Readers’ Responses to Our Question (191)

Юзая по инету нашел на твой сайт, ох и офигенный же он!!! А посмотри мой

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about1025-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about1106-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about948-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about566-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about1530-newmethod.html
http://www.forumup.co.nz/about1541-newmethod.html
http://www.forumup.co.nz/about1552-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about330-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about275-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about275-newmethod.html

http://www.forumup.co.nz/about35-newmethod.html
http://www.forumup.co.nz/about36-newmethod.html
http://www.forumup.co.nz/about37-newmethod.html

Очень полезный сайт для молодых мам, Всё о новорожденных, советую посетить.

Спасибо за интересную информацию и данный портал! Буду посещать его постоянно!!! А чуть не забыл, мой сайт .....

Спасибо за интересную информацию и твой портал! Буду посещать его постоянно!!! А чуть не забыл, мой сайт .....

nice article

fitness equipment new zealand [url=http://volny.cz/fukqcrhf/new-zealand.html] fitness equipment new zealand [/url] here in your arms [url=http://volny.cz/qatcsyri/arm.html] here in your arms [/url] wetsuit twinks [url=http://volny.cz/tcitegdt/twink.html] wetsuit twinks [/url] digital light low night photography [url=http://volny.cz/brzwpqti/night-lights.html] digital light low night photography [/url] dreamsicles lryical lute [url=http://volny.cz/pfrdswpl/dreamsicles.html] dreamsicles lryical lute [/url] ty beanie babies value [url=http://volny.cz/ujgjvjun/beanie-babies.html] ty beanie babies value [/url] overnight valtrex [url=http://volny.cz/lxforork/valtrex.html] overnight valtrex [/url] anal by first her rabbit sex [url=http://volny.cz/jhwuuhwo/her-first.html] anal by first her rabbit sex [/url] art galleries of oil paintings [url=http://volny.cz/rqzyayuc/paintings.html] art galleries of oil paintings [/url] black cats joon khodet [url=http://volny.cz/yiolgiar/black-cats.html] black cats joon khodet [/url]

manpower inc [url=http://volny.cz/vejwhbgl/manpower.html] manpower inc [/url] computer desk plan [url=http://volny.cz/atufnpfh/computer-desk.html] computer desk plan [/url] ringtone kate bush [url=http://volny.cz/cssofoac/kate-bush.html] ringtone kate bush [/url] scented candles in jars [url=http://volny.cz/okpkpbry/scented-candles.html] scented candles in jars [/url] promotional gifts corporate business marketing advertising [url=http://volny.cz/fxfwubbd/business-gifts.html] promotional gifts corporate business marketing advertising [/url] woman lap dance [url=http://volny.cz/vaxwwzfu/lap-dance.html] woman lap dance [/url] nashville properties rental [url=http://volny.cz/frfwlvks/rental-properties.html] nashville properties rental [/url] jimmy wayne i love you this much [url=http://volny.cz/havqgeuy/jimmy.html] jimmy wayne i love you this much [/url] political cartoons of franklin d roosevelt [url=http://volny.cz/fwspgxbr/franklin-roosevelt.html] political cartoons of franklin d roosevelt [/url] 4gb lexar lightning [url=http://volny.cz/kvsfeekv/lexar.html] 4gb lexar lightning [/url]

http://forum.studykungfu.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=5

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

If Not Redirect Automatically click here to Redirect Manually!!!

lady rolex stainless
rolex submariner
luxury replica rolex
rolex steel daytona
presidential replica rolex.com
pre owned rolex watches
rolex daytona prices
used rolex discount
rolex president platinum
bjs online rolex
116234 rolex
rolex thunderbird bezel
price of rolex oyster perpetual
daytona rolex 24hr
rolex oyster perpetual chronometer
jubilee rolex
rolex watch with diamonds
filled gold oyster rolex
rolex 6263
swiss made rolex replica watches
rolex watch part
eurolexis
replicas rolex watches
rolex replicas uk
rolex dealers in london
fake rolex sales
preowned used rolex watch
new rolex daytona
rolex watches
swiss made replica rolex watch
rolex geneva
womens replica rolex
rolex watch box
watches rolex
link post.lgg.ru replica rolex rolex watch watch
datejust manual oyster perpetual rolex
presidential rolex watch replica
rolex masterpiece platinum
rolex dealers in west palm beach fl
rolex dial
www.rolexcopy.com
jewelry rolex watch watch
16234 rolex
ladies 2005 rolex craigslist
attach leather rolex strap
prolex pd tablets
rolex grade a
rolex yachtmaster 16622
18 karat gold and diamond rolex watch
buy replica rolex watches

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

qjlhvztup setqpr lfezc xpjareud licpqug itoankwgc hadsfui

Hello nice blog! !!
pen
It's my new page.about pens.

