Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shrike · Oct 3, 2006, 05:16 pm

Major powers give Ban the nod for UN post - World - theage.com.au

Quote:

SOUTH Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon is all but certain to become the next United Nation's secretary-general after an informal poll found no opposition from any of the major powers.
...
Mr Ban is likely to be formally voted in as the only candidate to be recommended to the UN General Assembly next week to succeed Kofi Annan
...
At first glance, Ban Ki-moon, 62, appears to be the ideal candidate for the world's diplomat-in-chief and senior civil servant. The son of a farmer, born during Japanese occupation, he was a child during the Korean War and has lived to see his country become one of the world's 15 largest economies. His country owes its existence to a war fought under the UN flag in the 1950s.

South Korea is also an example of a country that had moved from dictatorship to successful democracy and which is a model for the developing world of successful economic development.

Thus he may be ideally placed to appeal to both the Western and developing worlds, which is the deepest schism at the UN. But a question mark exists over whether Mr Ban is the ideal candidate or the simply the least objectionable. He has countered suggestions he is too soft for the job by saying Asians value humility, but this should not be construed as weakness. He has been Foreign Minister for the past 2½ years. But he has spent most of his professional life in diplomacy, having worked for the South Korea's Foreign Affairs Ministry since 1970, as well as its mission at the UN, and also having been the assistant to Han Seung-soo, the General Assembly president in 2001.

Ban Ki-moon has also cited his experience in dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue. At the

Anyone have some information about the new guy?

JohnMK · Oct 4, 2006, 07:07 pm

What has piqued my curiosity of late is the process for selecting the Secretary General. It looks like the Security Council makes the choice. I think it should more propertly be within purview, however, of the General Assembly. Also, a single veto suffices to sink a candidate. Now it seems clear to me that the Secretary General should not be divisive and objectionable but the side-effect is you are not likely to get anyone especially interesting. Depending on your own view of the role of the UN, this could be desired or sadly stifling. In a world brimming over with divergent rational and outright insane worldviews, it seems likely that many candidates will be objectionable to at least ONE party. So we end up with Mr. Milquetoast, who delights in speaking a great deal, meaning very little, and doing less than that.

Oct 4, 2006, 07:07 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
JohnMK Laissez-Faire Location: Seattle Posts: 539	What has piqued my curiosity of late is the process for selecting the Secretary General. It looks like the Security Council makes the choice. I think it should more propertly be within purview, however, of the General Assembly. Also, a single veto suffices to sink a candidate. Now it seems clear to me that the Secretary General should not be divisive and objectionable but the side-effect is you are not likely to get anyone especially interesting. Depending on your own view of the role of the UN, this could be desired or sadly stifling. In a world brimming over with divergent rational and outright insane worldviews, it seems likely that many candidates will be objectionable to at least ONE party. So we end up with Mr. Milquetoast, who delights in speaking a great deal, meaning very little, and doing less than that.