A Guest Editorial by Peter Capon

CHIANG MAI, THAILAND – The idea of moving the United Nations headquarters (as expressed in a Cairns Media Magazine editorial, The U.N. Needs a New Home, September 26, 2006) isn’t new. I recall reading such comments years ago in The Economist, a reputable news magazine.

The view expressed then was that there should be one or more “international” cities around the world. The inference is that these belong to everyone, not to a particular nation or power bloc.

Such a notion requires the current sovereign state (or aspirant) to relinquish its authority, whether on a long-term lease (much like Hong Kong or Macau in the past) or outright (like the Louisiana purchase or the U.S. takeover of Alaska).

The “international” city may operate like the Vatican. One place with the appropriate land area is Monaco. Ideally, the “intenational” city should be 100 square kilometres (about 10 km by 10 km). As humans, we tend to occupy the space available, so the land area isn’t critical. An island state may serve the purpose as easily as a coastal or landlocked area.

The suggested site for a relocated U.N. headqarters in the article I refer to was Jerusalem. This may be a better site than most, although it need not be the only “international” city. Others could be stategically located. The concept may suit disputed areas, like Taiwan and Cyprus.

This idea deserves ongoing consideration. We shouldn’t be deterred by any initial opposition.

ARCHIVES