Hello nice blog!
sofa
It's my new page.

Hello, here you can read all info about pen pal
24\7.

Hello, here you can read all info about pen
24\7.

Hello to all, its my new pages about cloth
cloth diaper
You can buy here 24\7.

http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws/

jsucmba atzujf ifmps yduvxjolc dktvmbzwy mfspli vnmg

Srikanth,

Yup, I read the WEF. Not surprising.

As far as money/business leading to better international relations I'm skeptical. It is a world economy. All of us are either buying or selling something to each other every minute of every day. MikeB may not be the biggest fan of the Muslim world, but he'll burn their oil/gas in his car. Arabs aren't big fans of the United States yet they'll come over on a regular basis just to shop. I haven't seen the business part of life transcend the cultural part yet. OPEC has to be disgusted by the US and limited allies involvment in the ME and they still sell us oil.

If I was really cynical I'd advance the idea business likes the upheaval in the world becuase it's good for business. There might actually be some limited truth to this type of an argument, but overall I don't believe this is the case.

Universal peace is an ideal that almost everyone agrees with, yet most people aren't willing to do anything about it. History has proven this over and over. For almost the entire history of this nation we've been fighting somebody or something. Whether it was the British, the Indians, the Mexicans, each other, the Spanish, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Soviets, the Iraqis, Afghan's, Taliban, Al Quaeda, Terrorism in general or something. We have to face the fact we are not a very peaceful people. We talk about it a lot, but our actions contradict our rhetoric. Invasions, occupations and the violence and destruction that follow have nothing in common with universal peace no matter what our esteemed leader says. With the exception of WWII and possibly our own revolution I'm hard pressed to understand any other conflict/war we've engaged in being justified.

Hence, I stand by my previous post which stated I have serious doubts it will matter who is selected Secretary General of the UN. If the United States can't or won't take a peaceful approach to the world around it and promote peace through the United Nations there is little to no chance of the UN making a meaningful difference in this regard. IN THIS CASE PEACE REALLY STARTS AT HOME.

Natasha Tynes wrote:

"As a Jordanian, I do have a pertinent perspective. Jordan's prince Zeid bin Ra'ad may have an outside chance but he's well qualified, having earned his BA in Poli-Sci at Johns Hopkins and a PhD in history from Cambridge. He served as Jordan's deputy permanent representative before his current permanent representative post. As a UN chief, Prince Zeid would most likely put the Middle East crises on the global agenda. In this day and age, this is more than needed."

As a Moroccan I oppose the Jordanian candidate and I applaud the Qatari government for not voting for him. The Moroccan government unfortunately did vote for him.

I also condemn the Jordanian government response to Qatar's decision. Their response is typical (like their ally Bush) because they truely do not respect other people choices.

Isn't it enough that these princes live off of the people's wealth?

No the Prince.

Ban Ki-moon, the nominee of Seoul (South Korea), appears likely to become the next secretary-general of the United Nations. The travesty is that he represents a nation (i.e., South Korea) which despises non-Koreans. Yet, nearly all members of the United Nations have predominantly non-Korean populations.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115967192466858300

When Ban stands for a vote in the general assembly, the members should cast their votes against him.

If Seoul wants to salvage his candidacy for the post of secretary-general, then Seoul should immediately admit 300,000 Sudanese refugees into South Korea. Such an action would effectively declare that the Koreans shall cast away their racist bigotry against non-Korean.

Would the Koreans admit 300,000 Sudanese (i.e., non-Korean) refugees into Korea and put them on the track to becoming Korean citizens? Don't hold your breath.

