Keep It Local: Scrutinize the UN

By Lisa_Art @Adobe Stock

There’s been much press recently about the Panama Canal and President Trump’s effort to regain this strategic American holding. Unfortunately, there are other egregious real estate deals more concerning.  Much worse is right within hailing distance of Donald Trump, in NYC.

In 1947, an agreement gave the U.N. a tax-free, 18-acre neighborhood overlooking the East River in Midtown Manhattan. Guess where Trump’s World Tower is? Right across, on First Avenue. According to Google Maps, it’s less than a 30-minute walk from Trump Tower to the UN, which President Trump looks like he needs to do. Often.

After WWII, there was much optimism about the UN’s ability to prevent future wars. In a spasm of patriotism, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the property where the headquarters was built with an interest-free loan from Washington (estimated $860+ million in today’s dollars).

The agreement given over 75 years ago was a one-sided deal. The language of the agreement determined that the “headquarters district” was “under the control and authority” of the U.N. In Article 23 of the Agreement, “the seat of the United Nations shall not be removed from the headquarters district unless the United Nations should so decide.” According to some, this means the U.S. can’t evict the U.N.

Hang on a minute, here. Isn’t the agreement a treaty? And isn’t the default rule of international law that a treaty lasts until one party withdraws from it? What happens should the US cancel the treaty? Does the whole arrangement disappear? What in the treaty’s text prohibits a withdrawal?

In passing the law needed to approve the agreement, Congress said nothing about it being an eternal concession, notes the WSJ.

Furthermore, as with many treaties, permanent means long-lasting, not eternal. For example, consider the Permanent International Court of Justice. It lasted from 1922 to 1946. 

The Headquarters Agreement

Pushback is likely to come from UN bureaucrats residing in the US. Their crusade to the International Court of Justice will allow the court to rule that the agreement can’t be canceled. The Hague has been unfavorable to the US in rendered decisions, and there’s no reason to think it would rule differently in the Turtle Bay (where the UN is located) decision.

A Backward Ethical Code

Now seems like a good time for thoughtful discussions on the US/UN relationship. Like why did the US and her allies lessen the UN’s effectiveness by handing seats at the Security Council to China and Russia?

For example, Zach Kessel in NRO reports that “China’s 2022 veto of a resolution condemning North Korea’s tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles and reaffirming the UN.’s commitment to halting the spread of nuclear weapons may be the most consequential in recent years.”

One argument focuses on fear that the UN would fall under China’s control if the US should detach itself from the UN. Practically, how many UN officials do you think will eagerly pack up for residencies in Beijing?

Maybe there are good reasons for the US to continue to host the UN. If so, do those terms need to be the same as 1947? Trump must bring his “Art of the Deal” to New York and the US. Maybe like charging the UN the going rate for rent or the equivalent of the US annual donation?

“Who Cares Wins” 

Trump needs to look closer to home to right wrongs, especially with the UN seemingly a haven for oppressive autocratic regimes.

In a 2004 document entitled “Who Cares Wins” (signatures, 22 financial firms including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and State Street) to use financial policies favored by UN bureaucrats to enforce the concept of investing via ESG (environmental, social, governance), whose purpose is to “enforce policies favored by UN bureaucrats and progressive politicians, independent of voters’ preferences,” according to David McClean (NRO).