Does US really deserve to be the host of UN?

[Left Now]

Well,I only want to say that why does US have to be the host nation of UN?I mean couldn't it just be placed in a country which simply is not a super power?
For example what's wrong with it if UN was in SA(South Africa)?

[Hypers]

Well, you will need a powerful leader or else how will order be maintained?

[Left Now]

Well, you will need a powerful leader or else how will order be maintained?

You mean US is the leader of all nations in UN?Was that a joke?

[Hypers]

You mean US is the leader of all nations in UN?Was that a joke?
I mean that you will need someone that can enforce what's been decided, or else nobody will listen to anyone. For example, if South Africa was the host, countries that are more powerful might not comply with decisions, if that country has the ability.

[Left Now]

I mean that you will need someone that can enforce what's been decided, or else nobody will listen to anyone. For example, if South Africa was the host, countries that are more powerful might not comply with decisions, if that country has the ability.

Okay now why should it be in US or let me tell it this way...Why should it be in a western superpower?Except US and UK,there are still two other superpowers in the world that can be the host of United Nation.Why shouldn't it be in those countries?

[Hypers]

Okay now why should it be in US or let me tell it this way...Why should it be in a western superpower?Except US and UK,there are still two other superpowers in the world that can be the host of United Nation.Why shouldn't it be in those countries?

Yeah, the UN could be in any superpower, but it will always be in either a western superpower or an eastern superpower, and there will always be arguments on where it should be. If the UN headquarters were in Russia, wouldn't the US complain?

The UN should never have prejudice (as in west vs. east) and location should not matter because at the end of the day, even though the UN is located the US, the US does not have power to overrule votings in the UN. Being the "host" nation does not mean being the "ultimate" nation.

[Left Now]

Yeah, the UN could be in any superpower, but it will always be in either a western superpower or an eastern superpower, and there will always be arguments on where it should be. If the UN headquarters were in Russia, wouldn't the US complain?

The UN should never have prejudice (as in west vs. east) and location should not matter because at the end of the day, even though the UN is located the US, the US does not have power to overrule votings in the UN. Being the "host" nation does not mean being the "ultimate" nation.

Of course it doesn't,but UN presence in US has given this country a real great political advantage over last 60 years.UN is not a governmental organization is it?It's undoubtedly an international organization.This is why I say South Africa could be a good option to be the host nation of United Nations.And why should others really complain about it.

[Hyper]

Considering the UN is a toothless puppy who really cares?

[xxdrakeTxx]

i think that would be okay . if south africa could get it together plus with the anti gay laws that would go against what the un stands for. if africa was stable had a better run goverment and gave all its people rights than i think it would be fine

[Ethe14]

I think it's just fine in the U.S, the only other countries in my view that should be able to host it is Japan, Australia, India, or Italy.

[Hypers]

Of course it doesn't,but UN presence in US has given this country a real great political advantage over last 60 years.UN is not a governmental organization is it?It's undoubtedly an international organization.This is why I say South Africa could be a good option to be the host nation of United Nations.And why should others really complain about it.
The political advantage you speak of, is it because the US was influential in the first place or is the US influential because it hosts the UN? Obviously, the US was always influential, and always will be influential, no matter if the UN is in the US or Europe or Russia.

[Left Now]

The political advantage you speak of, is it because the US was influential in the first place or is the US influential because it hosts the UN? Obviously, the US was always influential, and always will be influential, no matter if the UN is in the US or Europe or Russia.

I say UN should be in a country which is more indifferent toward the political conflicts and arguments,not a superpower itself.Have you just read the news recently?"Senate approves bill to ban Iranian Ambs. to UN"

Do you know what it means?It means that US is openly using its so-called right as the host of UN to prevent one nation's ambassador to UN to enter the United Nations.Why?Because that ambassador is accused of being one of those students who took over US embassy after revolution in 1979.I call it a clearly abusing of the position which US has as the host of UN only because US has problem with another country.

