Sunday Times 2
US goes on a wild rampage triggering jitters at the UN
View(s):By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS (IPS) – When the UN was scouting around for funds and a home for its headquarters in 1946, John D. Rockefeller Jr, a renowned American philanthropist, gifted $8.5 million for the construction of a 39-storey complex on a 16-acre piece of land which was home to a decrepit slaughterhouse.
Since the abattoir, also dubbed the “bull house”, was such a monstrous eyesore, no one apparently wanted to live in the East Side neighbourhood where the UN building now stands and where both rents and property values were dismally low in the 1940s.
The UN was apparently convinced that the slaughterhouse, where scores of cattle were being transported every day, would be an ideal location for the new headquarters. Never mind the blood and the killings—and certainly not for an institution which stood for harmony and world peace.
Illustration by Copilot AI
But rumour has it that Rockefeller and his friends owned lots of property in the neighbourhood. So, when the UN finished constructing its landmark building in 1952, property values began to skyrocket to unprecedented heights.
All the property owners in the vicinity made out like bandits—raking in millions of dollars in rising property values and real estate earnings. As one Third World diplomat commented, “It was part philanthropy, part business acumen.”
When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) replaced Taiwan as a member state back in September 1971, a cartoon in a London newspaper flipped the old phrase “bull in a china shop” to a more appropriate “China in a bull shop”.
Meanwhile, in 1947, the US and UN signed a “headquarters agreement” under which the US assured a wide range of support—including immunity for diplomats, tax-free and duty-free privileges and permanent residencies to UN staffers who opted to live in the US after retirement.
And now, there is widespread speculation that the 78-year-old agreement may be in trouble—judging by the Trump administration’s ongoing policy of mass restructuring—with Washington fast becoming a veritable political slaughterhouse.
Spearheaded by senior adviser Elon Musk, the US administration is on a rampage: layoffs of thousands of government employees, gutting of federal agencies, dismantling of the Department of Education and USAID, defying a federal judge and threatening universities with drastic cuts in grants and contracts—decisions mostly engineered by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The cuts were best symbolised with an image of Musk wielding a heavy chainsaw aimed at slashing “wasteful spending”. But the layoffs and subsequent reversals—the on-again, off-again decisions—have triggered chaos in the nation’s capital. And political outrage is fast becoming the norm.
Musk, the tech billionaire who acts as a virtual prime minister to President Trump, has called on the US to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations. “I agree,” he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator, saying “it’s time” for the US to leave NATO and the UN.”
The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the US exit from the UN, claiming that the organisation does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.
The 1947 Agreement is an international treaty, and under international law, treaties are generally binding on the parties that sign them. However, the US has a constitutional process for withdrawing from treaties.
Dr. Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS removing the United Nations headquarters from the United States has long been advocated by the far right and generally dismissed as a fringe idea not to be taken seriously.
However, as the Trump administration has already demonstrated, even the most extreme ideologically driven proposals can indeed end up being implemented as policy, he said.
“The United States has not always upheld its obligations under the treaty, such as in 1988 when the Reagan administration refused to allow PLO chairman Yasir Arafat to address the world body, resulting in the entire General Assembly relocating to Geneva to hear his speech.”
Removing the UN headquarters from the US, he argued, “would symbolise the end of the global leadership we have had since the end of World War II when the victorious allies established the world body.”
Along with the Trump administration’s decision to disestablish the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Fulbright Programme, and other symbols of American leadership internationally, it would end any semblance of the United States remaining a preeminent force in international cooperation.
At the same time, the US has increasingly become an outlier when it comes to the international community rather than a leader or partner.
“This is true even under Democratic administrations, as indicated by Biden’s rogue positions in regard to Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestinian statehood, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other UN institutions.”
Having the UN headquarters in a more neutral location may end up being for the best, said Dr. Zunes, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations.
So far, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), while it has warned that two other UN organisations “deserve renewed scrutiny”– the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—a warning seen as a veiled threat of US withdrawal from the two UN agencies.
Meanwhile, the United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UN reproductive and sexual health agency, UNFPA.
Giving an indication of UN agencies moving some of their functions out of the US, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters at a briefing last month: “We have been investing in Nairobi, creating the conditions for Nairobi to receive services that are now in more expensive locations.”
“And UNICEF will be transferring soon some of the functions to Nairobi. And UNFPA will be essentially moving to Nairobi. And I can give you many other examples of things that are being done and correspond to the idea that we must be effective and cost-effective,” he said.
Asked about the possible withdrawal of the US from the world body, Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS it would not be clear what the intent of this move would be.
In fact, what is certain, he pointed out, is that it would be a mistake of gigantic proportions. The Trump administration, solely to curry favour with some small fraction of its base, would be handing a huge diplomatic victory to China, which would not hesitate to jump at the chance to host the UN.
“And even this White House has to see that, so I don’t see this as advancing US interests in any form. On the contrary, had the White House thought the UN unimportant, they wouldn’t have designated Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador,” he declared.
A report in the Washington Examiner last January said Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives and the US ambassador-elect to the UN, has vowed to utilise her skills as a lawmaker to scrutinise the funding provided to the UN and cut the budget provided if necessary.
“As a member of Congress, I also understand deeply that we must be good stewards of US taxpayer dollars,” Stefanik said. “The US is the largest contributor to the UN by far. Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, antisemitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption, or terrorism.”
But last week, Trump withdrew her nomination because her departure may reduce the ruling Republican Party’s slim majority in the House of Representatives. “And even this White House has to see that, so I don’t see this as advancing US interests in any form. On the contrary, had the White House thought the UN as unimportant, they wouldn’t have designated Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador,” he declared.
A report in the Washington Examiner last January said Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, and the US Ambassador-elect to the UN, has vowed to utilize her skills as a lawmaker to scrutinize the funding provided to the U.N. and cut the budget provided if necessary.
“As a member of Congress, I also understand deeply that we must be good stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Stefanik said. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. by far. Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, antisemitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption, or terrorism.”
But last week, Trump withdrew her nomination because her departure may reduce the ruling Republican Party’s slim majority in the House of Representatives.