I always find this an interesting question.

I grew up in the suburbs of NYC and was always proud of the UN. Trips there were part of my childhood.

My view of it now is quite mixed.

As an international forum for addressing issues of health, hunger and medical questions, the UN is absolutely vital and extremely valuable. The list of positive accomplishments is long and impressive.

As an organization for preventing war and stopping wars when they start, it has been a failure - in most cases, a disastrous and disgraceful failure. I believe the primary reason is because those who started the UN ignored the terrible reality of evil, and believe that "peace keepers" can help stop wars. This is a fantasy: the most recent examples are Bosnia and Rwanda.

The UN is rather unpopular in the US. I would not say VERY unpopular, but I would say many Americans oppose the loss of sovereignty that membership in the UN involves.

Also, of course, hatred of Americans is very strong in much of the world. Even traditional allies in Europe and Canada hate us in large numbers, and the intensely emotional base for the hatred and contempt does not promote diplomacy.

Therefore it might be a good idea to consider moving the UN out of NYC to another site.

Perhaps Europe? Or an affluent nation in eastern Asia?

Milan?
Kwala Lampur?
Helsinki?
Oslo?
Singapore?
Vienna?

Somewhere else?

What do you think?

The focus would be off Americans and our participation would drop dramatically, which would certainly make a lot of people thourghout the world very happy. For NYC it would be a great boost financially, because the UN costs the city quite a bit and the real estate is very valuable.

Thoughts?

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1

The old adage, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," applies when it comes to the United Nations. There is no question that it is a flawed organization, often approaching impidence when it comes to peace keeping. Nonetheless, it is the only viable world forum for nations to gather and work cooperatively on world issues. Having the UN headquarters in the U.S. gives us disproportionate influence in its deliberations. Moving it to another part of the world would unduobtedly reduce our influence and possibly give hostile countries greater influence.

You make a good point. I certainly think we should remain committed to the UN, but I do believe we should see the UN as two separate entities: the humanitarian and the political. There are overlaps, but they are essentially different in aim and results.

As for the greater influence of hostile countries - you may have a point there. But i think it is much less likely that the UN would be used as a platform by Chavez and similar characters.

I think the US has become too much of a lightning rod. The focus needs to be oof the US and on to other nations. I think that is good for the US and for the rest of the world.

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1

Tim, I think I may agree with you WRT the lightning rod point, but I want to make sure -- how do you feel we are a lightning rod? In what ways would you care to see attention shifted to other nations? Any in particular?

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Do you think this is a good thing or a bad one?

i think that the UN needs to be more inclusive of all member nations. Right now, the Security Council of 5 nations can overule any decision made by the member states. If views are conflicting between those 5 nations (China, US, France, Russia and Britain), which is common, esp with the tensions between China and the US, it makes the UN an ineffective body. I think that the member states, all of them, should decide what to do in a given situation.

If the UN was to be moved to another country (which I think would equal the playing field for all members), I think it should be moved to Brussels or Amsterdam. The Netherlands and Belgium are now the worlds international forum, so I feel it is only apropriate that the UN be moved there.

Good question: I think the combination of the Bush foreign policy, the war, the absence of other powers on the scale of the US and a general ambivalence at best - hatred at worst - of Americans has combined to produce a fascination with the US that goes too far.

We certainly bear a large part of the responsibility for that. But not entirely. When I was in Germany in the winter - for a month - the US was everywhere. A full page story on the inevitable decline of the US was on a page opposite a silly full-page interview with Leonardo di Caprio. News from the US is often the lead story. I watched a documentary on American power that portrayed Americans as power hungry and violent: I know just enough German to understand most of it, and the rest was translated for me. It was like a cartoon: there was almost no resemblance to the reality of American lives.

I have good and close friendships with Germans that go back many years - so does my family - and the trip was a good experience. But dislike of Americans is openly expressed, especially in the eastern part of the country. Does that apply to everyone? Of course not. But a woman I had met walked up to me and said: :"Why are you always intervening everywhere?" Well, this was addressed to me personally. What could I say?

