Article

2004-12-01 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-01 7:50:20 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Race to replace Kofi begins

"Hmm. The mannequin or the Furby? We're agreed they're both an improvement, but which would be better?"

Posted by Bulldog 2004-12-01 8:53:15 AM|| 2004-12-01 8:53:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#2
This is a good article. Here's another excerpt:

The UN Charter states that the secretary general is the "chief administrative officer" of the organization. His job is therefore to administer the UN Secretariat, that is to say to implement the decisions of the Security Council. Granted that the secretary general may "bring to the attention of the Security Council" matters that threaten "international peace", this is however a purely theoretical proposition, as the members are generally better informed than he is of threats to peace and security. Ultimately the secretary general has no power and has a level of authority that is inversely proportional to the importance of the issue he addresses. ....

"The task of the UN secretary general," commented a government official, "is to do nothing but to do it well." Doing nothing "well" is not an easy task if taken seriously. It consists of administering the Secretariat within the narrow limits set by the various committees of the General Assembly, of building a good team, of listening to advisers but not being manipulated by them. The secretary general must not be unprincipled, but he must know how to manage his principles. Ultimately the post requires a diplomat who will not fall prey to the illusion of power, who can be decisive without being abrasive, and who will not seek in appearance refuge from substance.

The role of secretary general is thus not one for a politician, as Boutros-Ghali discovered to his chagrin. The Egyptian was an intellectual giant who did not suffer fools and made no secret of it. He played down the human cost of the siege of Sarajevo, which was front-page news, as compared with the genocide in Rwanda, which was not and which the West did not want to hear about. Ultimately he became an annoyance to the Americans, who vetoed his re-election in favor of the less abrasive Kofi Annan, whom they defined as the secretary general they could "work with".
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-01 9:09:14 AM|| 2004-12-01 9:09:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 What a pity he turned out to be a gangster. Shouldn't have been a surprise, really, considering his past in diplomatic/international circles.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-01 9:26:30 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-12-01 9:26:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Incidently, the Frogs have traditionally required that the Sec Gen be able to speak French.

Posted by Spot 2004-12-01 9:26:30 AM|| 2004-12-01 9:26:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 well said bulldog , I think i'll take the furby , damnit they are soo cute , therefore i conclude 'better' :)

Posted by MacNails 2004-12-01 10:22:24 AM|| 2004-12-01 10:22:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 North America has never had a person in the rotation. Last go around there was a push for Brian Mulroony (sp?) of Canada. I could live with that. Its time for a Secretary General from the first world again.

Posted by rjschwarz 2004-12-01 11:34:35 AM|| [http://rjschwarz.typepad.com] 2004-12-01 11:34:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Mike-you only respond to that part of the Charter which buttresses up your argument, and conspicuously avoid the rest. What ELSE does the UN Charter say? (Hint-it's about genocide.)

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-01 4:24:46 PM|| 2004-12-01 4:24:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I would enjoy seeing a nationalist from Taiwan get the post, heh. That would liven things up...

Posted by .com 2004-12-01 4:48:50 PM|| 2004-12-01 4:48:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 You know, Australia is officially part of Asia now...I nominate Alexander Downer.

Posted by Grunter 2004-12-01 5:23:32 PM|| 2004-12-01 5:23:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The world ain't the same as in post WWII Cold War. Progress is happening. The UN is steeped in ideas that are no longer relevant - kinda like "old Europe." The time in history when the UN, and its championing of a valueless view of nations, had a purpose has passed. All nations and all governments ain't created equal. Totalitarian, autocratic, bad guy countries ain't the same as democratic, individual liberty protectin, countries, but you'd never know that from the UN. Why are we pourin money into an organization that actively works against us in the world, sees the US as the bad guys, and is incapable of standin up for real human rights. What is the UN's role now? Why are we even debatin who should be the next UN secretary general? Its time to move on and organize a new association that understands the freedom, democracy, individual liberty and human rights. How's that for moveon.org?

Posted by Hank 2004-12-01 5:25:59 PM|| 2004-12-01 5:25:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Hank: Yup, but Bush has to step up, and he hasn't. And I doubt Condi has that sort of swing-for-the-fences surprise up her sleeve. Would be nice, but...

Posted by someone 2004-12-01 7:34:11 PM|| 2004-12-01 7:34:11 PM|| Front Page Top

18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
23:58 Conanista
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:30 Conanista
22:58 Frank G
22:55 Frank G
22:53 Frank G
22:53 AzCat
22:50 phil_b
22:45 Conanista
22:39 phil_b
22:33 Mike Sylwester
22:30 Justrand
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G
22:23 Frank G
22:17 Dishman
22:17 Hillary Clinton
21:54 eLarson
21:53 Bomb-a-rama
21:52 Alaska Paul