Should the headquarters of the United Nations be changed?This time, the Putin administration does not make a puzzle, and directly gives the answer: Sochi is welcome.

It was at the United Nations General Assembly that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was ¡°explosive,¡± which Stalin had proposed 80 years ago to set up the UN headquarters in Sochi.

As soon as these words came out, the international community instantly exploded. The topic of relocation of the United Nations headquarters, which has been silent for many years, has once again been pushed to the forefront.

What's more interesting is that this matter is not as simple as historical gossip. This time, Russia is not simply telling stories, but intending to make a real move. Why is it now? why is it Sochi? and why does Russia dare to come up with such an idea in the face of this shell?

History of Cold Food

Don¡¯t think that Lavrov can make a blow, but this time Russia has been carefully planned and borrowed.

First of all, what he said, he laid down a rumor on the General Assembly¡¯s speech, saying that Stalin suggested to place the headquarters of the United Nations in Sochi.

Why did Stalin choose Sochi instead of Moscow?

Sochi is the "back garden" of Soviet leaders, with a warm climate and beautiful environment. It is not as political as Moscow, and it does not make western delegations have the psychological burden of being monitored. From the perspective of diplomatic etiquette and psychological warfare, it is indeed a "friendly" choice.

And Lavrov¡¯s trick, in fact, is to reconstruct the narrative framework, not to say that Russia is now ¡°robbing¡± the headquarters, but ¡°we should have qualified, in history almost chose us.¡±

This is a typical ¡°antiquity¡±, by putting old history back on the table, Russia re-shapes its ¡°legitimacy¡± and ¡°home sense¡± in the United Nations system on international occasions.

Moreover, Lavrov added a layer of eggs, saying that Stalin "wanted to do Roosevelt a favor" in those days, so he backed down.

This phrase, although not a bit of a name, but anyone can hear it, he is reminding the United States that you were affected by our personality, but now abuse the status of the host country, it should be.

The calculation of Sochi.

In the final analysis, whether the United Nations headquarters is moved or not depends on two words: reality.

During the Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia spent $50 billion in Sochi, repairing airports, high-speed railways, conference centers, and even hotels according to the five-star standard.

Those Olympic projects that were spit out as "over-budget" in those days have now become candidate assets of the United Nations headquarters.

Lavrov directly said that Sochi is "ready" to receive all staff at the UN Secretariat at any time.

But what Russia really catches up with is the US¡¯s recent multiple losses in its ¡°host country duties.¡±

First, a visa was not issued to the Palestinian delegation, and then the visa of Colombian President Petro was suddenly revoked, and even people were turned away.

This wave of operations led the Colombian president to go directly to social media, and the United Nations headquarters should not be in New York, instead of in a more democratic place, like Doha.

This is not the dissatisfaction of individual countries, but Long-suppressed collective emotionsConcentrated outbreak.

There are also deeper contradictions: the United States is indebted to the United Nations $26 billion, accounting for more than 70 percent of the total debt of the United Nations; the issuance of visas engages in "double targets", setting barriers to representatives of Russia, Iran and other countries; security inspections are too strict, and even interfere with the normal activities of some delegations.

In the eyes of many countries, the United States is more and more like a "fake landlord", but it dictates every day.

So Russia¡¯s proposal to ¡°move the headquarters away¡± appears to be radical, and in fact it is. for success.It captures the node where an international consensus is gradually forming. New York is no longer the home of a truly neutral and fair global platform.

The question is, do you want to move?

Rationally speaking, moving the United Nations headquarters is really not something that can be decided by a headshot.

The legal process is complicated on the one hand, the United Nations Headquarters Agreement stipulates that the relocation requires the agreement of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council unanimously passed, and the U.S. veto is like a iron gate, no one knows it will not easily make this happen.

The real cost is also surprising, with the total relocation estimated to cost more than $15 billion, and involving the relocation of tens of thousands of UN staff, families, and children¡¯s education.

These people have already taken root in new york. Changing cities means reconstructing their lives. Who wants to toss easily?

In addition to the current background of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Russia remains the ¡°problem maker¡± in the eyes of Western countries.

When Lavrov spoke at the UN General Assembly this year, the Western delegation was collectively absent, and the atmosphere of political confrontation was stronger than ever before.

But behind this really worth worrying is not "whether it can move", but " Why are more and more countries starting to seriously discuss moving¡±¡£

For example, China introduced the UNESCO International STEM Education Institute, based in Shanghai; Japan also officially applied in July this year to take over certain UN functional departments.

UN Secretary-General Guterres has also seen this trend and is promoting the road map of "decentralization of functions": UNICEF, Disaster Coordination Agency and other agencies may move to Africa, Southeast Asia and other countries and regions in the future.

Although this "decentralization of new york" approach is not equal to the relocation of the headquarters, it is essentially reshaping the geographical structure and political ecology of the United Nations.

And this is precisely where the strategic value of Russia's "Soci proposal" is, even if the headquarters is not moved, it can be used to promote the rearrangement of the global governance structure, so that the "New York theory" gradually disappears.

When Lavrov told the United Nations General Assembly that "Stalin also wanted to have his headquarters in Sochi," he was not in the old age, but in the establishment.

He knew that the headquarters of the United Nations would not move in an hour and a half, but as soon as the topic began to be discussed, Russia had already won half.

This isn't a row about building relocation, it's a row about The dominance of international orderThe United Nations building in New York can continue to light, but its light is no longer as reassuring as it was in the past.

Russia's move is telling all countries: In the new world order, it is no longer possible for one country to have the final say.

So, not moving, is not the key. the key is ¨C someone started to seriously ask this question, indicating a new international game, which has quietly begun.

Source:

Colombian President Petro: The United Nations Headquarters should not stay in New York 2025-09-28 13:34:06 Source: Observer.com