Even with its warts the UN is the lesser of all other evils -- but if it were really worth its salt, it would leave the unappreciative United States and move to Vancouver.
Published: The Vancouver Sun, March 22, 2003, Op-ed opinion column
Deborah Jones
Why is the United Nations still headquartered on United States soil?
By rights and its own rhetoric, America, the self-professed global do-gooder, should be the biggest United Nations supporter of all. It is not.
Far more than any hyperpower bent on becoming the world's "constabulary," a functional UN would have the potential to foster world peace and help build a global stage for democracy, human rights and a vibrant and sustainable global economy.
But the U.S., which is proud of its democracy, is autocratic when it comes to the UN. I'm not talking about constructive criticism, which would be legitimate and in my opinion very often justified. I'm talking about undermining the foundations of the organization.
American dues to the UN are often unpaid. American special interest groups with sway in the White House regularly hamper programs supported by a majority of other UN members, from Third World family planning to the World Criminal Court. Now, by leading the charge into Iraq without UN sanction, the Bush administration threatens the very integrity of the organization.
If the UN were worth its salt, it would leave. And if it were smart, it'd move to Vancouver.
Why would we want to house this dysfunctional organization, you ask? Bear with me.
First off, yes, the UN is dysfunctional. Lots of its actions show a lack of organizational smarts. What intelligence is evidenced by a body that lets Zimbabwe, a country led by world-class thug Robert Mugabe, become a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights which, preposterously, is now chaired by Libya? What on earth was it thinking when it allowed Saddam Hussein to chair a UN disarmament conference early this year? What backbone is shown by a UN that, in the mid 1990s, withdrew 35,000 troops from Somalia and left its citizens to the mercies of a bunch of crazy warlords? While I'm at it, I partly blame the UN itself for the frightening, potentially globally destabilizing current invasion of Iraq, because the UN lacked both the spine and the diplomatic finesse needed to deal with either the rogue Saddam Hussein or the cowboy George W. Bush.
No wonder that critics lately refer to the entire United Nations as a "joke" -- as one irate Arab in Montreal called it this week.
The UN is imperfect, to say the least and, judging by the state of the world, it's been imperfect since the First Session of the United Nations General Assembly convened in January 1946, when it grandly committed itself to "maintaining peace on the basis of full international cooperation, and so alleviating the ills that beset mankind."
Still -- like democracy itself -- the UN is the lesser of all other evils. It's the best we've got when it comes to a world body.
Despite all its flaws, the UN does essential work, including allocating frequencies to radio stations around the world, organizing the global postal system and the rules of international aviation and running the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. So says Andrew Mack, former director of strategic planning for the United Nations, who is now with the Liu Institute at the University of B.C.
"It is an extraordinary web of organizations without which life as we know it would not exist," says Mack.
I'm an idealist. I buy into the notion that the United Nations should evolve into a strong, effective and democratic organization.
Call me crazy, but I think the best place for it to do that would be in Vancouver, which would be to the advantage of the UN itself, North America and our fair city.
To heck with our Olympic bid. The money involved in the 2010 Winter Games would be peanuts compared to luring the UN headquarters to move from its site on New York's East River (which to be fair is in fact international territory) to Vancouver.
With as many as 8,000 employees, the UN spends some $2.5 billion US a year in New York, notes Mack. That doesn't include the direct and spin-off impact of all the embassies.
Mack, I'll hastily add to ensure his reputation remains intact, thinks my idea of bringing the UN to Vancouver is nuts. "Ha ha, ha, no, absolutely not!" he chuckled. "Nobody wants to move the UN from New York," he said, including the U.S. which enjoys the prestige so much it tolerated what it viewed as a "nest of spies" throughout the Cold War.
But I think prestige is partly why the UN should come here. How can the UN hold its head high when its host keeps dissing it?
Canada in general would provide an environment in which the UN could evolve. Vancouver in particular would be suitable because of its climate and its status as one of the world's most multicultural, peaceful cities, as well as its accessibility from all continents.
Convincing all member nations of the UN of Vancouver's attraction would not be easy. Everybody else would want the UN, too, says Mack, adding, "There'd be a huge fight."
But if ever there were a time when the UN might be susceptible to an invitation, this is it. Let's put our Olympic bid on the backburner, and invite the UN in.
Copyright Deborah Jones 2003
About this website: Text and photos by Deborah Jones except where otherwise noted.
Please contact me for reprint rights. All material copyrighted