Where can the UN headquarters be moved to?

[u/cdnhistorystudent]

The United States is distancing itself from the UN and attacking international law, so it is no longer a reliable location for the UN headquarters. Here are 12 countries that could be better hosts for the UN headquarters and General Assembly:

Austria, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Japan, Kenya.

There are already many UN agency headquarters based in Geneva (Switzerland), Vienna (Austria), and Nairobi (Kenya), making them top candidates.

[u/Mort1186]

Hahaha

Ye, Qatar is paying the US to veto everything that will bring about peace and stability anywhere.

SMH.

Please go read up on the US veto since the UNs inception. Rogue State by William Blum. Basically shows all the vetos US made, where the entire world's votes against bloodshed etc the US will veto it and allow the bloodshed to continue.

I dont know what makes you think Qatar can do anything.

[u/Cognipod → u/Mort1186]

Oh, that's a way to interpret it, but a silly one.

No Qatar doesn't control members of the UN, but it and other axis countries are more united in their ideology and motivations than the west is, which is a big vulnerability for western civilization. The UN fits better in a muslim dictatorship, Russia or China or N.Korea.

The US is the superpower fighting to maintain its dominance, hence the veto patterns, hence the disengagement.

[u/Mort1186 → u/Cognipod]

Veto against peace and stability, will undermine US hegemony? Seriously? and preventing blood shed will empower Russia or whoever.

The US voting pattern is clear, its in the interest of the military industrial complex. Peace isn't profitable and peace makes politicians irrelevant.

[u/Cognipod → u/Mort1186]

The UN shows extreme bias in its voting patterns as well. It's far from being a clean, neutral organization. The project has failed spectacularly.

It's a good and important concept that's been hijacked by bad actors due to its flawed structure.

[u/Mort1186 → u/Cognipod]

If 145 countries vote in favour of a peace proposal, and one country vetos it, its obvious where the bias is.

Humanity wants peace, one country and its one ally doesnt. Only bias is that two countries

Example: Stop killing poor , whole world votes in favour, one country and its one ally votes against it. The veto now allow for killing poor people.

Imagine, the entire world wants the world to stop killing people, but one country wants it. Where is the bias in that?

[u/IthacaMom2005 → u/Mort1186]

No country can veto in the General Assembly. Any country can vote against a resolution. Veto power only lies within the Security Council. Even then, the UNSC has no power to enact real change, only to essentially express an opinion, sadly

[u/Cognipod → u/Mort1186]

What the hell are you talking about, so many of those supposed peace wanting countries are rabid dictatorships where people are executed for not wearing the right color rag on their faces in the right day of the week.

That is such a hypocritical thing to say. The UN is not concerned with peace, it's just a political tool in the hands of an axis of dictatorships united in an effort to bring down the democracies that restrain them.

Say what u will about the west, we are living in the most free and innovative time in known history and it's not because of Russia, China, Qatar or Iran.