UNO-RELOCATION?
WHY

• There is no Extension of the Human Rights to Education Project, no modifying of article 26 of the UDHR without the fundament of the UNO.
• Keeping the UN headquarters in a country, whose presidents has effectively declared the UN useless (Bush 2003), try to replace the United Nations with own “board of peace” (Trump), enabled a genocide (Biden, Trump 2024/25) or has already placed the so-called “rules-based world order” above the UN Charter, is historically irresponsible.
• Arbitrary refusal to grant visas to UN member states.
• The monitoring of UN member states‘ offices by intelligence services is unacceptable.
• The military, political and economic practices of the state that accepted the UNO headquarters, disregarding the UN Charter from 1945 to the present day.
• „Quoting Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks – ‚The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters‘ – The Belgian President De Wever added that it is up to Trump “to decide whether he wants to be a monster or not”. (https://www.euronews. com/my – europe/2026/01/20/trump – doubles-down-on-greenland-annex- ation-as-europe-struggles-to-coordi- nate-a-response)“. We know that the decision was made long ago, because the slogan ‘America first’ is the war declaration on the human family. We have heard a similar slogan before, in the national anthem sung in Hit- ler’s Third Reich: „Germany, Germany above all, above all in the world“.

Why is it important to defend the UN (whose actions we are far from satisfied with) and to relocate its headquarters to another continent?

• The UNO relocation is not merely about relocating the UN Headquarters.
• In these times when imperialism’s colonialist essence is clearly reflected, it emerges as a declaration of will by the progressive sections of humanity to establish a new and progressive world order after the now visibly certain destruction of the current one.
• The idea of relocating the UNO is to believe that humanity will continue and that, if the great destruction cannot be prevented, a process of reconstruction will begin after this destruction. Such a perspective also emerges as a method of preventing helplessness and becoming politicised.
• A small clique of self-proclaimed „philanthropists“ who, despite being members of the human family, consider themselves independent of and above the human family, will be watched with admiration by the members of the new world to be established, who will observe them in museums as if they were observing the mummies of pharaohs. The UNO relocation idea carries within it the seeds of internationalist solidarity against that shallow clique that dares to wage total war on the human family once again until that day comes.
• The UNO relocation idea is a call for the liberation movements of states that have fought anti-colonial struggles and are now occupied or being attempted to be occupied.
• Rather than fighting individually, it expresses a shared destiny, as seen in Burkina Faso and Mali, which have declared that an attack on Niger is an attack on themselves. The idea of UNO relocation does not envisage a League of Nations in the classical sense or a post-1945 UNO; it is restructured through democ- ratisation, to be defined by the progressive forces that support the idea.
• The idea of UN relocation is the idea of progressives who have grasped the reality that oligarchic states dominate the UN, and that even organs such as the WHO are strongholds taken over by the funding of so-called philanthropists‘ wealthy foundations.
• The idea of relocating the UN offers a long-term perspective for liberation movements against imperialism to build a line of resistance for states and the peoples within those states, and it holds the potential to build an organised and solidarity-based structure.
• If the headquarters of the United Nations is relocated in line with the vision of the progressive forces of the human family, this will be an expression of a new dem- ocratically dominated order in the interests of the people, regardless of whether its new name is UN or
another acronym.

‘The building’s old spirit, or the new-spirit building?’ This topic is on our agen