Is there any reason for the United Nations to stay in New York? The combination of its affluence and celebrity-driven culture draws in an odious international cadre, one that hates the United States (witness the applause for Chavez) as much as it enjoys living here. Surely it could move to Nigeria, Dafur, Cuba, or Venezuela, where its sensitive membership would be closer to real problems, well away from the television studios and five-star restaurants? Once again, privilege and left-wing piety are a bad combo.
I once used to agree. It would focus their minds immensely, I thought.
But as long as that big hole in Manhattan is still sitting there (you know, since 9/11?), why don't we build a new UN building on the site? The UN is always complaining about their old current site. Make the UN the tallest structure in the city and put the UN's top man on the top floor, with his underlings on the floors immediately below him.
John Bolton once famously said we could take off the top ten floors of the UN building and not lose anything of value. But that was just talk despite the diplomatic flap that created. Nobody in the UN actually thought Bolton would be swinging the wrecking ball while they were in their offices hard at work.
But if the UN types had to worry about whether actual terrorists would try to take out the top ten floors of New York City's tallest building, might not the international community take terrorism a little more seriously?
Keep the UN in New York City. And put the glorious representatives of the international community higher than anybody else.
