The United Nations wants to "move," the latest move decided, Guterres officially determined, shocked the international?
Headquartered in New York City since its establishment in 1945, it has longined its post-World War II geography, with 60 percent of the world’s sustainable development projects now being carried out in the Asia-Pacific region, but New York has a 12-hour gap.
Imagine, when engineers in Shanghai are on the verge of building a photovoltaic power plant in the Philippines, and U.N. officials in New York are dressed in a feather to hold a video conference at three o’clock in the morning, is this “cross-hemispheric rush to work” efficient?
Ironically, the United States, as a host, has become the biggest obstacle to the United Nations operation. By 2025, the United States has accumulated more than $3 billion in debt to the United Nations, accounting for more than 75% of the total debt, directly leading to 3,000 headquarters cuts, $700 million annual budget cuts, and even food aid programs in Africa are suspended due to lack of money.
To say that you just owe money, the most irritating thing is the "visa politics" of the United States. During the United Nations General Assembly in 2025, Colombian President Petro was directly revoked his visa by the United States because he publicly criticized the US-Israel policy, and even his qualification to participate was deprived. Further forward, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Palestinian President Abbas, senior Iranian officials, etc. have all suffered similar treatment.
The United Nations should have been a platform for equal dialogue between nations, but now it has become a tool for the United States to “tremble the heavens to the lords,” such a “business trick,” it is not surprising that Colombian President Pedro would angrily say: “The headquarters of the United Nations should be moved to a more democratic place!”
As early as 2021, China put forward the “Global Development Initiative”, clearly suggesting to move the United Nations agencies to Asia, this proposal has been supported by 127 countries.
More importantly, China has proved its "reliability" with practical actions: in September 2025, the UNESCO International Institute of STEM Education and the Global Center for Sustainable Development successively settled in Shanghai. This is the first time that the United Nations has established a global first-class center outside Europe and the United States.
The world's leading port, covering the city's 5G network, and international conference centers that can accommodate millions of people, these hardware conditions are more popular than the headquarters building in New York, where the automatic ladder is frequently striking.
More importantly, China has always paid its UN dues in full and on time, and the number of peacekeepers dispatched ranks first among the five permanent members of the Security Council all the year round. This attitude of "paying money and contributing" is in sharp contrast to the image of "owing money to Lao Lai" in the United States.
However, the United Nations headquarters should be completely relocated from New York, and the problems behind it are much more complex than imagined.
According to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, the relocation requires the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and the United States, as a vested interest, will inevitably use its veto power to obstruct it.
But the clever UN Secretary-General Guterres has come up with a "curve-saving" approach - "functional decentralization" - he plans to move agencies such as the Children's Foundation, Disaster Coordination Agency to Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur and other places, both reducing operating costs and reducing reliance on the United States.
For example, the operating cost of Nairobi is only one-third of that of new york, and it can respond to humanitarian crises in Africa more efficiently; With its practical experience in the fields of green energy and digital economy, Shanghai is becoming a "experimental field" for global sustainable development. This change is essentially the shift of the focus of global governance from the west to the east, and it is the inevitable result of the rise of emerging countries.
One might ask if the relocation of the United Nations headquarters would really solve all the problems? The answer is clearly no. Even if the headquarters were moved to Asia, the international political game would still exist and the conflict of interest between the great powers would not disappear.
Over the past 70 years, the United Nations has been dominated by the West, and the power to formulate rules is in the hands of a few countries. Now, with the rise of emerging countries such as China, India, and Brazil, the international community's need for a fairer and more inclusive global governance system is becoming increasingly urgent. The "eastward relocation" of the United Nations headquarters is a concentrated expression of this demand.
As Guterres said, “It’s not just about changing office, it’s about making the United Nations really the speaker of the world’s South.”
China’s role in this relocation, of course, has also triggered some sharp commentary in Western media. They claim that China is “ambitious” and tries to expand its influence by taking over the United Nations agency. This is like saying “you can’t eat grapes and say grape acid” – the United States is selectively blind when it delays membership fees and abuses visa rights; when China spends money to promote global cooperation, they jump out accusing “don’t be helpful.”
In fact, China has never sought "headquarters leadership", but has always emphasized "multilateralism" and "win-win cooperation."From setting up a global development library to sending peacekeepers, from pushing South-South cooperation to participating in climate negotiations, China has proved itself to be the builder, not the destroyer, of global governance with practical actions.
Although the status of the New York headquarters will be difficult to shake in the short term, the trend of "moving eastward" United Nations functions is irreversible. The final outcome of this drama may not be a simple "headquarters relocation", but the arrival of a new era of fairer, more efficient and more inclusive global governance.
In this process, the role of China is not the omitted "walker" but the "key gentleman" that promotes the development of the drama.
