Clinton eyes top UN post
Serious DiscussionDiscuss Clinton eyes top UN post in the Discussions forums; Washington: Former US President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming UN secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior UN source have told United Press International the 56-...
Washington: Former US President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming UN secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior UN source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan’s term ends early in 2006.
“He definitely wants to do it,” the Clinton insider said this week. A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from UN member states, particularly the Third World.
Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanise the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president’s hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the US government — a prerequisite for nomination?
The political wisdom is that a second George W Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from “the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House.
If Democratic candidate, Sen John Kerry, D-Mass, wins on November 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won’t exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder — if not impossible — to go against it.
After a Middle East UN Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia’s turn to fill the post, UN experts say.
No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have US support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support.
No American has ever been UN secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget.
A hostile US Congress held up its dues for years — until the Clinton administration negotiated a payment plan for Washington’s arrears.
Clinton also revived US membership of UNESCO though the Americans did not actually move back to their offices at the Paris-based cultural UN agency until after the start of the Bush presidency.
Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month. He has talked of his interest in taking over at the United Nations since the publication of his autobiography, which he recently said had sold 1.9 million copies.
Writing the book kept him busy after leaving office in 2000, but he is now ready to channel his considerable political skills and energy into another role in public life.
To me, this would be a nightmare, but I'm actually more curious about the opinions of people in other countries.
Would you see it as a good or bad thing? Is your opinion based on Clinton as an individual, or are you just seeing him as an American who would be in charge of the UN?
In the UK (and in my opinion, obviously) Clinton is perceived as being a lot better than, for example, Bush. He's generally liked and respected as a person and as a politician.
I think there would inevitably be some people who would baulk at the idea of any American "in charge of" the UN at this point in time, but Clinton could probably minimise this kneejerk reaction more than anyone else.
However, as it says in the article you quoted:
"After a Middle East UN Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia’s turn to fill the post, UN experts say."
and I think the UN will stick to that in order to be seen to be "fair". Any American (even Clinton) who is seen as trying to "steal the turn" of an Asian Secretary General will face a lot of opposition, especially with Bush having practically destroyed most of the positive aspects of the US's relationships with the rest of the world.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"After a Middle East UN Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia’s turn to fill the post, UN experts say."
and I think the UN will stick to that in order to be seen to be "fair". Any American (even Clinton) who is seen as trying to "steal the turn" of an Asian Secretary General will face a lot of opposition, especially with Bush having practically destroyed most of the positive aspects of the US's relationships with the rest of the world.
The thing that might trump that is that there has never been an American secretary general.
I don't think there's ever been a Thai one either. I see no trump.
Boutros-Ghali was better described as an 'African' candidate in fact (he was from Egypt), but as he only served one term rather than two he was replaced by another African, Annan (who then served two terms).
More important than the fact there hasn't been an American is the fact that there hasn't been one from anywhere in North America. As it's done roughly by continents, that might help. However, as Asia has already waited an extra four years I doubt it will want to give up its turn. I also have trouble believing that China would support a US candidate.
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'
'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'
More important than the fact there hasn't been an American is the fact that there hasn't been one from anywhere in North America. As it's done roughly by continents, that might help. However, as Asia has already waited an extra four years I doubt it will want to give up its turn. I also have trouble believing that China would support a US candidate.
China loved Clinton when he was the president. He might be able to slick talk them into approving.
This comes from my pessimism in any situation where a Clinton is involved. Bill and Hillary are bullet proof and teflon coated. If Bill wants it, he'll probably get it. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary will win the presidential election in 2008.
More Information
Linear Mode
Latest Threads
