Waving Goodbye

Steven den Beste gives us a heads up to this op-ed in the International Herald Tribune. The author, a 20 year veteran of the United Nations, asks why the organization should keep their HQ in New York City. Why not move to Montreal?

I was shocked to find that I actually agreed with some of the author’s reasons for the move. The cost of building a new UN campus could be offset by selling the old HQ, land is cheaper in Montreal than New York, and Canada has enough high-tech infrastructures to accommodate the day-to-day business of the international body.

One thing the author stated that I certainly don’t agree with is that moving the UN to Canada would send a clear signal that rampant corruption will no longer be tolerated. Instead I see it as a way for the UN to become surrounded with people that have a common understanding.

The author also didn’t mention the greatest benefit that might be realized if the UN moves out of the United States. It might make it easier for the American people to accept the idea that we’d be better off without this group of crooked career bureaucrats.

Hey, I might just donate some money for the move myself!

15 thoughts on “Waving Goodbye”

  1. Here’s how we could encourage them to leave: we take the current site by eminent domain. The Kelo decision gives us a great way of turning a useless, corrupt, tax-exempt, decaying, bureaucratic embarassment into something useful. Like a Neiman Marcus. Or a parking lot.

  2. While I’m not convinced that moving to Canada is the path to honest reform of the UN… (James, I didn’t know you were Canadian!).

    I suggest that the US should encourage the UN to leave New York. We don’t need to spy on UN delegates… as Oil for Food has shown that the UN can be bought (apparently only Americans resent this and are surprised by it). We should still pay the $1.5 billion a year for the upkeep, as it’s cheap. In fact, we would probably save money if we paid the UN $5-10 billion to relocate, as the UN delegates wouldn’t have access to the US media and PR network that’s centered in NYC.

    I suggest St. Petersburg as a new UN headquarters. First, it’d please the Russians and infuriate the rest of Europe. Second, American diplomats are already comfortable with the Russians, and vice versa. Third, the Russians will cause twenty times more damage to the UN financial fraudsters than we can, as no one imagines a Russian fed or mobster cares about “international law”. Fourth, Americans who like the UN more than the Republic will have to leave the US to hang out with UN types. Fifth, Russians know how to handle Trotskyites. Sixth, very, very few international citizens are brave enough to cheat Russians if they’re on the Russians turf… and Russians have been more dependable, even as enemies, to the US than the vast majority of our “allies”. Seven, St. Petersburg is very, very far away.

  3. I would love to see the UN leave New York. But not to go to Canada. I don’t want this nest of spies and their co-dependent kleptocracy to be uncontrolled just across our northern. If they’re gonna leave, let ’em go to Europe.

  4. A. Scott Crawford left a comment….

    While I’m not convinced that moving to Canada is the path to honest reform of the UN… (James, I didn’t know you were Canadian!).

    I’m from Ohio, which is where I’m typing this right now. (Hello from flyover country!) It was the author of the IHT article that actually thought moving to Canada would change the world’s perception of UN corruption.

    After Adscam and the Gun Registry scandals I think the Canadian government is just as bad as the UN, the Canadians just aren’t international in reach.

    So far as the UN is concerned, I think it’s a lost cause. First step for killing that monstrosity is getting the US and all our money out of the organization. Moving the HQ to anywhere but New York might just be the first step of the first step.


  5. If they’re gonna leave, let ’em go to Europe.

    More specifically, I propose one of the banlieus of Paris as the new home of the UN. That way, the representatives of the EU nations will have a permanent, unobstructed, up-close-and-personal view of the future of their precious Union.

  6. Nope, carve out a spot along the Israeli/Pali border.

    Getting blown up has a tendency to clear others’ heads.

    Or Djibouti(sp).

    Or the Magic Kingdom – all those working women!
    No strip joints and alcohol.

  7. I think Rawanda would be great location, or perhaps Darfur, Let them see the hells they have created everyday.

  8. Yes. Not because of virtue but because it’s a better system: the Democrats have the Republicans to check them and the Republicans have the Democrats and all have the media – and, finally, us as voters. Besides there is a court system that actually has clear jurisdiction. So, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham has entered a plea deal and may get jail time. What about the oil-for-food guys? How many of those do you think are going to see trial?

Comments are closed.