Gedänkenpundit is not the first to argue that the U.S. should leave the U.N. and then kick it out of New York. (He notes that FishInABarrel anticipatedhim on the first point.) I think I've seen at least one bumper sticker reading "US out of UN / UN out of US".
The argument in favor can even be pitched in a non-selfish way. Whenever New Yorkers complain about intrusive demonstrations and the burden on police and other services, they are told about all the financial benefits U.N. spending brings to the local economy. The international bureaucrats also tend to go on and on about how much they care about misery and poverty in the world. So shouldn't they move somewhere their wonderful economic benefits are more needed and will have more impact? Again, this is not an original idea, though I don't recall where I first read it. I'm more interested in the details.
What country needs it most? It depends on the specific criteria applied, but there are plenty of candidates, any way you look at it:
Other criteria could be applied, but I think one country stands out in the 'best all around' category: Sudan. Here's a place that really needs the money, where the U.N. delegates can show how much they truly care and do so right on the spot. Sudan has it all: dictatorship, civil war, genocide, slavery, mass starvation, Islamic law, and let's not forget the clitoridectomies. No country needs the U.N. more. Given their elegant (and expensive) tastes in dining and drinking, U.N. employees could even provide gourmet dumpster-diving opportunities for the slum-dwellers of Khartoum.
Should I make this a poll? Too much trouble: just put your nominations in the comment section.Posted by Dr. Weevil at May 19, 2002 10:17 AM