All we know that the duration of Kufi Ananís presidency as the United Nations Secretary General will be ended within a few weeks and its about many days that the members of security council, started their deliberations and consultations to choose between the Asian candidates for this 5-year term.
Beside the political and diplomatic situations, UNSG has a continental ration and Asians are the shareholders of this turn.
Now the former Korean republic foreign affairs minister is called as the first chance of being the first Kufi Ananís successor, after the informal poll among 5 members of Security Council who will make the last decision about the entire post.
62 years old Korean Ban Ki Moon is taking from the Indian Shashi Tharoor lead and going ahead of him. Tharoor was the former vice-president of United Nations Secretary General in communication and public relations who is losing his last chances against the rivals. Although Ashraf Ghani as the former finance minister of Afghanistan owns the third place in the unofficial plebiscites and votes among Security Council members, but he is the most serious opponent of Korean Ban Ki Moon who is being supported by the US congress and American government, especially George W. Bush is protecting him personally and the politician theory-makers believe in his undoubted selection because of the congress pressures and it seems that the main competition would be launched between Korea Republic and recently freed Afghanistan.
But the world press has reported that Korean fellow is irresolute and uncertain about the final votes, talked waveringly about the whole story after his presence in the general symposium of UN, denying the informal prejudges and foresights and waiting for the ending results.
But in the other hand, it is so considered that the explicit supports and defenses from the Korean minister, accomplished by the US president that also results to the unpleased interferences of him, will be a real threat for the health and correctness of UNSG selectionís process because these meddling are also combined with the extra force and intimidation to the SC members in addition with alluring them, and this would take the security council members such as China, Russia, France a and United Kingdom under compelling circumstances because most of their political and economical advantages and benefits is related to the willingness of state.
Not having any retributive past record, being conversant in at least 3 world live languages and gathering the maximum number of token votes are the most important distinctions and concessions of the secretary general. The nominees will be appointed and voted by the general assembly and by the recommendations and encourages of Security Council.
The first United Nations secretary general was Sir Gladwyn Jebb from United Kingdom from 1945 to 1946, but after his suddenly death, Trygve Halvdan Lie from Norway was selected. Lie resigned after seven years of strive and effort and gave his place to Swedish Dag Hammarskjold who Died in a plane crash in Northern Rhodesia (currently Zambia).
Also U Thant was the first Asian Secretary General from 1961 to 1971. He had the opportunity to take the place for his third 5-year term, but gave up due to the personal reasons. After him, the Austrian Kurt Waldheim became in charge with the UN affairs, but Chinese vetoed him for the third 5-year period. Peruvian Javier PÈrez de CuÈllar was the fifth officer of general secretariat. Finally Kufi Anan was been chosen after Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali since 1997 and now it is the time for the Asian men to test their chance!
About 15 countries are hardly trying to specify the Ananís successor after conducting straw polls. So it is approximately distinguished that Korean Moon is the terminating choice, but there is the question here. Is it clear that he could be even the most appropriate and suitable selection and the right manager needed for the post?

Myself, I think the UN should be disbanded. The UN has lost its sense of purpose and duty and has outlived its usefulness. Drugs, child rape, oil for food, you name it - the corruption has dug in so deeply that the slate must be wiped clean.

BobL:

Perhaps, the world business leaders could change the way we all think about the world. (By the way, did you read the WEF's - World Economic Forum - recent - 2006 - report on world competitiveness. We ranked number six?! Ugh! What are we doing spending money on crappy issues like alienating rest of the world?)

Speaking (or rather, writing) of the Almighty dollar, I like to think that "it is the economy, stupid," ergo "money talks, and you "know what" walks. I sincerely think that if we resolve the economic isssues, then we really have a fighting chance at achieving the world peace. What sayeth you?

Srikanth,

It sure is a shame and it could be 100 years before it ever changes. The political and religous schisms, accompanied by the vehemence and violent reactions, of nations and sects around the world precludes the UN's roll in attempting successful peace keeping operations any longer. Humanitarian aid is going to have to suffice for the time being. Hence, I'm not optimistic whomever is chosen will make any meaningful difference.

The only meaningful international cooperation I see on a regular basis today is in the business world. Idealogically, Culturally, Socially and Religously we're still too different to form anything that remotely resembles a world community. If the almighty Dollar, Yen or Euro isn't involved we (western vs. non-western societies) don't deal very well with each other. Obviously, the acquisition of money and rigid dogmatic views among peoples have made tensions worse over time. One of the primary goals of the United Nations was to reduce tensions via communication and understanding between the countries and this hasn't evolved as it was supposed to.