[Dalcourt]

I say UN should be in a country which is more indifferent toward the political conflicts and arguments,not a superpower itself.Have you just read the news recently?"Senate approves bill to ban Iranian Ambs. to UN"

Do you know what it means?It means that US is openly using its so-called right as the host of UN to prevent one nation's ambassador to UN to enter the United Nations.Why?Because that ambassador is accused of being one of those students who took over US embassy after revolution in 1979.I call it a clearly abusing of the position which US has as the host of UN only because US has problem with another country.

Ah, okay now I get what it is all about. I was wondering when I started reading the topic.
My answer, no country that is the host for the UN should be indifferent towards political problems in the world...may it be the USA, South Africa or every other country. There will always be personal grudges and really important issues going on between the countries of the world. To let another country be the host won't solve this problem. So for me it seems that this whole thing would be rather pointless.

[Harry Smith]

Of course it doesn't,but UN presence in US has given this country a real great political advantage over last 60 years.UN is not a governmental organization is it?It's undoubtedly an international organization.This is why I say South Africa could be a good option to be the host nation of United Nations.And why should others really complain about it.

It doesn't help the US at all, in the same way NATO being based in Belgium doesn't help the people of Belgium. South Africa? Did you see what happened there in the 1960's/70/80's. How can you justify spending 10 Billion on a new HQ when 23% of the country is in poverty. You can't have it in South Africa.

Your argument would make sense if the US abused the system to control the UN but it doesn't. The UN pretty much stopped the US from attacking Syria. Just because something is American doesn't make it bad.

I say UN should be in a country which is more indifferent toward the political conflicts and arguments,not a superpower itself.Have you just read the news recently?"Senate approves bill to ban Iranian Ambs. to UN"

Do you know what it means?It means that US is openly using its so-called right as the host of UN to prevent one nation's ambassador to UN to enter the United Nations.Why?Because that ambassador is accused of being one of those students who took over US embassy after revolution in 1979.I call it a clearly abusing of the position which US has as the host of UN only because US has problem with another country.

The said ambassador is a terrorist, who attacked US sovereign land in 1979-that's a crime under US law. They have every right to stop an enemy from entering their own country. That's there right.

UN should be in a country which is more indifferent toward the political conflicts and arguments

No, you want the UN to be in a country which supports Iran

[Left Now]

Ah, okay now I get what it is all about. I was wondering when I started reading the topic.
My answer, no country that is the host for the UN should be indifferent towards political problems in the world...may it be the USA, South Africa or every other country. There will always be personal grudges and really important issues going on between the countries of the world. To let another country be the host won't solve this problem. So for me it seems that this whole thing would be rather pointless.

Oh no no please don't make a mistake i didn't say that to support my own country...It's years that I'm thinking about why UN should be placed in US


No, you want the UN to be in a country which supports Iran

No no I didn't mean that.Like all nations in this world Iran has its own bad and good qualities,I do not support most the wrong policies of my country and I do not deny them neither.I am just saying that UN could be in a little more indifferent country.For example another country in Europe,or a country in Eastern Asia(Not PRC of course)or even Japan.

Your argument would make sense if the US abused the system to control the UN but it doesn't. The UN pretty much stopped the US from attacking Syria. Just because something is American doesn't make it bad.

Completely right;But I didn't mean that;I didn't mean if something got the name American is undoubtedly Evil;Also we Iranians would never forget that it was American Tomcats and war equipments which helped us to win the major part of the aircraft fights against Iraq during the war.

The advantage which US has achieved by hosting the UN is not a direct political advantage.I mean US has gotten a prestige for hosting the United Nations through all over this world.You know it has become some kinda symbol for many people of this world.Symbol of Freedom,Symbol of Power,Symbol of Human Rights...

I disagree with most of them.In fact,I would feel better even if UN was in UK instead of US or even another European country,because US itself has broken many of the rules of UN.

[ninja789]

from what I have heard the UN is pretty ineffective without backing from the US because of how widespread their military bases are and the size/ equipment of their troops.
saying that they do owe the UN a ton of money but this money would perhaps be better used elsewhere
kinda a difficult one

[Stronk Serb]

Maybe put it in Switzerland or some Scandinavian country? The Swiss, the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians and the Finns didn't wage war for a long time and stay out of other people's businesses, while the US puts it's nose (and bombs) everywhere.

