As a born and bred New Yorker, I'd echo moving the UN out of the city. What a difference it would make. The traffic that would be eased, the money that would be saved on security, the pompous horse's posteriors who would be gone.

Dare we hope?

Our ongoing diplomatic philosophy regarding the UN: We keep our friends close, and we keep our enemies even closer.

Like on the East River.

in

under

why not just evict them and not worry about where they end up ? chance are they won't ever be able to decide on a new location and will just fade away.

why not just evict them and not worry about where they end up ? chance are they won't ever be able to decide on a new location and will just fade away.

Is the Kansas reference a play upon the existence of Manhattan, Ks?

How would corrupt third world elites live million-dollar lifestyles without attracting notice? You can't run an oil-for-food program without being able to drop a few billion dollars on fancy restaurants and penthouse condos.

The best way to move them out would have been to go in and grab the Oil-for-Food records before they were destroyed. There would have been a holy ruckus, the UN would have said we're not a fit host nation, and we could let them move of their own volition. And we could have found out who was screwing us.

Kirkenes Norway, Iceland or Ulster.

Bruce:

No--I'm not that smart--just on how much the Left loathes middle America.

There was a movement to establish the UN HQ in like the Black Hills or something like that. The idea was to have them all out in this serene wilderness away from the hustle and bustle.

What a bunch of lousy suggestions. I'm sure there's plenty of inexpensive office space available in Havana, Ramallah, or Harare.

Hugh Hewitt played the audio of Donald Trump's speech to a Senate committee earlier this year on why the cost of refurbishing the UN's headquarters has gone into the ionosphere.

At one point, Trump explained how desirable the UN's land in Turtle Bay would be for developers, and proposed swapping it for the land that the WTC was on, which he believed to have much less commercial value. He pointed to an unidentified senator and said, "I know he'd have problems with that idea", and whoever the senator was replied, "Not me. Just put Kofi's office on the top floor!"

Even Trump chuckled at that one.

I think it's a better idea to put the UN where it will matter, where it will do some good, and where ambassadors and delegates can come to grips with the problems facing the Third World.

I nominate Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

We move the UN there, and I guarantee you the liberal Democrats will have no problem voting to send Mr. Bolton there :-)

There's also a Manhattan in Montana. Years ago was the subject of a beef commercial touting steaks.

Also one in Illinois.

Move it to Europe. Say Geneva. Then the UN and Europe can be irrelevant together.

How about a virtual headquarters -- www.un.com. Everybody can stay in their home countries, and hold LiveMeeting sessions. It would cut the budget by 90%, and create a permanent archive of the proceedings.

Either Darfur or Rawanda would be the most appropriate location.

Ed: I published that idea two and a half years ago:

3/1/2003 12:56:44 AM | Robert Schwartz]

The powers that be in New York City have picked Daniel Leibskind's design to be the basis for the rebuilding of Ground Zero. I think this is great. I am not an architect and I am not Herbert Muschamp (I hope you can understand me, even if you think what I say is idiotic), but the pictures look pretty cool to me. And Leibskind who went to Bronx Science and Cooper Union has some home town going for him too. What is more important is that the project move forward. The subject of the perfect design can be debated from now until the saints come marching in. In the meantime we must live and we must build; to dither is to be defeated and that is not a luxury that we have anymore.

But my wife, ever the pragmatist, asked: "Who would want to rent space in a 1776 foot tall tower?"

That brought me to a complete halt. I thought about it for a long while and decided that we have the perfect candidate. -- The UN.

As an organization it has proved itself to be completely worthless. Charles Krauthammer made the case for its worthlessness in an excellent column Friday [Feb 27, 2003], and the eminent British historian Paul Johnson wrote recently:

. . the U.N. is a theater of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption, a street market of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism. It is a place where mass-murdering heads of state can stand tall and sell their votes to the highest bidder and where crimes against humanity are rewarded. For many people the true nature of the U.N. was epitomized by the news that Libya, a blood-soaked military dictatorship of the crudest kind, is to chair the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

But as the inhabitants of the top 100 floors of that tower they would be ideal. We could put the offices of the French and Belgian delegations on the top floor and lock the fire escapes. If the mad Arab Ab'dul Al'hazred pilots a fully loaded jumbo jet into the 120th floor and collapses the thing, few lives of human beings will be lost.

Not only that but moving the UN downtown would pay for itself. The current UN building could be torn down and replaced by luxury condos. They would be worth a fortune. The profits would defray the cost of rebuilding Ground Zero.

South Africa!

The Magic Kingdom.

No booze, no gambling, no strip joints and all those women working should shake things up on all sides.

"The Magic Kingdom."

Yeah, make all the diplomats go into the "It's a Small World" ride at the same time and then lock them inside. They'll either develop a mutual respect for each other or kill themselves to stop hearing that insipid song.

If we're being serious, the location for the UN should have the following criteria:

1) easily accessible by established trade routes.
2) centrally located for most of the world's population.
3) provides security for the delegates and personnel
4) be in a benign, neutral location.
5) allows the UN to see its actual impact (restating Steve White's thesis)

The first rule eliminates most inland locations - no Kansas or Kazakhstan.

The second rule eliminates Australia, South Africa, Iceland.

The third rule eliminates the Middle East or other violence prone area.

The fourth rule eliminates any country which has an agenda - Venezuela, China, Malaysia

The fifth rule eliminates much of the First World.

What's left is broad belt about north of the Equator that covers many Third World countries - South America, Africa, and SE Asia. Brazil, Liberia, Somalia, or Singapore may make good sites. Dar-es-Salaam is not a bad idea.

There may be a sixth rule as well - it should never be in a location that will attract anyone other than people committed to the what UN is supposed to achieve. It should not be a glamorous site where people think a UN job is a vacation or part of the jetset.