I’ve been out for awhile but I actually would argue it’d be a good thing in the grand scheme of things for the United States if the UN were to relocate to Switzerland or something. I don’t particularly think it’s a great thing that we’ve allowed tin pot dictators like Gaddafi and crazies like Ahamdinejad to stay in the United States and even in certain splendor due to our responsibilities as U.N. host. We are not a neutral country, and I don’t think it appropriate for us to host the U.N. for that reason, nor do I want us to be a neutral country. It makes sense for Sweden or Switzerland, but not the United States.
I’m not sure what the economic value is, but I know that U.N. diplomats regularly run up tens of millions of dollars in fines from NYC because they are scofflaws who abuse their diplomatic position in order to commit petty infractions and avoid having to ever pay the fines. Considering the high real estate value in New York City I would not be surprised if the U.N. grounds could be turned into profitable commercial office space that would have just as many if not more high income workers there than do the current U.N. Headquarters. I wouldn’t be surprised if the economic value of U.N.'s presence in New York is a couple billion dollars annually, but I would also imagine the major global head quarters of a Fortune 100 company or something could produce similar value given similarities in staff expenditures, employee counts and etc (actually many Fortune 100 companies will of course have much higher income employees than the U.N., have much larger budgets and etc.)
Not to mention it would also I think set the stage for us to dramatically reduce our funding of the U.N., we fund something like 20% of its operating budget and I’d be quite happy for that number to be reduced to match that of other major members like the United Kingdom or China. I’d be happy to see those aid dollars routed through other, more effective international organizations.
Of course, the UK could always simply revoke the diplomatic immunity and send the people packing if it’s that big an issue. I’m pretty sure that the exact same thing happens in DC with diplomats from other countries (most likely including the UK as well :p), and it seems that London’s mayor is no more able to get money out of other countries than they are out of the US on their congestion charges (what is that? Like double parking or something? Or are there charges for road use in London? It’s been a while since I was there, but I don’t remember anything like that).
i was just trying to puncture Martin’s UN-rage a little, but yes, there’s a fee to enter bits of London in a private vehicle. You’ve been there, I guess you can understand why
You must have misread me, I’m just of the opinion having the U.N. HQ in the U.S. actually does little good for the United States or even really the U.N., and I do think the U.N. is a toothless, worthless forum for dictators and monstrous regimes while all real decisions of import are governed by a great powers old boys club thus making the entire organization no more than a hypocritical continuation of past practices that the U.N. was supposed to supplant with its new internationalist, rules based order of things.
I don’t have much or any U.N. rage, I just view it as worthless. I only brought up the unpaid fines to show that there is some level of cost to the U.N. that would probably not be present if a big company had its headquarters there instead. I’m perfectly aware of the London congestion charge dispute with our diplomatic staff in London, but that’s actually not all that relevant. We’re not talking about diplomats to the United States in New York City, we’re talking about diplomats attached to the U.N. Every country has to deal with diplomats to said country behaving boorishly, many diplomatic staffers view foreign postings as a time to live large in various ways and ignoring local fines is a pretty common practice, but unlike say the United Kingdom or Russia we have all of that in Washington, D.C. plus a whole second nexus of diplomats from 180+ countries in New York City, so we’re basically double fucked by diplomats versus the more customary single fucking. Again, the fines aren’t a big deal, I was just using them to illustrate part of why the U.N. isn’t that great for America to host–you’re focusing on the parsley and not the meat and potatoes.
Anyway, FWIWs there is a difference between the London congestion charge and the parking fines U.N. diplomat rack up in NYC. America views the congestion charge as a type of taxation to raise revenue for infrastructure, and American diplomats do not customarily pay local taxes (as per the Vienna Convention.) London argues it’s a toll (which the U.S. would be required to pay.) The reason the congestion charge is so high is the U.S. has the largest fleet of cars of any country with a diplomatic presence in London and none of them pay the charge ever. The other highly ranked countries on the list of unpaid fees also take a similar view but simply have smaller fleets.
Do note that on the list of unpaid fines the United States is not even mentioned. While I’m sure American diplomat engage in all kinds of boorish behavior one thing they do not do (that many, many diplomats do in New York and Washington) is ignore local parking tickets and fines. The State Department takes a dim view of that and it can get you in trouble. Most of the money that isn’t paid to Washington and New York is actually in the form of tons of regular parking tickets, as diplomats frequently park illegal and just throw the ticket away when they return to their car as they can’t be legally forced to pay for it.
For whatever it is worth, the United Kingdom also appears to be good about paying parking fines, they aren’t on the top list of countries with unpaid parking tickets in either New York or Washington.
They’re for road use in London. The city is hopelessly congested so they charge drivers increasing amounts to bring their cars closer to the middle of the city. The idea is to reduce the numbers of cars on the roads while simultaneously funding more public transportation.
Errr, sorry what? Most common law countries have the position that a treaty only takes effect once it has been incorporated into the Laws of the country. The US is hardly unique in this.
As it is, it’s true that the UK jurisdictions have recently taken the position that a Court should try and construct statutes as much as possible in line with treaties (even if not incorporated) but that is still not the case you suggest.
Are you fucking kidding me. Let’s see, smart, educated people from the four corners of the globe come to NYC and live and work there. Many of them end up leaving their own diplomatic service and working for a US based company. Every US company has direct access to diplomats who draft and negotiate the various agreements which facilitate international trade and commerce.
Which Fortune 500 company on earth can bring that much?
I don’t think the full context really changes the meaning all that much.
[QUOTE=Stephen Decatur]
Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.
[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure we can. It’s kind of a dick move, but we can in fact have it both ways. And, in this intsance, I think being a dick about it is appropriate.
Any major company headquarters will be filled with smart educated people, probably for that matter “from around the world” as well. If you look at the upper ranks of any major MNC based in the United States they have executives from all over the world. Most individuals who are posted to the U.N. do not in fact leave their country’s diplomatic service and work for the United States, and even if they did I’m not convinced that would be a net positive as it just means fewer jobs for native born Americans. It’s generally a good thing for smart immigrants to come here, but I’m not familiar with what form of Visa would let diplomats convert to permanent residents so it would probably just be part of the H1B program which is really a program we want STEM immigrants taking advantage of not people with degrees in political science and economics as we have more than enough unemployed people from the United States with those degrees.
The idea that proximity to the U.N. lets American companies somehow more efficiently craft policy is nonsense. They work out relations with foreign countries in those countries themselves, with the local leaders in those countries–certainly not with Ambassadors to the United Nations. If they’d be talking to any diplomats it’d be the diplomats actually assigned to the United States, who do not work at U.N. H.Q. but work out of their embassies in Washington.
Treaties also are negotiated and implemented over many years. Corporate legal staff work out how to comply with them as they affect their business years in advance, I can’t even fathom how “proximity to U.N. H.Q.” building somehow makes that easier or more efficient.
Probably any that isn’t already based in New York would bring greater benefit to the region than the U.N. H.Q.
Let him in the country, but let it be known that any vehicle belonging to the Iranian consulate that is parked illegally is subject to ticketing, towing and cubing.
