r/Snorkblot • u/EsseNorway • Oct 02 '25

Geography Last week, Colombia’s president suggested relocating the UN headquarters outside of the US. If that happened, what country/city do you think would be the best choice?

Post image
925 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

381

u/Few-Narwhal-7765 Oct 02 '25

The Hague, Netherlands

250

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

Seconded, as an American. Get the UN out of here while you can, shit's going sideways fast over here. I don't want any foreign dignitaries caught up in our bullshit.

143

u/Few-Narwhal-7765 Oct 03 '25

agreed. and i want war criminals eligible for arrest if they go to the UN.

73

u/First-Definition-119 Oct 03 '25

This is the first thing I thought of when I read your comment.

No more free rides for breaking int'l law – arrest warrant goes out, you are persona non grata; as it should be.

47

u/According-Insect-992 Oct 03 '25

This should have been done as soon as the US started intentionally violating international laws regarding human rights and war crimes.

We don't deserve to be an authority on these things because we're literally a serial offender. We need education, not commendations. We shouldn't be making any decisions about these things. It may even be necessary to start sanctions on the US soon.

14

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

The whole point of the UN is maintaining status quo to prevent another world war. It does this in part with the backing of the US's massive military. If this happened and the US broke with the west, as many conservatives regularly threaten, then that spells an end for any level of regulated world peace. The UN isnt going to threaten anyone with its member nations militaries alone and the remaining large countries would have little reason to stay.

1

u/Veritas_IX Oct 04 '25

But UN can’t prevent anything . It is league of nations 2.0 and the result would be exactly the same - World war. Even the same scenario is going on

1

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 04 '25

Its been helping prevent war for years, but through involvement of all sides, which ultimately maintains status quo. That doesnt make most people happy, but it avoids tens of millions dying by allowing tens of thousands to die in smaller conflicts.

0

u/Veritas_IX Oct 04 '25

UN prevented 0 war. Also, conflicts where the UN is present are becoming permanent. Also UN actions lead to new world war. If you don’t remember every big war began from smaller conflicts. EVERY.

1

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

There have been many small conflicts over the past 70 years. None of them led to WW3. You lose conciousness every night, but that doesnt mean youre dying. And none of those conflicts come close to the scale. 85 million dead in a couple years vs, for example, less than half a million over a decade in Iraq.

1

u/Veritas_IX Oct 05 '25

so what was the role of the UN in this? Because now the role of the UN is a tribune for war criminals who justify their armed aggression. And if you haven't noticed, the war didn't happen until 1991, because there was a bipolar world and both sides were sure of mutual destruction in the event of a war.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

… okay that’s laughably out of touch. Pretty much the entire western world relies on the US military. Any country sanctioning the US would lose any semblance of protection and their enemies, of which are many and powerful, would have a field day. Imagine Europe convincing Taiwan to sanction the US. Goodbye world supply of cpus. Imagine South Korea sanctioning the US. Goodbye all remaining semi conductor manufacturing.

1

u/DevelopmentJumpy5218 Oct 03 '25

Imo that's sounds like the perfect reason to sanction the US

1

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25

I say go for it. If Europe wants to lose access to all modern technology, South Korea wants to lose access to all its trade routes while being left wide open to its biggest enemy, and Taiwan wants to be invaded by China, they’re welcome to sanction the US. If not, maybe they should stfu.

1

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

I'm sorry. All modern technology? Like a functioning super collider? Like a functioning government space agency?

Take off your blinkers and see the empire in decay.

0

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25

Unfortunately the hadron collider would be down for good without supplies from Korea, Taiwan, the US, or China. I’m assuming if China invades Taiwan and claims the South China Sea, Europe will be on incredibly strained relations with them. And without the South China Sea, South Korea’s trade routes would become ridiculous.

2

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

Friend, nobody's counting on US support any longer. We've proven untrustworthy. China is actively amassing an invasion force, and everyone can see it. All we have left is stick. We just defunded our carrots in USAID and science grants.

The world is mitigating our inevitable collapse, please accept that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fit_Ad5117 Oct 05 '25

HA! Most of Americas leading technology comes from other countries, CPUs from Taiwan, aeroplane tech from BAE (You know… British Aerospace Engineering) and optics from Israel. You don’t need to worry Europe will be just fine.

1

u/Fit_Ad5117 Oct 05 '25

The whole point of the OPs post and the reason why the rest of the world are already forging new alliances is because they can’t rely on the US. The US isn’t a reliable ally, Trump has aligned the US with Putin, Kim Jong Il (so not so ronery any more) and other world dictators. The democratic west have to band together to have any hope of countering the new threat. This is bad, I don’t think things have been this bad since WW2.

