Alternate Location for U.N. Headquarters

So since 1952, the main Headquarters of the United Nations has been in New York City - even though the earliest meetings of the General Assembly took place in London and planning for what would become the UN also took place in San Francisco.

Now with that said, is there any other city besides New York that could have been chosen as the main location for the U.N. headquarters? I'm sure American influence would nix any non-American city being chosen, but it seems likely that Washington or one of its suburbs would also be a non-starter for other nations.

Personally, San Francisco seems to be a good choice, but admittedly, I'm not sure if it would be discounted for being too far from Europe. Thoughts?
 
I wouldn't bet on it neccessarilly always being a US city, there's a reasonable argument for having it somewhere neutral - maybe even Geneva, taking up the old League of Nations palaces there. I think its got to be "Western Europe and Other" though, to use a UN term. The Anglo-American-French influence is too high for it to be in the USSR, I could see it being in London with either a shorter war or a closer knit Anglo-French relationship (no De Gaulle maybe?). I don't think Asia works (except maybe Singapore or Hong Kong but in '52 I imagine they're far too underdeveloped), Africa and South America would certainly be seen as too remote.

Other classical cities of Europe are kinda cut off, Germany is a definite no-go, Vienna is both too German and too close to the Iron Curtain, Rome is too fascist. Maybe something Scandi? Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo, Kalmar, something like that could work.

In my Daughters of Elysium TL I had the head of the League of Nations in Montreal, maybe there, Vancouver or Toronto could work? But I imagine Canada is too close to being British and it'd go to London if its going anywhere in the Commonwealth.
 
If you did want a US city though, Boston or Philadelphia could work but are probably too "American" in terms of their history. NY is good because its so cosmopolitan and multicultural. San Francisco like you said is good, as is maybe LA? I don't think there's anything on the East Coast better or as good as NY and the West coast is probably a bit distant you're right.
 
Why they chose the biggest city and most crowded port in another America is a mystery to me?????? As the UN hoping to ride on NY's coat-tails? ....... er. ....... benefit from the wide range of goods and services already available in NY?

For a new UN HQ Start with a port city on the Atlantic Ocean that is under-developed, but still has good sea, rail, road and air transportation.

In 1945, Montreal was the biggest city in Canada and by far the most multi-cultural. Mtl had much better transportation than any other city in Canada, except for sea. Every spring they had to wait a few months for ice to melt on the Saint Lawrence River. Housing was only moderately-priced on the Island(s) of Montreal, but there was plenty of open farmland only a bridge away.
Toronto was not a viable site until they completed the St. Lawrence Seaway during the 1950s.

Even better form a new city around UN HQ. Perhaps on the Tagus River between Lisbon and the sea. Since Portugal was one of the poorer countries in Europe, land would be cheap and UN spending would help raise GDP.
OTOH Lisbon does suffer the ocaissionally earthquake.....
OTOH the Iberian Penninsula was ruled by fascist dictators??????
I wonder how big UN bureaucracy was at its founding??????? How big (thousands of people) did they expect it to grow?
Then you could waste billions of dollars on UN HQ far from the whining, starving masses.
Sarcasm!!!!!!!!
 
I wouldn't bet on it neccessarilly always being a US city, there's a reasonable argument for having it somewhere neutral - maybe even Geneva, taking up the old League of Nations palaces there.
Not in 1945 there's not.

Western Europe has just had a war go through it, and will be rebuilding and under rationing for years.

The US meanwhile is top dog and everybody knows it. Having the UN based in an American city ensures American participation (or at least makes it likely). Without the US you are just seeing LoN version 2. Only this time the US is unquestionably the strongest country in the world rather than simply being up there.
 
Not in 1945 there's not.

Western Europe has just had a war go through it, and will be rebuilding and under rationing for years.

The US meanwhile is top dog and everybody knows it. Having the UN based in an American city ensures American participation (or at least makes it likely). Without the US you are just seeing LoN version 2. Only this time the US is unquestionably the strongest country in the world rather than simply being up there.

I mean hence why I mentioned Switzerland and Sweden, who didn't just go through the war and also you're assuming a post-1945 (Or I suppose post-1952 PoD). And unlike with the LoN you don't particuarly need to ensure US participation as the America of 1945 is utterly different to the America of 1918, there's no way they're not getting involved in any post-war world organisation. You've said America was the "Unquestionably strongest country in the world" but I think Moscow might have a problem with that, sure the USSR's economy is just dead but the Red Army is almost certainly the most powerful army on earth circa 1945.
 

Deleted member 94680

Make Istanbul an international city and put it there. By some reckoning Istanbul is the centre of the world
 
I wouldn't bet on it neccessarilly always being a US city, there's a reasonable argument for having it somewhere neutral - maybe even Geneva, taking up the old League of Nations palaces there.