I believe we need to have a much lower proflie and take care of our own problems now. Let the Europeans and Asians step up and claim their own place in the world. We can step back and certainly pull back our troops. Let these nations focus on themselves and address their own problems. It is time for a change. The world economy is already tied together; political ties can change without economic ties being disrupted. There is no need for the UN to remain in the US. Let another nation step up and share the power and responsibility.

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1

I am inclined to agree here, for the most part. After the Iraq War, there was this amazing talking point being thrown around about how we had 'damaged our ability to galvanize other countries, WRT North Korea, Iran' and damaged our word, so forth.

My issue here is, does this not imply an attitude problem with the rest of the world? If a problem is so apparent like North Korea, why does the rest of the world need the U.S. to poke and prod them into doing something? Why must we be expected to be the first ones getting our hands dirty, yet also be the ones most lapidated with criticism? In this manner, you are probably right in that we are expected to handle a whole load of things that may need to be indirectly delegated elsewhere.

I agree with pulling out of many areas of the world. We have accumulated many problems here in our own country that must be dealt with before our division (socially) becomes too great.

And to the German girl who said that to you, I would've probably reacted rather rudely. What an asinine question.

But the next question I have, is why do you believe us pulling out of the UN would decrease this? Could we not do all of those other things and reach the desired goal, or is pulling out of the UN one of the key moves we need to make?

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

[quote]Yes, this is part of what I am saying. But we also our fault as well. Bush and company were highly insulting and offensive to former allies; there was no reason for that. The French and the Germans did not exactly behave impeccably either - but Rumsfeld was obnoxious. Why? It doesn't make sense.

But this anti-Bush sentiment that is so prevalent has gone much further than mere disagreement with foreign policy. There is a deep and widespread anti-Amercianism. I think there is a level of hysteria in it.

Yes.

Well, our friends were there and they were rather embarassed. We also heard about how obnoxius American toursist are (!!) which was difficult to take. But our friends are like family. It was best to just say nothing.

What she said wasn't that serious: I used it as an example of how the personal and the abstract get mixed up. I became a living symbol of Amerian policy. She can't yell at a policy, so I was more available.

And we had a memorable time there. That was only a small part. I did encounter some hostility, but the country is beautiful and I would definitely go back - and will.

Well, those are excellent questions.

I did not say I thought we should leave the UN, but rather that the UN should the leave the US! (maybe). We should maintain membership - especially to address humanitarian issues.

I would not say it was a key move to leave - but it might be a key move for the headquarters to move. At least, that is how I am thinking now.

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1

My mistake, that is what I meant to ask about - having the UN leave our borders, not vice versa. So, you do feel that us staying involved but in a more peripheral way (via the HQ in another country) is a definite component to getting this hysteria over America lowered?

WRT what you were saying about our behavior, do you think this whole situation (the world looking to US, waiting for US to make a move) has given our leadership a certain attitude (Rumsfeld, Bush) to which they feel they can't act given ways that may/may not be rude to allies/former allies? Here, I do think there is a relationship.

I also think that our default attitude of involvement in the world is thought of as a necessity (which it isn't), much like a lot of the government departments and systems we have set up today. People just have gotten so used to them and this system we have in foreign policy that it seems unnatural not to have it. This is a real problem.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

[quote]Yes, I would say so .

That is an interesting point. I tend to think that a lot of it has to do with the arrogance and lack of courtesy on the part of the individuals involved.

There will always be tension between nations - that is reality. But diplomats can help that a great deal if they know what they are doing.

I recently read Sargent Shriver's biography: he was ambassador to France during the JFK years. He developed a strong and solid relationship with the French, and of course the relations between our two nations are always strained. Yet Shriver was a gentleman, who knew how to behave decently and with patience and respect. Rumsfeld is a crude blow-hard (but of course, so was Schröder)

During the Reagan and Bush (senior) years, we had an outstanding diplomatic team, and that was very recent.

Yes - agreed. But it does not reflect the long-term history of the US. We were very much an isolationist nation prior to 1941. I am not supporting a return to that - but there can be a balance.

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1