Plan B

New York Sun editorialized The defeat in Albany of the United Nations' attempt at a land grab in Turtle Bay presents an opportunity for the city, state, and federal governments - and the United Nations itself - to rethink the logic of its remaining in New York at all. "They need to go to Plan B," is the way it was characterized by Senator Elizabeth Krueger, one of those who represent the East Side in Albany. Decamping New York may not be what Ms. Krueger had in mind, but by our lights the best outcome of this fight would be for the world body, which has abandoned the ideals in which Americans originally invested, to vacate its headquarters here altogether and move to, say, the former West German capital of Bonn (which has a lot of office space) or one of the Third World capitals that share its hostility to the things for which America stands.

I would hate to ask the West Germans to put up with them, but I like the idea of sending them to some Third World capital.

We could then use the UN building for a new Union of Democratic Nations.

Our view is, in a sense, the opposite of one that we have often heard expressed - that all this could have been settled if, say, Secretary-General Annan had put the interests of the U.N. ahead of his private ambitions and resigned. Senator Martin Golden offered publicly to allow the U.N.'s building plan to go through if the secretary-general would take such a step. We think Mr. Golden played quite a heroic role in this showdown. In a straightforward way, he expressed the view that many, many New Yorkers hold of a United Nations, a view that sees it as corrupt, wasteful, hostile to Israel, and anti-American. What we have come to object to is not the individual U.N. officials - many of whom are warm and idealistic individuals and fine neighbors - but the institution of the United Nations itself. It is largely a grouping of undemocratic states that seeks hegemony over democratic ones to protect, all too often, corrupt ends. When one raises this issue, defenders of the United Nations throw up all sorts of chaff about the constituent elements of the world body - the World Health Organization, say, or the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, or the International Labor Organization. What vainglory to suggest that these institutions, to the degree that they have value, cannot carry on either independently or in a new structure. The ILO was founded in 1919, 27 years before the United Nations. It survived the demise of its original host, the League of Nations. Surely it would survive the demise of the United Nations.

Secretary-General Annan took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal last week to denounce the House of Representatives and the chairman of its Committee on International Relations, Henry Hyde. It is Mr. Hyde whose name is on the bill that would halve American dues payments to the world body if the U.N. fails to meet minimal reforms.

I support Mr Hyde's bill. The only change I would make is giving the Congress the power to withhold 50% of the dues, and giving the Secretary of State the power to withhold the other 50%.

Mr. Annan seems to think this is a violation of the United Nations Treaty. Well, Mr. Hyde comprehends one thing that Mr. Annan apparently does not, Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which reserves solely to the House the power to initiate American spending. Senator Bruno suggested last week that had the minority in the U.S. Senate permitted John Bolton to take up his post at the United Nations, there might be some basis for going forward with the plan to expand the U.N. footprint in Turtle Bay. Wishful thinking. From Albany to Washington to New York City, Americans have been trying to send a larger message, one that the world body doesn't want to hear. The U.N. has been in business for 60 years now - it was June 26, 1945, when representatives of 50 countries, meeting at San Francisco, signed the U.N. Charter. The failure of the body since then has come not because of the wrong American ambassador being there or the wrong secretary-general, but because of the inclusion of so many unfree regimes. The right plan now is for the United Nations to set about packing up and getting out of town.

I agree completely!!!!!

Without the legitimacy of being in New York, the United Nations would fold like a cheap suit. An anti-American organization could no longer taunt its favorite punching bag from a swanky perch on our own soil. And the site at Turtle Bay would be available for more productive commercial or residential uses or as the headquarters of a new organization of free democracies that could pursue the quest on which the world set out 60 years ago to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all.

Scott Sala blogged The New York Sun editorial board wrote today that the UN should consider leaving NYC permanently. This is not merely a statement of protest, but a culmination of looking at recent circumstances that have made the UN quite un-welcome already. But it's also not just an assessment. Hard feelings still exist, and I tend to agree that I'd rather see a new body of free nations formed than wait a millenium for the UN to reform.

Scott @PowerLine blogged The Sun invites the United Nations to leave New York. It's about time somebody noticed that the problem of the United Nations goes far beyond Kofi Annan to the nature of the organization itself.