needed when you have rogue regimes like the one we have and one of the last remaining checks on this virtually naked agresssion.

The UN and it's purposes are so misunderstood in this country by both right and left.

BTW...donations to UNICEF go to the basic needs of those suffering the worst in tsunami and stay there long after the TV cameras take off.

[morgan2]

13. it would make a lot of sense to move the un just outside of manhattan

but it's not happening any time soon. The diplomats like being in the middle of the city and being able to park anywhere. They don't want to move.

[theboss]

18. It always comes back to the parking

I find that so amusing.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

27. Las Vegas won't be around forever.

All the energy and water it over uses to provide Disneyland for adults will go away like poof if the Colorado river becomes a serious pawn in the energy and water battle with California that's always simmering but hasn't boiled over yet.

[theboss]

31. But oh to be there when the whole shithouse goes up

It's going to be like the fall of Berlin meets the Playboy mansion.

[catbert836]

33. Because it's the world's capital

That would be a sign of surrender to the far right in America to move out of New York. We want them there.

[drdtroit]

34. The UN will never leave NYC because

there is no other place on the planet (Manhattan) that is indeed truly a microcosm of said planet.

People who can't understand that have never lived here and really cannot appreciate this reality.

Truth out!

[ashiebr]

50. Well, Doc......

....I can see that you're a well-travelled person.

But you're also completely and 100% wrong.

[newyorican]

39. The UN in NYC is just a figurehead...

the real operational center of the UN is UNO City in Vienna.

The building in Manhattan is just closer to the cameras.

[JI7]

41. considering the diversity of NYC

it's a pretty good place for the UN to be. the right wing would try to undermine the UN no matter where they located their headquarters. at least the people of nyc mostly oppose the chimp.

[BrotherBuzz]

45. If the UN moves anywhere....

it should move back to its birthplace, San Francisco, California. End of discussion! ;)

[ldf]

46. since the good 'ol us of a

is determined to piss off every other nation on the planet, and do it in the most insulting way possible,

then the UN should, unanimously, vote to move elsewhere. and then do it.

it would be the ultimate slap to the face of george w bush.

besides, that would be much better than allowing the good 'ol amerikkkan rightwing nutjobs run them out.

they will be gone either way, much better to make a powerful statement.

new york will cope. it always does.

[jmatthan]

47. My conversation with Kofi Annan in 1997

I hope this clears the air a bit...

http://koti.netplaza.fi/~findians/V03I08.html

"FORMER FINDIANS BRIEFINGS EDITOR QUERIES UN SECRETARY GENERAL
27th April 1997

Those of you who listened to INTERNATIONAL QUESTION TIME hosted by Geoffrey Stern on BBC World Service on Sunday 27th April, when UN Secretary General, Ghanaian Kofi Annan, was answering listeners queries, would have heard former Findians Oy Managing Director, Jacob Matthan, put a question that has been discussed earlier in these pages.

Here is a transcript of the dialogue:

*

Jacob: "I belong to several professional democratic organisations. If I do not pay my annual membership fee, I first lose my voting rights and then my membership rights. Why cannot it be the same with the UN? It would solve your problems with the US which claims to be a democratic country but which uses all its rights without paying its fees."

Kofi Annan: "I would love to see a bit more spine in the rules we use at the UN which would oblige member states to honour their commitment. We do have some of these rules but they are a bit limp.

For example, on the question of contribution, if member states do not pay their contributions and they are two years behind, they will lose their vote. But let us assume that a country that pays a million dollars a year is two million dollars in arrears and is about to lose its vote. They can make a token payment of 50000 dollars or 100000 dollars just to stay below that ceiling and continue to vote.

I would have been happier if we had a system where you had to clear the totality of what you owe, or about 50%, to be able to get your vote back. I would be happy if we would be able to charge interest on those member states who owe. But this is not possible because the member states have not agreed to it and, therefore, we do not have the kinds of instruments that almost every private club, or schools, have and so it has been very very difficult to introduce financial discipline with regard to contribution from member states. But perhaps we should not give up.

I would hope that as part of the reform process, member states will rededicate themselves to the ideals of the United Nations and I also urge the populous, civil society and NGOs, parliamentarians, business groups to really come out and support this organisation, which, after all, this organisation is of, we, the peoples of this world. If we do that we can press the Governments not only to rededicate themselves to the ideals of the UN but also to commit themselves to meet their legal obligations in full and on time."

Geoffery: "Mr. Matthan, Are you happy with that answer?"

Jacob: "Well, there are two ambiguities there that in the sense that the US has been pushing the UN Secretary General towards financial stringency and does not meet ITS committment, and secondly, if I look at the web page about the United Nations, I find that the US takes more than it gives to the UN."

Kofi Annan: "Oh, I agree with you that by the sheer fact that we are based in New York, we put a lot into the US economy. There are a 185 permanent missions, they rent office premises, they rent accommodation or residential premises, or buy them, they employ thousands of people, the US gets a lions share of UN procurements, which in effect is that the US gets MORE THAN IT GIVES to the United Nations. I think the US Government, President Clinton and his team, have realised that the UN is important to the US and that without an effective United Nations the world would be worse off. And he is determined to pay the arrears and is working hard with Congress. And I have been to Congress to talk to them. We are not there yet. I think we have some support but we have some doubters on The Hill and I would hope that in time we will get the money paid. But it is not a question of a one time payment. It has to be sustained support for the organisation by all member states, and US being the biggest contributor, if it does not pay, it really hurts and cripples our operations. There is no doubt about that."

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[Vidar]

49. NYC is still a nice place, just in a putrid excuse for a country.