Headquartered in New York City since its establishment in 1945, it has longined its post-World War II geography, with 60 percent of the world’s sustainable development projects now being carried out in the Asia-Pacific region, but New York has a 12-hour gap.
Imagine, when engineers in Shanghai are on the verge of building a photovoltaic power plant in the Philippines, and U.N. officials in New York are dressed in a feather to hold a video conference at three o’clock in the morning, is this “cross-hemispheric rush to work” efficient?
Ironically, the United States, as a host, has become the biggest obstacle to the United Nations operation. By 2025, the United States has accumulated more than $3 billion in debt to the United Nations, accounting for more than 75% of the total debt, directly leading to 3,000 headquarters cuts, $700 million annual budget cuts, and even food aid programs in Africa are suspended due to lack of money.
To say that you just owe money, the most irritating thing is the "visa politics" of the United States. During the United Nations General Assembly in 2025, Colombian President Petro was directly revoked his visa by the United States because he publicly criticized the US-Israel policy, and even his qualification to participate was deprived. Further forward, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Palestinian President Abbas, senior Iranian officials, etc. have all suffered similar treatment.
The United Nations should have been a platform for equal dialogue between nations, but now it has become a tool for the United States to “tremble the heavens to the lords,” such a “business trick,” it is not surprising that Colombian President Pedro would angrily say: “The headquarters of the United Nations should be moved to a more democratic place!”
As early as 2021, China put forward the “Global Development Initiative”, clearly suggesting to move the United Nations agencies to Asia, this proposal has been supported by 127 countries.
More importantly, China has proved its "reliability" with practical actions: in September 2025, the UNESCO International Institute of STEM Education and the Global Center for Sustainable Development successively settled in Shanghai. This is the first time that the United Nations has established a global first-class center outside Europe and the United States.
The world's leading port, covering the city's 5G network, and international conference centers that can accommodate millions of people, these hardware conditions are more popular than the headquarters building in New York, where the automatic ladder is frequently striking.
More importantly, China has always paid its UN dues in full and on time, and the number of peacekeepers dispatched ranks first among the five permanent members of the Security Council all the year round. This attitude of "paying money and contributing" is in sharp contrast to the image of "owing money to Lao Lai" in the United States.
However, the United Nations headquarters should be completely relocated from New York, and the problems behind it are much more complex than imagined.
According to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, the relocation requires the unanimous consent of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and the United States, as a vested interest, will inevitably use its veto power to obstruct it.
But the clever UN Secretary-General Guterres has come up with a "curve-saving" approach - "functional decentralization" - he plans to move agencies such as the Children's Foundation, Disaster Coordination Agency to Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur and other places, both reducing operating costs and reducing reliance on the United States.
For example, the operating cost of Nairobi is only one-third of that of new york, and it can respond to humanitarian crises in Africa more efficiently; With its practical experience in the fields of green energy and digital economy, Shanghai is becoming a "experimental field" for global sustainable development. This change is essentially the shift of the focus of global governance from the west to the east, and it is the inevitable result of the rise of emerging countries.
One might ask if the relocation of the United Nations headquarters would really solve all the problems? The answer is clearly no. Even if the headquarters were moved to Asia, the international political game would still exist and the conflict of interest between the great powers would not disappear.
Over the past 70 years, the United Nations has been dominated by the West, and the power to formulate rules is in the hands of a few countries. Now, with the rise of emerging countries such as China, India, and Brazil, the international community's need for a fairer and more inclusive global governance system is becoming increasingly urgent. The "eastward relocation" of the United Nations headquarters is a concentrated expression of this demand.
As Guterres said, “It’s not just about changing office, it’s about making the United Nations really the speaker of the world’s South.”
China’s role in this relocation, of course, has also triggered some sharp commentary in Western media. They claim that China is “ambitious” and tries to expand its influence by taking over the United Nations agency. This is like saying “you can’t eat grapes and say grape acid” – the United States is selectively blind when it delays membership fees and abuses visa rights; when China spends money to promote global cooperation, they jump out accusing “don’t be helpful.”
In fact, China has never sought "headquarters leadership", but has always emphasized "multilateralism" and "win-win cooperation."From setting up a global development library to sending peacekeepers, from pushing South-South cooperation to participating in climate negotiations, China has proved itself to be the builder, not the destroyer, of global governance with practical actions.
Although the status of the New York headquarters will be difficult to shake in the short term, the trend of "moving eastward" United Nations functions is irreversible. The final outcome of this drama may not be a simple "headquarters relocation", but the arrival of a new era of fairer, more efficient and more inclusive global governance.
In this process, the role of China is not the omitted "walker" but the "key gentleman" that promotes the development of the drama.