The Evening Star (February 9, 1946)
Editorial: The UNO site
In terms of the total population now residing there, only a relatively few persons appear to be opposed to having the United Nations’ permanent headquarters located in the New York-Connecticut area recommended by the Site Committee of the UNO. In fact, since there would be full compensation for the land taken and since abrupt or wholesale evictions would be highly unlikely under the plan, such local objections as have already been raised – particularly by the larger home-owners – may on second thought be considerably diminished, and to that extent the proposal seems to be in little or no danger.
Within the UNO itself, however, the recommended site is facing opposition of a kind serious enough to suggest the possibility that a final decision on the matter may be deferred for the next several months by the General Assembly. From the standpoint of water supply, transportation, proximity to New York City, radio facilities and similar physical features, there seems to be majority agreement that the proposed location is an eminently desirable one, but some of the United Nations delegations in London still feel that choices as good or better could be made elsewhere, or at least that the size of this one could be appreciably cut down.
As now projected, the New York-Connecticut site would be about forty-two square miles in area, far bigger than the old home of the League of Nations in Geneva. This has raised the question – as expressed by Sen. Vandenberg of our American delegation – whether the UNO might not be overdoing things if it acquired so much high-priced land, only one-third of which would be needed for buildings, or for a single Pentagon-like structure housing all agencies, while the remaining two-thirds would be converted chiefly into recreation and park grounds. In Mr. Vandenberg’s judgment, without ruling out the present geographical selection, the headquarters ought to be no larger than a comfortable college campus and its cost should be reasonable enough for the less wealthy members of the United Nations to pay their share. This view is not his alone. Led by France, several delegations, including those of Australia, Poland, Chile and Egypt – with some of them wanting an entirely different location – have given voice to much the same thought, and if their arguments prevail, all action on the issue may be suspended at least until the General Assembly’s next meeting in September.
It may be, of course, that the UNO will want to avoid such a delay and that the Site Committee’s recommendation will be ruled on – one way or the other – before the present session of the General Assembly comes to an end. Nevertheless, in view of the French-led opposition, a postponement may be deemed wise and the final decision, some months from now, conceivably may be to set up the world capital outside the controversial New York-Connecticut area. At the moment, despite assumptions to the contrary, the situation seems quite as uncertain as that.