[Harry Smith]

The advantage which US has achieved by hosting the UN is not a direct political advantage.I mean US has gotten a prestige for hosting the United Nations through all over this world.You know it has become some kinda symbol for many people of this world.Symbol of Freedom,Symbol of Power,Symbol of Human Rights....

Nobody in their right mind would associate the US with human rights-I understand the point your trying to get at that the UN gives the US prestige but I mean that's the same with any international building. It's only in the US because the rest of the world was flattened after WW2.

[Left Now]

Nobody in their right mind would associate the US with human rights-I understand the point your trying to get at that the UN gives the US prestige but I mean that's the same with any international building. It's only in the US because the rest of the world was flattened after WW2.

Well that's another logic thing which could be said,but WHAT ABOUT NOW?

[Harry Smith]

Well that's another logic thing which could be said,but WHAT ABOUT NOW?

is it really worth moving it? I mean the money that would be wasted could be spend actually helping the world

[Left Now]

Ehh...Let me give u a big answer....NOOOOO!Logically it's not logically to waste all those money for just moving a whole HQ from one place to another.But what if they didn't need such a big and great building like that sky scraper in NY.Then they were not going to waste lots of money for that.

However,keep going you're going to convince me..

[LuciferSam]

Here's my take on the issue, broken down regionally:

Asia

Middle-East: Unstable, violent, high risk of attack
Russia: Able, but not in the best infrastructural shape. Also has left a bad taste in the mouths of many.
Far East (China, SE Asia, etc.): Crowded, rife with human rights violations, only real options are Japan and South Korea.


Africa
High poverty, high-violence in many places.

South America
Not terribly bad, but still relatively unstable and poor.

Europe
Just fine, but crowded.

This leaves Australia, USA, most places in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

South Korea is a tricky situation, considering its proximity to North Korea, China and Russia, and Japan is incredibly crowded, as is Europe.

Moving the UN centre to these other places would also warrant the construction of new facilities, which is likely to be extremely costly.

Besides, if the decision were made to move the centre of operations for the UN, there would probably be a major conflict over it. The US will be reluctant to concede, and everywhere else will be squabbling over who is most fit to host the new centre, likely dissolving into a swamp of nationalistic rhetoric. Then when the decision is made, there will be many sore losers, which may turn into international grudges.

For the time being, most countries seem content with the UN being in the US, or at least they don't place it very high on their list of issues. I don't see any reason to try changing it unless it becomes a major problem.

[Left Now]

Here's my take on the issue, broken down regionally:

Asia

Middle-East: Unstable, violent, high risk of attack
Russia: Able, but not in the best infrastructural shape. Also has left a bad taste in the mouths of many.
Far East (China, SE Asia, etc.): Crowded, rife with human rights violations, only real options are Japan and South Korea.


Africa
High poverty, high-violence in many places.

South America
Not terribly bad, but still relatively unstable and poor.

Europe
Just fine, but crowded.

This leaves Australia, USA, most places in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

South Korea is a tricky situation, considering its proximity to North Korea, China and Russia, and Japan is incredibly crowded, as is Europe.

Moving the UN centre to these other places would also warrant the construction of new facilities, which is likely to be extremely costly.

Besides, if the decision were made to move the centre of operations for the UN, there would probably be a major conflict over it. The US will be reluctant to concede, and everywhere else will be squabbling over who is most fit to host the new centre, likely dissolving into a swamp of nationalistic rhetoric. Then when the decision is made, there will be many sore losers, which may turn into international grudges.

For the time being, most countries seem content with the UN being in the US, or at least they don't place it very high on their list of issues. I don't see any reason to try changing it unless it becomes a major problem.

Thanks for your opinion.That was satisfying enough.

[LuciferSam]

Thanks for your opinion.That was satisfying enough.

Glad to be of help! :D

[Lonely teen]

The United States started the United Nations after WWII

[TheBigUnit]

Maybe put it in Switzerland or some Scandinavian country? The Swiss, the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians and the Finns didn't wage war for a long time and stay out of other people's businesses, while the US puts it's nose (and bombs) everywhere.

