12 April 2003
Merits of Moving the UN HQ to Baghdad
***
-- / --
The argument has been further developed in Build the Wall -- Move the UN HQ? (January 2017)
and subsequently in Symbolic Relocation of United Nations HQ to Jerusalem Vicinity (December 2017)
Summary
A very strong case has been made by Simon Jenkins to Keep the UN well away from Iraq - for now (The Times, 9 April 2003). That argument focuses on immediate humanitarian intervention and nation-building programmes. There is however a medium-term argument with respect to the relocation of the UN Secretariat itself -- an operation that extends far beyond the time horizon addressed by Simon Jenkins and is relevant to current issues of renovating the existing UN Secretariat building already constrained for space.
The following points would appear to strongly justify active planning for such a move to Baghdad at this time:
- It would constitute a concrete manifestation of the vital role that the
UN could in future perform in relation to the Iraqi economy, if only through
the external resources associated with maintaining the Secretariat and the
benefits to the local economy from visiting delegates
- In a time of great stress, suspicion and uncertainty, it would constitute
a visible manifestation of the concrete commitment to the challenges of the
Middle East and the regional peace process
- It would shift the centre of gravity of the international community from
the North and help to provide a bridging function to the impoverished populations
of Africa and Asia
- For the most representative body of "We the Peoples...", Baghdad and
the Tigris-Euphrates region is a natural symbolic location, embodying a deep
cultural heritage as the cradle of human civilization
- It would help focus the reconstruction of Iraq and prevent the conflict
from becoming a long-lasting symbol of the failures of the international community
and the UN itself
- It would creatively position the UN in relation to nation-building in the
post-Saddam era in Iraq and offer a stablizing focus for the Middle East
- It would provide a catalytic role for new thinking in the Arab world
- It would reduce the infrastructure costs of a UN administration already
faced with budgetary challenges at its current location in New York
- The many costly public buildings and complexes constructed by the Saddam
regime in Baghdad should offer many possibilities for a UN Secretariat, which
might even benefit significantly from a lateral rather than vertical disposition
of offices, especially when interspersed by gardens; their use by the UN would
help to justify the resources devoted to such sumptuous buildings
- It would shift the UN from a country whose government has publicly expressed
little regard for it, and has no need of it, to a region where its potential
can be more effectively explored through other cultural frameworks
- The possibilities of participation in UN processes from the South, and from
transition countries, would be increased by the shift in geographic location,
which would also reduce the travel expenses for many
- It would require the UN to adopt a more networked organizational style,
more in keeping with the requirements of the 21st century
- It would constitute a real challenge to those Secretariat personnel who
may have become overly habituated to the comforts of the Manhattan setting
and a "developed-world" mindset
- It would increase the representativity at UN meetings, notably of civil
society bodies from the South, especially by reducing the air travel security
constraints requiring invasive body searching of suspects on entry to the
USA
- It would reduce the strain on the security systems of the USA currently
faced with the challenge of so many dubious visitors from countries acknowledged
to be hotbeds of terrorist sympathizers
- It would offer a construction opportunity to multinational corporations
desiring to contribute prestigiously to participation in the Iraqi nation-building
process, and perhaps frustrated by the priority given to contractors from
countries more closely associated with the USA
- At a time when the reputation and role of the UN is being called into question,
such a move would position the UN more centrally and visibly in relation to
the challenges of a developing world that still looks to it for hope
- It would reduce the security threat to UN delegates and personel, given
the authoritative indications of US intelligence agencies, that the USA (and
New York in particular) is under increasing threat of terrorist attack
- The Secretariat building is in need of major renovation and is severely constrained for space, notably to house civil society bodies (see below). It is also a major cause of traffic problems in New York City. The UN's Capital Master Plan could usefully envisage construction of a new complex in Baghdad rather than having to envisage alternative space whilst renovation takes place.
Any more arguments....?
Earlier proposals
Earlier proposals have been most recently brought to a focus by the state of the UN Secretariat building and the traffic issues that the presence of that building creates in Manhattan. Other proposals have been put forward as a result of the negligence of the USA with respect to its membership arrears. Clearly there are wider concerns with respect to the questionable degree of association with the USA as it takes on its role of sole superpower and sets aside major international treaty provisions that the UN has struggled so hard to articulate.
Recent items relating to such proposals include:
2002: Under the co-chairmanship of Lawrence C. Moss, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York produced an excellent, multi-facetted and wellm-documented report discussing the challenges of the UN Secretariat building in relation to the UN's Capital Master Plan (New York City and the United Nations: Towards a Renewed Relationship: A Report by the Special Committee on the United Nations of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York). The report notes:
- A team of architects and engineers thoroughly examined the condition of the UN headquarters complex in 1998-99. The study concluded that despite the high quality of the original construction, many building elements had deteriorated due to age, or do not meet current standards for safety and energy efficiency. The study concluded "the current condition of the Headquarters complex renders it unacceptable for continued use over the long term."
- The Secretariat further considered demolishing and rebuilding the headquarters complex. Using the present site, this would cost several hundred million dollars more than renovation, and would be highly disruptive to the UN. Reconstruction of the UN on Governor's Island has also been suggested, bringing considerable security and traffic advantages,
- In summary, the UN General Assembly is likely to choose, and the City should support, a plan for the UN to thoroughly renovate its present headquarters complex over a number of years. The primary consequences for the City will be the need to accommodate the UN's need for "swing space" to relocate meetings and staff during renovation work, to make improvements to nearby roads, and to assist with financing the renovation.
- One space need not considered by the UN's Capital Master Plan is for additional office space to house nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Consultative status for NGO's is provided for in Article 71 of the United Nations Charter, and the number of accredited NGOs has steadily increased. Currently there are 2091 NGOs in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), some 400 NGOs accredited to the Commission on Sustainable Development, a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, and 1,672 NGO's are registered with the UN Department of Public Information. [55] The City may want to encourage the growth of NGO's, both for economic development purposes, and to enrich the processes of the UN, and a new facility would help. A building constructed by UNDC as swing space for the UN during renovation might later be leased to NGO's. Another imaginative idea to explore is construction of a new conference hall for meetings and conferences during renovation of the UN headquarters, and later using the space as a cultural venue and/or as a location for the fall general debate if the new location affords easier high-security access for Heads of State. [more]
2001: St Petersburg: Dmitrii Rogozin, the chairman of the Duma International Relations Committee, told Interfax on 14 May that Moscow may propose moving the headquarters of the United Nations from New York to St. Petersburg because of America's failure to pay its dues. "If the position of the Americans does not change and if as a result the international civil servants working in New York feel ever more uncomfortable, I think we will raise the question of moving the central UN headquarters to the 'Venice of the North,' St. Petersburg," Rogozin said. [more]
2001: A US telephone poll concluded that 67% of callers were in favour of moving the UN out of the USA.
1997: Continuing friction between the United Nations and New York City has focused on the issue of parking. Tough enforcement programmes in relation to the many abuses of diplomatic privilege over parking resulted in one French legal expert recommending that the Secretariat be moved out of New York.
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