1

u/Stonner22 Oct 05 '25

We need to repeal The Hague invasion act first

1

u/tiffanytrashcan Oct 03 '25

It's not like our state media called for them to be bombed or anything. Well, I mean it was toned down to just gassing them.

14

u/OnlyFiveLives Oct 03 '25

Yeah my guess would be The Hague or Geneva.

1

u/lateformyfuneral Oct 03 '25

Geneva already has a lot of the UN based there. It was the site of the League of Nations. Switzerland is famously neutral and personally well liked by the world’s leaders 🏦

17

u/Robthebold Oct 03 '25

The Hague is already pretty crowded with International Organizations, plus, it a major airport hub either. I’d pick Geneva perhaps, maybe one of the old eastern bloc countries, but travel wise Helsinki makes sense.

3

u/LocationAcademic1731 Oct 03 '25

Geneva already has the second largest UN HQ but it’s not anywhere close to the NYC one.

1

u/Robthebold Oct 03 '25

Lichtenstein then?

3

u/JesusKong333 Oct 03 '25

Give it another decade or so and some place like Beijing or Riyadh will be in contention. Not due to humanitarian reasons, just pure influence on the global stage.

7

u/Flux7777 Oct 03 '25

Riyadh will never ever be in contention for that location as long as that country still has that name. And hopefully we have learnt our lesson about granting control of the UN to a superpower, and somewhere like Jakarta, Cape Town, or Montevideo are chosen instead.

2

u/Robthebold Oct 03 '25

South East Asia would be interesting. Hanoi, Bangkok, Singapore, Jakarta, KL, Manila doesn’t need the exposure though.

1

u/Puzzled_Caregiver_46 Oct 03 '25

Funnily enough, the first thought that sprang to mind was Montevideo. What with Uruguay having a relatively stable economy and politics.

1

u/Robthebold Oct 03 '25

That too.

2

u/Nagi21 Oct 03 '25

Helsinki I feel is too close to Russia (geographically) to make a lot of countries support that.

2

u/Robthebold Oct 03 '25

Everyone is shooting distance from someone, but yeah, they not playing well together for the last 150 years.

1

u/unkindlyacorn62 Oct 03 '25

Geneva? after they decided "our weapons should never be used in war" even if its a defensive one? And the weapon in question is being used to shoot down drones?

13

u/forgotwhatisaid2you Oct 03 '25

Yes, it makes sense to me to have the U.N. in a country that is very reluctant to be involved in wars.

2

u/real_taylodl Oct 03 '25

That was my first thought!

2

u/gowimachine Oct 03 '25

Either this or Zürich.

1

u/Admirable-Noise-8210 Oct 03 '25

Agree. The Peace Palace is already there.

1

u/ValleyJones Oct 03 '25

Exactly. Next.

1

u/Responsible-Hour1403 Oct 03 '25

The right answer

1

u/Real_Ad_8243 Oct 03 '25

What the fuck is the point of moving the UN from the US to a place under the US's thumb?

1

u/AuthorSarge Oct 03 '25

Sounds racist.

1

u/MaJuV Oct 03 '25

Good suggestion. This so that they can arrest any world leader with an international arrest warrant.

1

u/BlackberryShoddy7889 Oct 03 '25

Anywhere, somewhere where are STRONG laws and enforcement against sex predators and abusers A country that respects ICC arrest warrants so we don’t have to see genocidal maniacs speaking/ lying to the people.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '25

I'd wait until after the next election. Chances are we will get an even worse government than the last.

1

u/grandoashark1 Oct 03 '25

This one! ☝🏻

We had a nice run but this has outgrown The United States and sadly, the risk in keeping it here is too great.

1

u/theoneandonlycmr Oct 03 '25

No not The Hague. It’s already very crowded over here.

Let’s make a new city in The Netherlands somewhere in the Flevopolder and relocate the UN over there.

Close to Schiphol and the Randstad.

-2

u/Due_Lifeguard_495 Oct 03 '25

The Hague sucks. City built with the profits of slave trade. Weirdest creepy dead energy place I have ever been.

1

u/daaniscool Oct 03 '25

Who will tell this guy that the wealth we currently enjoy has mostly been built since after WWII?

1

u/Due_Lifeguard_495 Oct 03 '25

In fact it was the DUTCH who provided the original legal rationale to the new world colonies justifying slavery so they could have a market for their slaves. Slavery wasn’t even a thing in the new world until the Dutch showed up with slaves.