To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:


The first problem with selecting Geneva is that it had been the headquarters
of the ill-fated League of Nations. Second, the Soviet Union opposed it
because Soviet-Swiss relations were strained. (According to my 1957
Encyclopedia Britannica, article "Switzerland", "Relations with the USSR,
embittered by the murder of Soviet representative V. V. Vorovsky at Lausanne
in 1923, remained unsatisfactory, and Switzerland opposed the admission of
that country into the League in 1934." Swiss-Soviet diplomatic relations
were not restored until 1946.) Third, the Swiss concluded that neutrality
was hard to reconcile with belonging to a world organization that imposed
sanctions against particular nations. Already in 1938 Switzerland announced
it would not participate in any further League sanctions, and as another post
noted, Switzerland did not join the UN until 2002 (though it did participate
in some of the specialized agencies). Fourth, the UN was after all
originally an organization of those nations which had declared war on the
Axis powers, though other nations were soon admitted (Sweden in 1946, for
example). Fifth, as another poster noted, it was thought a good idea to have
the UN headquarters in the US to cement America's commitment to collective
security, and to make the organization seem less "foreign" to Americans.


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/OM9kmjytUBE/51oe9IGMCJQJ
 
I do like the suggestion of Montreal; I can't see the permanent organization being removed from the North Atlantic in that generation--starting over nowadays someplace on the eastern Med or Indian Ocean. But we are looking at a decision made before 1952. Practically speaking it comes down to "a city on the North Atlantic" and unless we adopt riggerrob's suggestion of making a new city fresh for the purpose, it will default to the most powerful, influential city, within the winning alliance. New York is the obvious answer; in terms of existing big cities, its only obvious rival is London or Paris. Montreal would be sort of a brilliant compromise--Commonwealth territory loyal to the British monarchy, but with a French cultural background, on the North American continent.

As for the idea of a new city, I think if Ireland had been less dominated by conservatives who seemed perhaps to be flirting with Nazi alliance in the war period, a new founded city on some Irish southern coastal region or in the far west of Connaught might be interesting. They'd have to spend a lot of money making it a place world ambassadors would want to go to. The semiotics here is, a nation with deep cultural associations with two of the most dominant powers, which are allied with each other but in which relationship Ireland is a wedge. Presence of the international peace keeping agency on Irish soil helps cement Ireland's claims of total independence from the Commonwealth (hence likely British opposition to this option!)

In the context of decisions made before or ignoring the Cold War I think Portugal unfortunately is shadowed by her Franco-lite leader Salazar's ambiguous position of neutrality in the war. Both Iberian nations are under a shadow for that, and the Russians will say so if no one else will. Remember the UN includes the Soviets and they will veto choices that seem too reactionary, such as supporting Salazar. Or for that matter the Irish leadership of the day, for similar reasons.

If either Portugal or Ireland had torn loose of neutrality and dived in firmly on the allied side, then just maybe some idea of investing a lot of money to build everything needed from scratch in some previously unfavored port (Got to have a port if they are building a new city--it is well to give everyone access to the open sea for getting in and out without being constrained by territorial limitations--so might as well make any new city be a port). This involves great expense but also great developmental assistance--depending on just how economically disfavored the chosen undeveloped area is. Say someone had the foresight to foresee what Shannon international airport would become and developed that region, the new city would provide similar potential to jumpstart western Irish development. Choose some other site, where weather is unsuitable for an airport, the local land is just too miserably rocky, the coast is very dangerous, etc, and pouring in money will not bring it to life.

Whichever nation gets it, they will have to surrender sovereignty over the ceded territory.

Portugal by the way holds the Azores; if they were to surrender one or all of these islands to the new UN the symbolism of locating it at a global way station itself not part of a strong modern power (but historically a major early step in the general expansion of Early modern Europe) would be quite evocative.

Interestingly, in Robert Heinlein's early '50s (or even late '40s, I'd have to check) juvenile novel of interplanetary colonial war and youth coming of age, Between Planets, the global federal authority which disputed with the Venus colony against the latter's claim of independence, had its capital in Bermuda! This rather reeks of a forthright Anglo-American domination but I suppose that would look like common sense to Heinlein at that time
 
Follow the Australian Capital Territory route. Find a piece of land and build a purposely created UN City. Call it Gaia or Terra.
 
Tokyo, because LOL; aggressors beware because the UN is gonna meet 'em with Type 74 Nanayon's and shiet:
2b9526320d28a9fa6e5e11dae90eadf1.jpg
 
I heard that there was a proposal for Navy Island to become the U.N. Headquarters. The island was to be ceded to the U.N. if the proposal went through.

Here's a artist's rendition of the proposed HQ
IMG_0570.PNG
 
I agree the best location would be some piece of land declared the area an international city and build a whole new city.
 
