I'd have to admit that I've never been at all impressed with Kofi on anything. Results in Africa? Rwanda - ineffective. Sudan - ineffective. Hundreds of thousands of people killed in his own backyard. Maybe Egyptians don't think themselves part of Africa, but to me it seems like he could have done better for his continent. Results in the Mid-East? Iraq. Israel. There's still loads of violence there - 'nuf said. Leadership on international terrorism? Not seeing it. Results in Europe? Europe looks good, but that probably has more to do with the EU than the UN. I guess you have to give some props to letting that happen unopposed. But then again, look at Yugoslavia. I dunno - maybe there's lots of things he did that don't come to mind. relationships between the top 5 on the security council have rarely been better. if that was not the case, well, peace in Africa might be a trifle. Corruption I expect, and would probably tolerate (its probably an unchangable fact of international business, because each culture has its own mores). But heck, even FIFA puts on a good show once every four years, and their leader is more corrupt and says stupider things than Kofi. I'm not seeing any leadership or global influence. I wouldn't hate to see him go. UN haters might want to rethink their schadenfreud - if Kofi is replaced with a reputable, dynamic leader who can distance himself from previous UN failures, well what would you do then?
He's Kenyan, not Egyptian. Boutros Boutros Boutros Boutros Gahli is Egyptian. I'd have to say he's been a lousy Sec. Gen. We may find out if Kofi is more corrupt than Sep, as the Oil For Food investigation so far seems to be pointing to a yes. Wasn't there a rumor Clinton wanted to be Sec. Gen? Well here's his chance perhaps.
Kofi Annan is from Ghana. Boutros Boutros-Ghali is from Egypt. Wouldn't shed a tear if Annan was ousted. I think the investigation of Saddam's oil-for-food program will reveal some corruption at pretty high levels of the UN. And Clinton would probably push ahead of Kerry on any list to replace him.
I thought they couldn't elect a president of the UN who's from a country that is a permanant member of the Security Council. So no Americans British French Chinese Russians
I've heard the Clinton rumors too, and I don't know how serious they are. The Bush administration might object to it, which would be foolish, because I have no doubt that Clinton would be very good in deflecting away much of the anti-American sentiment at the UN. He might also dent the regular chorus of anti-Israel resolutions, which would help the U.S. because it would no longer be in the position of having to veto those resolutions. For whatever reason, Clinton is an immensely popular figure. He can represent U.S. interests very well. I would hope conservatives would put aside their vitriolic hatred of the man for a moment and recognize that this would be a golden opportunity to rehabilitate America's image in the world.
Sorry about that. There's a girl in my program who is obsessed with the man for some reason so I make a point of pissing her off by referring to him as being from Kenya. Lame, but it gets a rise out of her. I kind of pulled a W. there. I've said it so many times, it must be true in my mind now I guess.
I'm not a Clinton fan, but I'd absolutely love to see him as UN Sec General. If that "no permanent security council members" bit is accurate, tho...how about Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel?
Walsea was a great leader of solidarity but a lousy leader of Poland. I don't think he is up to actually running the UN. Havel might be pretty good, though he had surgery for lung cancer and continues to suffer from repiratory problems.
here's a little more why clinton can't be the next Secretary General. http://www.erickerickson.org/archives/002732.html I thought it was actually a rule, but its one of those unwritten rules. Asia's turn next.
Why do I think that UN leadership positions deserve that old joke about coaching football: you have to be smart enough to understand it and dumb enough to think it matters! Has there ever been a good Secretary General of the UN?
Asia? Lets see. I can think of a good candidate. How about Suu Kyi? I don't know a lot about her, but it would really piss off Burma's ruling junta. That in itself would be a great accomplishment for the UN.
BTW - thanks for setting me straight on Egypt, not egypt. My bad. Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if he hasn't done a good job. I mean, if the big 5 to 10 are happy, content, talking to each other instead of actively undermining each other - well, do all the trifling little piddleshit confrontations across the world really matter? At least to us big 5-10.
The fact that it would piss off a brutal third-world dictatorship (and in particular one that is a close ally of the ChiComs) is exactly why she WON'T get it. The Dalai Lama would also be a good choice, but he wouldn't get it for the same reasons, plus I doubt he'd want it. If it has to be an Asian, the guy from Thailand seems like a good choice, since they're pretty much the only country in the region that doesn't hate every other country that I can think of. Still, I'd love to see Bubba get the job. His Secretary Generalship would increase the US' credibility in the UN, and decrease the UN's credibility in the US (as if it could be decreased any more). Win-win situation.