By Gerald Mbanda
China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI) and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), emphasize the need for global institutions to evolve into more representative bodies. These proposals advocate for a multipolar world order where the interests of developing countries and marginalized nations are not just heard but respected. The current UN structure, heavily influenced by Western agendas and economic interests, has proven unable—or unwilling—to make room for truly equitable representation.
Today, the majority of UN member states are from the Global South—Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific. Yet these countries are underrepresented in leadership roles, agenda-setting, and decision-making power. Hosting the UN in New York inherently privileges countries with strong diplomatic ties to the U.S., while sidelining others who face bureaucratic, logistical, and political hurdles in trying to participate fully.
The United Nations was founded on principles of multilateralism, equality, and sovereign respect. Its headquarters in New York City was chosen after World War II, largely due to the United States’ political and economic dominance at the time. But nearly 80 years later, the world has changed—and the UN must change with it. A growing chorus of voices from the Global South is calling for reform of global institutions that no longer reflect the diverse, multipolar world we live in. Among those necessary reforms is a bold but overdue move: relocating the United Nations Headquarters from the United States to a more neutral, inclusive location.
The United States has repeatedly violated the foundational principles of the UN, often acting unilaterally in foreign affairs and using its position as host country to manipulate who gets a seat at the table. One glaring example of this is the denial of visas to representatives from Palestine and other delegations critical of U.S. foreign policy. In 2023, 2024 and 2025, U.S. authorities either delayed or outright refused to issue visas for Palestinian officials scheduled to attend General Assembly meetings. This practice not only obstructs diplomatic dialogue but undermines the credibility of the UN as a truly global and impartial institution.
The U.S. has turned the privilege of hosting the UN into a gatekeeping tool. This directly contradicts the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obligates the United States to allow representatives from all member states to attend UN meetings without discrimination. Denying access based on political alignment or foreign policy disagreements reduces the UN to a selective club rather than the inclusive platform it is meant to be.
Beyond the issue of visas, the U.S. and other Western powers often use their disproportionate influence to shape UN resolutions and policy outcomes in their favor. The Security Council, for example, is dominated by five permanent members (the U.S., the UK, France, China, and Russia), with veto power that can—and often does—block majority consensus.
Relocating the UN headquarters to a city in the Global South for example, in Beijing-China, Kigali-Rwanda,or Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, would be a step toward correcting this imbalance. It would send a powerful message that the UN truly belongs to all nations, not just the few that hold economic or military power. It would also ease participation for many developing countries that struggle with the high costs of maintaining large diplomatic missions in New York.
Moving the UN Headquarters is no small task, but it’s not without precedent. Other international organizations, like the International Criminal Court in The Hague, show that neutral, globally accessible locations are possible—and often preferable. A new headquarters could be purpose-built to reflect modern values: sustainability, accessibility, and genuine neutrality. It could become a symbol of the UN’s renewal and its commitment to a world no longer defined by Cold War-era power dynamics.
The UN’s credibility depends on its ability to act as an unbiased convener of nations, not as a hostage to the political whims of any one country—especially its host. The United States, through its visa denials and disproportionate influence, has demonstrated that it cannot continue to serve as an impartial steward of the world’s most important multilateral institution.
To restore trust, reflect global realities, and uphold the principles on which it was founded, the UN must consider relocating its headquarters to a country that embodies openness, neutrality, and genuine commitment to inclusive global governance. The time for symbolic change is over. What’s needed now is structural transformation.
The author is a researcher and Publisher on China and Africa Cooperation, and comments on international politics issues
