Move the UN to Jerusalem

"Situated in New York, [the United Nations] resides in the heart of the West, detached on a day-to-day basis from the troubles of the real world."

EVEN ITS MOST ardent defenders agree that the United Nations needs to be fixed, as it faces immense political, financial, and social corruption. The Iraqi Oil for Food scandal merely is a symptom of more endemic bureaucratic dilemmas that have undermined UN efforts for years. The United Nations operates politically as an authoritarian and unegalitarian system. Sexual abuse by its soldiers in the Congo, Bosnia, and elsewhere contradict the very image that non-partisan and benevolent third parties want to present to the global community. Ineffectiveness in much of its development effort undermines the considerable good that the vast organization performs.

The United Nations was formed in the waning days of World War II and came into being on the back of the victorious Allies, a coalition built around the U.S. and its demonstrated military and industrial might. The U.S. essentially determined the UN's structure, center of control, mechanisms for future action, and, ultimately, direction. While the UN has many democratic trappings, at its heart, it is a dictatorship of five the permanent members of the Security Council who have unit vetoes over anything that the UN might effectively do. This political corruption involves the U.S. as much as any other nation.

The Security Council's permanent members--Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and the U.S.--reflect U.S. strength at the end of World War II and the victories of the USSR against Nazi Germany. In the half-century since, there has been a tremendous evolution in international relations. Not only has Nationalist China been replaced by Communist China, and the Soviet Union by its Russian core, but nations outside of that inner circle have grown in size and influence. The international economy has been globalized; that is, it has become highly interdependent. That interdependence involves countries that did not even exist as stand-alone states in 1945.

The Security Council needs to be restructured to reflect a different outlook on the international system, how it has progressed and where it is going. Although the international system may be militarily unipolar, economically, the global system clearly is not. Japan and Germany, villains in the pre-UN age, are powerhouses that should be included in the top level of decisionmaking. If China is a permanent member of the Security Council, India has to be as well. Moreover, if India is, Pakistan must be, too. There also is another important concept to be considered: regional representation among the permanent members. Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, and Nigeria need to be central as well.

If the UN is expected to be a responsible and democratically functioning body, the single-unit veto power of the current Security Council has to be abandoned. A system more like that of the democracies Pres. Bush promotes could be put in place, where the Security Council is like a Senate through which legislation must pass with a two-thirds--not a unanimous--vote. Since the U.S. is the most likely objector to this restructuring (being a heavy user of the veto to protect Israel), the U.S. is the obstacle to democratization of the UN.

Looking at the UN's difficulties another way, the organization's staid structure has come to be seen as an income and lifestyle opportunity for many of its members. Situated in New York, it resides in the heart of the West, detached on a day-to-day basis from the troubles of the real world. Appointments in New York are seen as rewards, not challenges. They are escapes from the poverty, tedium, and daily conflicts of the developing world.

The UN requires revolutionary change. Besides a political restructuring, three major alterations are vital. First, it should be started over in a new place for a new era. The Cold War has ended. East-West issues and the mentality that they generated reside in New York.

Despite the presence of "cold warriors" like Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, international dynamics today are such that the UN needs to be delinked from Wall Street.

Second, the UN has to focus on global needs, especially those of developing nations, countries with high levels of poverty and endemic disease rates (such as AIDS) and regions swamped with violent conflict yet blessed with critical natural resources. As an ideal location, why not Jerusalem? While it is not the center of all--or any--of these problems, it is the best venue. It is at the center of the conflict between Islam and the West, where the critical issues of fundamentalist terrorism are being played out. Moreover, it is nearer than New York to Africa, geographically and, of more relevance, in an attention sense.

If UN headquarters were in Jerusalem, it would be forced to give its full attention to all of the issues in the region--not just the conflict over the land of Israel and control of Jerusalem, but poverty, a lack of democracy, human rights, rising population, and the power of and dependence on oil.