Ehh...Let me give u a big answer....NOOOOO!Logically it's not logically to waste all those money for just moving a whole HQ from one place to another.But what if they didn't need such a big and great building like that sky scraper in NY.Then they were not going to waste lots of money for that.

However,keep going you're going to convince me..


I believe Switzerland or Singapore would be good options if you were planning on moving the UN as they are both pretty neutral nations....


BUT! the problem is, is that the UN honestly has not too much power, I mean heck they beat the drum but who listens? Having the US or another world power control the setting would be better as the UN will have a more legitimate feel, otherwise you run the risk of another League of Nations,

In my view having a big skyscraper just adds to the legitimacy, honestly think about it, you travel across the world to this huge grand setting, your ego boosts up you feel privileged to be part of such a powerful and select group...i will use a Star Wars reference so bear with me, Imagine youre a large power leader from the east heading to a UN summit, would u rather... A) Travel to Jabbas Castle in Tatooine or B) the Senate Building in Coruscant, .....so my point yeah a big sky scraper is pretty helpful

[thatcountrykid]

I wish the us would kick them and and leave the un.

[Harry Smith]

I wish the us would kick them and and leave the un.

yeah leave the UN-that would really solve all the worlds problems wouldn't it. I never understand why people have such an irrational hatred of it, sure it makes you look hipster but the UN is the only group that can enable us to tackle climate change, poverty and war. Look at the role the US and the UN played in Bosnia to stop active genocide-that's why the UN is important.

[Etcetera]

Because it is.

[Stronk Serb]

yeah leave the UN-that would really solve all the worlds problems wouldn't it. I never understand why people have such an irrational hatred of it, sure it makes you look hipster but the UN is the only group that can enable us to tackle climate change, poverty and war. Look at the role the US and the UN played in Bosnia to stop active genocide-that's why the UN is important.

You used a really bad example here. Tensions are still high in Bosnia. You have pro-Chetniks and pro-Ottomans. You have national-socialist groups in both parts of Bosnia, and hatred is constantly fueled by idiots with no brains and turbofolk music. The same could be said for Kosovo and Croatia too. In Kosovo, Serbs are oppressed, in Croatia, the Ustashas have risen again and revere their genocidal ancestors who butchered Serbian children. I am not saying Serbia is the sole victim, but those 'poor Muslims and Croatians' commited genocide and other crimes too.

[Gamma Male]

Considering the constant power struggle going on between the US and Russia, it seems like it would be much more fair for the UN host to be a relatively neutral country. If the UN's goals are to be accomplished it musn't alienate any major super powers by seeming biased toward the goals of any particular nation. And although the US being the host country of the UN doesn't really provide many actual benefits, it does send a biased message to friend/ enemy's of the US that could potentially lead to distrust of the UN, which is entirely against the point. The UN is supposed to be a harbringer of world peace and global unity for fucks sake! That can only happen if the perceived leader is unbiased. You don't see debates in which the moderator is also one of the debaters.

[Harry Smith]

You used a really bad example here. Tensions are still high in Bosnia. You have pro-Chetniks and pro-Ottomans. You have national-socialist groups in both parts of Bosnia, and hatred is constantly fueled by idiots with no brains and turbofolk music. The same could be said for Kosovo and Croatia too. In Kosovo, Serbs are oppressed, in Croatia, the Ustashas have risen again and revere their genocidal ancestors who butchered Serbian children. I am not saying Serbia is the sole victim, but those 'poor Muslims and Croatians' commited genocide and other crimes too.

I'm sure there's still social tensions, I never said that the UN/west was able to come in and solve 500 years worth of grievances but if you look at what we able to stop in Bosnia. We managed to get Mladic to the Hague, I actually know the UN commander who fought in the conflict, if we hadn't gone in then it would of ended much worse

[Pulp501]

The US is the most powerful country. But does it really matter where it is? No one really deserves it. I think they just decided New York would be a good place for it. And it is. The US was and has been the biggest contributor.