BobL, VA, USA:

I completely agree with your assessment. Now, is that not a crying shame?

Ralph,

Oh, I think Bolton would do corrupt, spinless *and* stupid pretty well.

I know the idealists are going to slam me for this, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think the original intent of the United Nations was noble. Unfortunately, intent and practice haven't meshed well in this case. The Pope has more influence around the globe then the United Nations and that's sad. So, to some degree, it won't really matter who is elected Secretary General. Whoever is elected won't really be expected to do much in the way of reducing hostilities in the world anyway.

Jon,

Look at the 7th posted respnse on page one of this thread. Yup, I put the same name forward. I think Eliasson would be outstanding, but he's not from Asia.

I do have to admit the "L" in my name stands for Lund (Swedish). So, you might say I'm partial to Scandinavians to start with.

BobL asks:
"How about we start with competence?"
What, you want someone who'll be as unpopular and reviled as Bolton?
No, I'm looking for someone who'll really fit in at the UN ... corrupt, spineless *and* stupid.

Although I understand that everybody is focused on a replacement from the "non-western" nations to replace Mr. Annan and the reasons why, I wish to look for a leader that can acutally hold the EU together and follow through with reforms. I believe that it is more imminent to reform the UN so that it can regain the confidence and posture it has lost over the years than choosing a leader from a non-western nation that represents the G-77. I do agree that the leader cannot come from any major power, why I believe India is a bad choice, nor any part of the world where impartiality is not a given, South Korea falls off the list for me right here. And to speak of a rotating system is just an attempt of superficial democratizing. The UN does not need a system where all members are equal, 1 vote per member in the GA takes care of that, and the undemocratic part that really undermines the democratic notion lies with the veto power in the Security Council. Hence, democracy within the UN does not matter, what matters is a functioning and efficient UN that is able to do the work it was created for.

Therefore, my suggested leader would be Jan Eliasson from Sweden, the former GA President, former Ambassador to the United States, and former Swedish Foreign Minister. Mr. Eliasson has earned the respect for being an excellent diplomat and certainly has the credentials. Mer Eliasson is also impartial and ambitious enough to realize that changes are desperately needed to bring the UN back to its glory days. Mr. Eliasson will truly have the interest of the UN and the world as a community at heart and I believe that he will do an outstanding job. I do realize that it would be hard to have a Swede elected again (Dag Hammarskjold UN Secretary General 1953-1961) as the Secretary General, but one can hope.

Ralph Phelan,

How about we start with competence? Let's forget about the nationality, race, sex, religious affiliation and age of the candidates and concentrate on their individual abilities to manage, direct and build working frameworks in a very difficult envirnoment.

Since tradition supports an Asian candidate we're stuck looking at the candidates from there. It reminds me of the last Presidental election in the United States when I said, "Do I really have to chose from these two?"

"I say its time we had a woman!"

If we want to improve the UN's general level of intelligence and class, how about Anna Nicole Smith?

I say its time we had a woman! I would propose Mary Robinson former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The BBC has done an excellent job in presenting the 6 candidates for the post of secretary-general of the United Nations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5334820.stm

Although each candidate for the post is a person (i.e., not a nation), the candidate does indeed represent the nation which nominated him or her. A nation — especially, a democratic nation — nominates a candidate that represents the interests or the values of the nation. The nation that nominated the candidate says much more about then candidate than all the mechanical talking points that the candidate herself says.

Americans rightly expect that if Washington nominated a candidate for the post, then that candidate shall conduct herself in a way which is consistent with Western values — and, specifically, American values. Of course, there is a profound difference between Western values and non-Western values like those in either India or South Korea.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115967192466858300

Among the top six candidates for the post of secretary-general, only Vaira Vike-Freiberga thoroughly embraces Western values. She represents a nation (i.e., Latvia) which serves as a model of how a nation transforms itself into a prosperous, liberal democracy. She herself is a member of that nation — and of Western society in general.

Washington, Paris, London, Tokyo, and all Western governments on the security council should firmly support Vike-Freiberga for the job of secretary-general. She should be put to a vote in the general assembly. Even if the assembly votes her down, the moral statement of supporting Vike-Freiberga is important. The moral statement affirms the rightness of Western values — the same values that created societies to which most non-Westerners want to flee.

