Apparently the building that houses the UN is as decrepit as the institution itself.

Sounds like a good excuse to give it a new HQ.

Perhaps in Paris, or Brussels.

With someone else's money.

Would it be rude to suggest Pyongyang?

I thought so.

When I visited New York last year I was quite impressed by the United Nations building.

Until, that is, I realized that I was looking at the Trump Tower, and that the U.N. was the shabby green box on the other side of the road.

A minor letdown.

Green?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the NY Times has had some articles on the condition of the UN building in the past year. Besides the general shabbiness of a building that has skimped on maintainance for decades, there is a lot of asbestos in it, which makes renovations expensive. I think I recall reading the UN wants the US to buy enough nearby property to build a temporary headquarters, demolish the old building and then build a new one, then tear down the temp building and turn it as a UN park, or something like that. The US is/was balking at this plan.

Green.

They should move the whole shebang into the Trump Tower, and make the Don Secretary-General. Regime change would be a lot easier:

"Mugabe -- you're FIRED!!!"

Despite the UN's obvious limitations, I think the world would be worse off without it. What fraction of world GDP does it consume? What is the estimated economic benefit?

I think people sometimes forget that the UN is not like the government of a sovereign nation. It has greater limitations in some ways because it has no clout of its own - it must project force through the armies of member nations. If you want to be disappointed at an outcome, be disappointed at the participation (or lack thereof) of member nations themselves, don't undermine our forum for communication.

Right with you Kevin,
The U.N. is what you do instead of world government. It has been wildly successful in its primary goal of preventing major wars between states. It has been a lot less successful when it comes to wars between nations. The price of an institution that would be more effective at the latter goal might outweight the benefits.

A list of "major wars between states" that the UN has prevented would be nice.

By major wars, i thinking of total war with the intent to the finish (or collapse) i.e World War class conflicts that consume millions, between state actors.

In the time of the U. N., there has only been a few approaching that scale.

-Korea
-Indochina
-Iran-Iraq
-Afgan-Soviet
-Congo (barely-by the state actor definition)

Given the current vast numbers of arms and increasingly industrial nature of the world in the last 60 years, thats pretty good. Only one of the above conflicts used WMD.

I'm not going to engage in a pointless exercise in endless counterfactuals-it's like asking how many lives did traffic lights save today. I will point to the Spratleys, Taiwan, and Antarctica as examples of possible conflicts in part defused due to creative use of U. N. organs.

And as I said - nations (especially sub-state) are a different matter.

Raoul, time will tell on that count. The UN is a very young institution compared to, say, Oxford University, which has been around for almost 1000 years now. There must have been a time when people thought universities were a strange new idea, and a waste of money...

To expand on my earlier point, a focus of world diplomacy and a forum to facilitate communication and understanding is surely a stabilizing factor in this world, is it not?

Fresh new memo. The White House talking points have changed. France is our friend again.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=O5QDVRPGVRQ0GCRBAEOCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=5326445

Need to shred some "freedom fries" menus?

California wine is still waaaay better.

Bill, you're being shrill...

"At this moment, for example, in 2004 (if it was 2004), America was dissatisfied with Chlalibi and in alliance with France. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four months since America had been dissatisfied with France and in alliance with Chalibi. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. America was dissatisfied with Chalibi: therefore America had always been dissatisfied with Chalibi. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."

Gee, maybe they could use some of the money they scammed from the Iraqi Oil-for-"food" program to finance the renovations they need.

U.N. OUT of U.S. NOW!!!

"By major wars, i thinking of total war with the intent to the finish (or collapse) i.e World War class conflicts that consume millions, between state actors."

There is a theory that suggests that in the old days of total war a smaller party was less likely to take the risk. Now that the UN will step in the risk is minimal. That is why in the late 40s UN peacekeepers were sent to keep the peace in Kashmir and in Palestine/Israel and both of those regions are such wonderful, peaceful locations.

Also, do not forget that the UN approved of the Korean Conflict and the conflict ended not with peace, but with a 50 year cease-fire that ended up with the lovely North Korea (with its nukes and grass eating peasants) we have today. The UN also approved of the first gulf war, another conflict that ended not with peace, but with a decade long cease-fire that ended up with the lovely Iraq we had in March 2003 (with the sanctions, oil for food, attacks on Bush Sr).

I have no real problem with the UN in general, but they should keep out of politics completely. They simply are not good at it.

I have no real problem with the UN in general, but they should keep out of politics completely. They simply are not good at it.

Of course, since war and diplomacy are merely extensions of politics...

Sorry UN supporters, I can see absolutely no reason to preserve the organization. It has failed at everything it has tried and has done so at great cost to the United States in both money and security. Drive a stake through this vampires heart. Let them move to Capetown or Cairo. Just so long as they do so without us.

McGehee, that is my point. The UN should stay away from politics, diplomacy and war. They are not good at it. They should stick to WHO type stuff, and they should move to France where they'll be loved.

Hehe -- why not send the present US government to live in France!

...why not send the present US government to live in France!

??

To what end? The reasons why not are because there would be no point, they wouldn't want to go, and they wouldn't be welcome. A more useful question would be why, not why not.

The point is, would the world (and the US) be better off if we sent the present US administration to France or the UN to France? A lot of US voters might wish for the former, that's all.

The point is, would the world (and the US) be better off if we sent the present US administration to France or the UN to France?

If that's your point, the answer is the latter, no contest (particularly since you haven't even bothered to make an argument for the former, other than that you seem to dislike the administration's policies, which hardly constitutes an argument to send them to France--it's simply a non sequitur).

Does this mean Parkinson was wrong?

According to C.N. Parkinson, organizations with shabby headquarters tend to be be more effective.