By Roberto Savio and - -
ROME, Feb 1 2005 (IPS)

Worldwide there is an undercurrent of opinion that as part of UN reform and revitalization, its headquarters should be relocated from New York to another city and host country. This view needs to be argued and articulated in the multilateral arena. It needs to be brought to the attention of the world public opinion and policy makers, writes Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of IPS, and member of the WSF International Committee. In an international community composed of almost 200 states, striving for a genuine, democratic international system, the heart and brain of such a system embodied in the UN, should not be located in a country with hegemonic pretensions, which is systematically trying to make the UN into a docile instrument for the pursuit and attainment of its national goals, while neutralizing any of its roles, functions or actions that it deems contrary to its national interest. The UN cannot feel at ease or function normally in a setting where an important part of the political establishment and of public opinion is openly hostile to it, and in a micro-environment where its presence has become a daily irritant to many and where it is subjected to consistently negative media coverage.

Worldwide there is an undercurrent of opinion that as part of UN reform and revitalization, its headquarters should be relocated from New York to another city and host country. This view needs to be argued and articulated in the multilateral arena. It needs to be brought to the attention of the world public opinion and policy makers.

There are several reasons for suggesting that the UN be moved:

In an international community composed of almost 200 states, striving for a genuine, democratic international system, the heart and brain of such a system embodied in the UN, should not be located in a country with hegemonic pretensions, which is systematically trying to make the UN into a docile instrument for the pursuit and attainment of its national goals, while neutralizing any of its roles, functions or actions that it deems contrary to its national interest.

The UN work, agenda and outputs are being affected and swayed by its immediate environment, and its having become hostage to domestic politics, media and interest groups, including those hostile to the essence of the organization, who consider it as one of the remnants of “liberal-progressive deviations” of the 20th century that should be either abolished or transformed into an instrument of 21st century version of realpolitik and neo-liberal globalization, with an implicit “civilizational” mission.

The UN cannot feel at ease or function normally in a setting where an important part of the political establishment and of public opinion is openly hostile to it, and in a micro-environment where its presence has become a daily irritant to many and where it is subjected to consistently negative media coverage.

The UN location has given undue advantage, additional leverage and influence over its work and proceedings to an already dominant global power, which it is using in a situation where the UN has no effective means to counter, or even attempt to resist such pressures.

The UN HQs is becoming dysfunctional and off bounds a “fortress UN” — due to measures rising from the all pervasive “war on terrorism”, including travel restrictions and complex security procedures introduced by the host country which affect in particular the nationals of developing countries and their access to the world organization.

In brief, the international community cannot resign itself and allow the UN to be affected and frequently victimized by its location, which leaves it so exposed to those bent on controlling it, including through daily pressures on the Secretary-General and the Secretariat. To spare the UN from this predicament, it would need to be moved to another, more friendly and supportive location, more functional and fully and freely accessible.

The moment for considering such a move is ripe; politically, emotionally, functionally. The opportunistic and self-serving public offensive against the chief executive officer of the UN and the Secretariat, and through them against the whole organization, have brought to the public view the asymmetrical relationship that exists between the UN and the host country, markedly accentuated by the location of its Headquarters.

No doubt, it will be hard to leave behind 60 years of history and tradition, and to change the routine, especially for many of those who have grown their new roots there. It is complex and costly to move the whole infrastructure, though much less so in today’s information society than in the past.

The question of where to move the UN Headquarters will no doubt require some consultation before agreement can be reached. The UN complexes in Geneva or Vienna could be used to accommodate the Headquarters with relative ease. There are other possible, attractive and welcoming locations.

In its new location the UN would establish itself as a global centre of multilateralism and democratic global governance. Its Headquarters should become a symbol and monument to the strivings and lofty goals of humankind embodied in the UN Charter, and its efforts to deal with and resolve the multitude of complex challenges confronting the international community today and in the period to come.To relocate the UN is a political statement of transcendental importance. It means starting the 21st century on a positive note, signalling the opposition of the international community to hegemony and unilateralism, renewing with the quest for equity and democratization of international relations and highlighting solidarity among peoples and nations which the UN embodies. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: