It’s time to relocate the UN headquarters

As the world shifts its attention to the ceasefire in Gaza, we should remember one of the primary logistical challenges facing multilateral diplomacy headed by the United Nations: the location of its headquarters inside the United States.

World diplomats and leaders must begin the work to relocate the UN’s head office before next year’s General Assembly. Any doubts over this urgency were put to rest by the almost hour-long speech by US President Donald Trump, in which he trolled the institution from its own stage at the last Assembly.

It was a brutal, but necessary reminder of how unfit the US has become to host the world’s leading multilateral institutions. The current location of the headquarters has repeatedly exposed the constraints of US policy, undermining the organisation’s legitimacy and weakening its ability to mediate conflicts, support peace processes, and amplify marginalised voices.

Undermining UN mandate

Weeks before Trump’s speech, the US revoked visas for members of the Palestinian delegation — including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — preventing their participation at the General Assembly at the time it was most needed. This was not an isolated incident. For decades, US actions have diverged from the UN’s mandate to uphold international law and state sovereignty.

In 1988, the Reagan administration denied visas to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian delegation after Palestine declared independence — despite their recognising Israel’s right to exist.

American disdain for the UN is clear: the administration of President George W. Bush undermined UN weapons inspectors and defied the Security Council and General Assembly to invade Iraq — a reckless decision that destabilised the Middle East and continues to reverberate today. In fact, Bush’s ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, even remarked: “The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.”

Indeed, the UN is constantly caught in the net of US domestic politics. During his first term, Trump imposed sweeping travel bans on citizens from Muslim-majority countries — including Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq — many of which are conflict zones where the UN plays vital roles in mediation and the delivery of humanitarian aid.

These restrictions silenced the voices most affected by conflict, further distancing the UN assembly from those it is intended to represent. And Trump’s return to office has led to the travel bans on Yemen and other countries from the Global South being reinstated.

The current administration has been even more aggressive in its attempts to undermine the UN. The president, along with senior officials such as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Mark Rubio, have frequently attacked the institution along with other international bodies.

Sending a strong message

Criticism of UN inefficiency is not new, nor entirely unfounded. Yet since 1945, it has remained a vital forum for multilateral cooperation and conflict resolution. Secretary-General António Guterres has outlined reforms — from consolidating agencies to setting new thematic agendas — but recent developments make clear that deeper structural change is needed.

While the current UN charter says the UN must have a headquarters, it doesn’t specify where it should be. Relocating the head offices outside the territory of the permanent five members of the Security Council would have both a symbolic and substantive impact. It would remove the risk of one member state’s politics obstructing participation and send a powerful signal of commitment to inclusivity and neutrality.

Several countries are viable options: Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, and Brazil all possess the infrastructure and security capacity, and have a track record of hosting global events. Brazil, in particular, has demonstrated readiness through the BRICS Summit, the G7, and its preparation for COP30.

There is precedent for even temporary moves. In 1988, the UN General Assembly convened in Geneva after the Palestinian representatives were denied visas. A distributed model is also possible: many UN agencies are already headquartered outside New York, such as the human rights bodies in Geneva.

Further decentralisation across multiple host countries would lessen the logistical burden on any one state, while reinforcing the UN’s universal character.

Relocating its headquarters would not solve all of the UN’s challenges, nor would it eliminate the disproportionate influence of the P5. But it would remove a recurring barrier to participation and restore confidence in the organisation’s neutrality.

For countries affected by conflict — whose voices the UN is supposed to elevate, not exclude — such a change would remove barriers to their representation and participation and provide room for diplomatic efforts to end hostilities.

The UN’s effectiveness depends on the good faith engagement of its member states. While the US has every right to recalibrate its own foreign policy, when such shifts obstruct the functioning of an international institution, the consequences are global.

The General Assembly has the right to vote on a new location. Member states, and countries of the global south specifically, must act to lead relocation efforts and save the UN from US interference. The time to start such a process is not August 2026, when the Trump administration again withholds visas for countries it doesn’t like. It is now.

Farea al-Muslimi is a research fellow at Chatham House where he focuses on Yemen and the Gulf. He co-founded the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies and served as its first chairperson.

Follow Farea on X: @almuslim

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.