Threatening to Say Goodbye

By Ken Banta

Some U.S. officials send a most unhostly message to the U.N.

It was a case of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. Or maybe the problem was that neither hand knew what it was doing at all. First came U.S. Delegate Charles Lichenstein's inflammatory suggestion last week, during the flap over Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko's canceled visit, that delegates unhappy with a U.S.-based United Nations should consider moving the organization's headquarters elsewhere. Startled White House aides tried to douse that fire by saying that Lichenstein's views were purely "personal." Then U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick sprinkled some kerosene on the blaze. Let the U.N. deliberate for six months of each year in the U.S., she proposed, but give delegates a taste of Soviet life by moving them to Moscow for the other six. That controversial notion she quickly disowned as "academic" speculation.

The problem, complained a high Reagan Administration aide, was that "no one bothered to ask the President what he thinks." One reporter finally did. Well, replied Reagan, it just so happened that he agreed with both officials. "Most people in America," he hazarded, shared the sentiment that "we aren't asking anyone to leave, but if they choose to leave, goodbye." As for a six-month stint in Moscow for the diplomats, "It would give them an opportunity to see two ways of life."

Reagan clearly relished delivering such a blunt reminder of the dim view he takes of the U.N.'s frequent impotence in international crises and its often hypocritical denunciations of U.S. policies. It was equally clear, however, that he had no immediate intention of moving beyond rhetoric to any concrete steps that would press the organization to relocate. But his remarks, only days before he was scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly this week, touched off tremors about the U.N.'s future. After 31 years overlooking Manhattan's East River, the 158 delegations to the U.N. were pondering how much longer they would--or should--enjoy the view.

Controversy over the location of the U.N. is as old as the institution. In the aftermath of World War II, the Allies haggled for months before choosing the U.S., partly to assure American support. Ever since the soaring, book-shaped glass and steel headquarters opened for business in New York in 1952, diplomats have been complaining: about the city's dirt, crime, traffic and high housing costs. In June, the Soviet Union formally objected that the U.S. had failed to halt thousands of obscene phone calls to its mission.

If the U.N. membership were to choose--or be asked--to find a new home, one place it asssuredly would not go is the Soviet Union. Despite the Soviets' complaints about the way the U.S. fulfills its responsibilities as host country, they are not about to accept an influx of affluent and inquisitive foreigners who could "contaminate" the natives. Besides, says one top British official, "administratively, it would be a nightmare, and security-wise, worse still."

Despite the fact that most of the U.N. member countries are considered "underdeveloped," few delegates seriously advocate relocating in the Third World. One location mentioned by diplomats is neutral Sweden, but Stockholm has no room for a sprawling headquarters. Another possibility is Austria, which regards itself as a neutral bridge between East and West. Vienna already houses such U.N. offshoots as the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although they deny it publicly, Austrian diplomats are said to be lobbying quietly to win a bigger U.N. role.

The absence of alternatives is one reason U.N. delegations are in no hurry to leave. Another is the allure of New York, a city at the center of world trade, banking, culture and communications. Says Japanese Diplomat Toshiro Shimonouchi: "It has everything--Broadway, shopping, marvelous places to eat, a cosmopolitan atmosphere. The U.S. is so heterogeneous that it is easy for everybody to feel comfortable." East-bloc and Third World officials snap up Western goods like videotape recorders, and enjoy the nightclubs and other forms of Western "decadence" unavailable at home. Most delegates, says a French diplomat, would not want the U.N. to move "for anything in the world."

For its part, the U.S. has good economic reasons for wanting the U.N. to stay. While New Yorkers grow livid at the perks of diplomatic immunity--each year 70,000 parking tickets go unpaid, and foreign missions are exempted from real estate taxes that would total $50 million--the city reaps a net profit of about $700 million annually from the U.N. presence, on everything from hotel rooms to theater tickets. The U.S. pays only half that amount in U.N. assessments.* Says Gillian Sorensen, New York City commissioner for the U.N.: "It would make no more sense to take the U.N. out of New York than to take the Vatican out of Rome."

By breezily suggesting that the U.N. was free to move, Reagan raised fears that the U.S. was rethinking its vital financial and philosophic support. These doubts were reinforced when the Senate, spurred by Reagan's comments, voted to cut the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s operating budget by nearly $500 million over the next four years; the House is unlikely to go along. Even the White House strongly objected to the move, saying that it would "damage U.S. interests." Having registered their frustration, the Administration and Congress should remember that the U.N., for all its faults, performs a crucial role as an international grievance center. "The loss of New York would mark the beginning of the end of U.S. participation in that international body," warns Austrian Foreign Minister Erwin Lane. "And the U.N. can only be powerful if the two superpowers are part of it." --By Ken Banta. Reported by Frederick Ungeheuer/New York, with other bureaus

*While the U.S. contribution of $350 million accounts for a quarter of the U.N. budget, 13 other countries make higher per-capita payments: Qatar, Kuwait, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, United Arab Emirates, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Libya, Finland, Belgium and New Zealand.

With reporting by Frederick Ungeheuer/New York This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.