There is a good book on the subject of the location of the UN headquarters: Charlene Myers, *Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations* (New York University Press 2013). The first decision was Europe versus America. (America here almost always meant the United States, though for example Quebec City, where FDR and Churchill held two wartime conferences, put in a bid.) Not only the Latin American countries and the Asian/Pacific ones (China and Australia, both of which liked San Francisco) favored the US, but so did the Soviet Union. (The Soviets, who had bad experiences with the League of Nations, and had broken off diplomatic relations with Switzerland, were particularly opposed to Geneva.) "The United States is located conveniently between Asia and Europe,” Andrei Gromyko said. " The old world has had it once, and it is time for the New World to have it." (As Myers suggests, the Soviets might also have worried that having UN headquarters in Europe could hinder Soviet influence there.) This was a common theme: "For many diplomats, the center had shifted as a result of the war fought in Europe and the Pacific, with the United States lying in between." https://books.google.com/books?id=BDAVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85

There were an incredible number of places in the US which tried to get the headquarters. Myers has a 25 page appendix listing 248 (!) locations involved in the competition to varying degrees. Among the unlikely places were the Black Hills http://www.history.com/news/the-united-nations-hq-that-never-was , the Choctaw capital of Tuskahoma, Oklahoma. http://una-okc.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-oklahoma-vied-to-be-home-of-united.html and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. http://capital-of-the-world.com/the-great-and-powerful-osborn-maybe/#more-175 The last-named was boosted as being on "an undefended frontier 3,000 miles long which has been without war for more than 125 years." (p. 59)

"In the Osborn vision, interpreted through drawings by Ed Kreiger of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the UN would occupy a world-capital compound both modern and rooted in regional history and folklore. Sugar Island would be outfitted with its own airport, sea plane base, and steamer dock. Bridges and tunnels would connect with the mainland United States and Canada. The roads from both countries would meet in a traffic circle, then continue jointly toward a United Nations Center, a modern building with a tall office tower flanked by semicircular wings. Inside that building, the peace keepers would draw strength from The Song of Hiawatha, the "world epic of international cooperation" and the subject of the 697-page book the Osborns had published in 1941. The UN delegates would be surrounded by murals of Hiawatha and take inspiration from Longfellow's poem, first published in 1855:

All your strength is in your union
All your danger is in discord
Therefore be at peace henceforward
And as brothers live together."

https://books.google.com/books?id=BDAVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62

Anyway, all these local boosters emphasized the alleged historical uniqueness of their sites, showed maps using concentric circles to "prove" that their site was, with modern air transportation, at the center of the world, etc. (I have attached one such map)--all recognized booster techniques. They thought the UN headquarters would make their sites "the capital of the world." They lived in a different world from the people who actually did the selecting, who always referred to what they were seeking as a site for UN "headquarters," not a world capital, and were more interested in getting some place convenient for diplomats than in poetry. San Francisco was ultimately doomed by the memories of how time-consuming were the diplomats' 1945 trips for the UN's founding conference. The Northeast always had the advantage here. For quite some time, though, it was thought that the headquarters should be fairly near but definitely not *in* New York City. "The site committee ruled out any urban locations because of the organization’s sizable land requirements and fearing that the United Nations would be an afterthought instead of a focal point in New York, they eliminated all sites within 10 miles of Manhattan. However, when millionaire philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. surprisingly offered a gift of six blocks of Manhattan real estate along the East River in December 1946, the committee reversed itself in a New York minute and found its new home." http://www.history.com/news/the-united-nations-hq-that-never-was Prior to that, the Stamford-Greenwich-Westchester area was seriously considered (though a lot of local residents did not like the idea) and even Hyde Park (as a memorial tribute to FDR) was inspected....
black-hills.jpg
 
Last edited:
As a side note, irrelevant because of the political process shoving the location to the Americas, at which point it became largely an argument over just where in America it should be, if you observe that the Pacific Ocean comprises nearly a perfect hemisphere, with only parts of Australia and Antarctica intruding into it, centered roughly around Tahiti, with the Pacific Rim of East Asia and the west coast of the Americas sort of scalloped around the rim, then the opposite point on the globe from the center of this world-ocean lies somewhere in central North Africa, roughly southeast from Tunis.

Which is to say locations like Jerusalem, Rome, or Mecca are not far off from their claim to lie in the middle of the world. From the strict geography of median point to various global destinations a spot in Algeria or Libya can probably claim the most logical title. Naturally given the lack of water this is hardly convenient! Moving to the Med shore is too "Old World" in the sense the Soviets were speaking of and politically explosive for France especially. Weighing it by population density would move it toward China and India, that is to say east and a little north--Jerusalem looking good now, but it might be as far as Mesopotamia--which has the resonance of one of the earliest civilizations on Earth of course. Again trying to have a world capital there when the majority of dominant powers are squabbling over colonial and neo-colonial domination there would be loads of fun.

Given a north American site I reiterate that it would have to be a port area, and thus a shore line site or an island. I don't think Heinlein picked Bermuda by such a process, he just intuitively balanced US and Commonwealth claims I guess. Soviet influence pushes the site out of Commonwealth and demands an East coast US site by default. Given that most places on the US east coast that aren't heavily developed already are so for reasons, that leaves a developed site and that points to New York if as the above post mentioned a windfall of available land in the metropolis itself opens up.
 
Top