Herman Tiu Laurel / DieHard III/ The Daily Tribune / 09-23-2013 MON
The Latin American community of nations was up in arms against the US last week. Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro was denied permission to fly through US air space en route to China. At the same time an official Venezuelan delegation to a United Nations (UN) conference was being given by the US a very difficult time obtaining visas, jeopardizing the country's participation in an important international discussion.
Just days prior to those incidents, Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff had already cancelled a scheduled meeting in the US with President Barack Obama in protest of the latter's National Security Agency (NSA) spying on the Venezuelan president's communications.
A month earlier in August, the plane of Bolivia's President Evo Morales, which was traveling home from Russia, became grounded in Austria after Spain, Portugal, and Italy abruptly blocked their airspace to it--a move that was later learned to have been made upon the request of the US, which suspected the presence of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden on board.
Never mind if the hostile act of these countries endangered the lives of the Bolivian president and the other passengers on board. It was done all at the behest of the US, violating international law.
This incident, coupled with the latest US acts against Venezuela's Maduro, has prompted Morales to prepare a lawsuit against the US government for "crimes against humanity."
The Bolivian president now also proposes that the 33 members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) withdraw their ambassadors to send a message that "The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights."
These problems, with the increasingly overbearing US attitude toward all countries, is highlighted by revelations of the NSA's spying on the UN itself and all significant member-countries, leading to a UN warning to the US government. But why stop at just issuing a warning to the UN host country that is so incorrigibly abusive of the UN and its member-states? Why not move the UN out of the US once and for all to a country that is genuinely neutral and away from the snooping and abuses of the latter?
There are about a dozen countries that are internationally recognized as neutral: Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Panama, San Marino, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Geneva, Switzerland is the site of the headquarters of many international as well as UN family organizations, such as the International Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, among many others. But smaller countries that are entirely innocuous may be even better choices, such as the small republics of Malta or San Marino, which could never be suspected of having the capacity to spy or intimidate other countries; as they are expected to be the perfect host for the international community's center for dialogue and cooperation.
The idea of moving the UN headquarters out of New York is not a new one. Iran's leaders have raised this in the past, stressing that the US "has proved that it does not deserve to host the United Nations member states… but seeing as the articles of association of the UN state that the United Nations' permanent headquarters is located in New York, transfer of the headquarters requires rectification of the said articles of association."
Although some other suggested sites that are heavily tainted with anti-US sentiments, such as Darfur and Zimbabwe, don't seem appropriate, those two small republics (Malta and San Marino) seem most "neutral" among the neutrals.
There are many other advantages to moving the UN's headquarters out of the US. One of these is reducing the cost of maintenance and operation as New York is one of the most expensive cities in the world; same with saving $2 billion required for any renovation the UN's aging 60-year-old buildings and the replacement of asbestos components that proliferate in them. More importantly, this will end the perennial high handed bellyaching of the US over its comparatively higher share in funding the UN, said to constitute 22 percent and often made a basis by the US to pressure and manipulate various UN agencies to unfairly bend policies toward US interests. It's about time the five permanent and 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council augment their contributions.
A genuinely neutral location for the UN will really enhance the independence of the premier international forum for resolving the gravest issues of our world today; boost humanity's prospects for permanent peace and prosperity for mankind's children and grandchildren; and avoiding the dreaded final world war that will permanently poison the future of Earth.
(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., also on www.gnntv-asia.com, this week on "Kudos MWSS: Water rates reduced"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 09234095739)
