Should the U.N. Switch?

IN Geneva's leafy Ariana park, the Swiss government is building a $15 million expansion of the Palais des Nations, the handsome colossus that was the tomb of the League of Nations and now serves as the United Nations' European headquarters. This activity on the part of the Swiss has raised once again an interesting question: Should the U.N. make Geneva or some other city its worldwide headquarters to escape from the grime and crime of Manhattan?

Recently, Washington's new U.N. Ambassador, George Bush, argued that at least an occasional trip away from the East River would be good for the U.N., which has been quartered in the New York area ever since it was founded. "If the General Assembly could meet in Africa, Latin America, Asia or in Paris, London, Geneva or for that matter any part of the world," he said, "it would in my view revitalize the organization."

The Bush proposal was clearly inspired by the White House, which is concerned about the U.N.'s sagging sense of purpose and relevance. But how do the delegates feel about the more drastic suggestion--that the U.N. pull its headquarters out of Manhattan altogether?

To find out, TIME polled the delegates in 116 of the U.N.'s 127 missions. In 39 of the missions, diplomats either declined to respond, had no opinion or could not be reached. By more than 2 to 1--the actual vote was 53 to 24 --the remainder preferred to maintain the locus quo. The delegates who favored a relocation grouped around predictably political lines. All but one of the eight Arab diplomats who responded to TIME'S poll wanted out. Four of the five Communists who agreed to discuss the question also wanted to go.

Among the others, however, the vote ran heavily in favor of New York. Of 20 delegates from wealthy, white industrial countries, 16 were for staying and only four wanted to move. More surprising, most of the missions from the so-called Third World preferred Manhattan too. Of 28 African and Asian delegates who responded, 20 wanted to stay and only eight were ready to move. Among 16 Latin American and West Indian representatives, the pro-New York vote was a resounding 15 to 1.

Pros and antis agreed on one point:

New York City is insufferably dirty, rude, crowded, expensive, unpleasant and even dangerous. Aside from the Communists and some Arab delegates who talk of moving to a more "neutral" country, those who would bail out want primarily to live in a less troubled place. Their preferences, in order: Geneva, San Francisco, Rome and even West Berlin. The stayers claim to like New York's cultural life and its unparalleled communications. One diplomat sighed, "We are just stuck here." That seemed to express a common worry: if the U.N. were to move away, the U.S.--which still picks up 31% of the organization's $160 million-a-year expenses--would eventually lose interest in it altogether.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.