How much training one needs to be a doormat as well as be spineless? Nada, zero, nil! The only qualification that is needed for the Secretary General of the UN is to say every second Yes sir, no sir and three bags full sir to western nations in general and the United States in particular. Who but people from ex-colonies are suitable for such spineless role? In that sense people from South Korea, where we are dictating how its citizens should run their daily lives, are the most suitable people for that job!

The BBC has done an excellent job in presenting the 6 candidates for the post of secretary-general of the United Nations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5334820.stm

Although each candidate for the post is a person (i.e., not a nation), the candidate does indeed represent the nation which nominated him or her. A nation — especially, a democratic nation — nominates a candidate that represents the interests or the values of the nation. The nation that nominated the candidate says much more about then candidate than all the mechanical talking points that the candidate herself says.

Americans rightly expect that if Washington nominated a candidate for the post, then that candidate shall conduct herself in a way which is consistent with Western values — and, specifically, American values. Of course, there is a profound difference between Western values and non-Western values like those in either India or South Korea.

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115967192466858300

Among the top six candidates for the post of secretary-general, only Vaira Vike-Freiberga thoroughly embraces Western values. She represents a nation (i.e., Latvia) which serves as a model of how a nation transforms itself into a prosperous, liberal democracy. She herself is a member of that nation — and of Western society in general.

Washington, Paris, London, Tokyo, and all Western governments on the security council should firmly support Vike-Freiberga for the job of secretary-general. She should be put to a vote in the general assembly. Even if the assembly votes her down, the moral statement of supporting Vike-Freiberga is important. The moral statement affirms the rightness of Western values — the same values that created societies to which most non-Westerners want to flee.

No matter who gets the nod its the same old saw.

For the UN to be more than it has been it needs to be completely reoroganized along the lines that provide for a 13 to 15 members of the Security Council to be voted by the entire membership and for the Security Counci to hire an Administrator that will do the bidding of the SC. Every 10 or 12 years an election of another SC from the total Assembly should be held [ one half of the exisitng SC member to be allowed to run again but not serve more than two consecutive terms.

The UN Headquarters should be moved away from New York to a city in North Africa and or Southeast Asia. Such an arrangement is needed for the 21st. Century and would be more democratic than the present set up.

In short any of the three or more candidates will not be able to do anything more than what the present incumbent was able to do.

Does this discussion really matter?At the end of the day the South Korean is going to win simply because the US supports him.(I thought it was quite obvious right from the start ).I think the first thing to do is like Shrikanth suggested,to remove the veto power accorded to some nations in the UN.The rather indiscriminate use of the power of veto has made the UN and its resolutions a big farce.If the UN really needs to do some good it should have the power to act in a just and unbiased manner ,based on the opinion of the majority of nations.Anyway as a few writers have pointed out the nationality of the UNSG really dosen't make a difference.It's his or her personal qualities that matter.

One giant problem with Sashi Tharoor is that he was complicit in the corrupt activities of Kofi Annan, as well as the humanitarian failings of that administration. Tharoor knew about atrocities in Somalia and in Bosnia, could have allowed UN peacekeepers to intervene, and yet tied their hands. He should be thrown out the back door with Annan for the Oil for Food scandal alone. If he is "elected," the UN will fall even further into disrepute.

...off tpic, most a whole lot more intersting, it now appears that former Rep. Foley's mess is spilling over into the international arena. Evidently Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert, in fact the entire Repubcan leadership, were aware of Foley's "problem" with young boys. There are tapes of conversations, other emails, and witnesses to some very direct warnings and a coverup. So, now we have Catholics entering into fray, who are asking demanding that the RNC be subject to the same sort of bankrupting lawsuits that various churches have been the target of. The evidence in the case of Mr. Foley and the cover-up are *much* better documented. It's times like this I feel I should have gone to law school. Imagine being able to go after Republican donners, the Republican leaders, bankrupt the RNC, even be able to tie this into the Whitehouse (and reports are that the Whitehouse *did* know and helped cover this up). It all gets even better becausue there is another report of their being another Republican leader with a pedophilia problem that is being "outed" this week!

I tried to edit my remarks but they somehow slipped through before I was able to. I cited, as examples, of military espioage teams of Indian "guest workers" who, and I want to remind you - this is just in the last two years, stole the complete plans for the B2 bomber, the plans and hardware for our latest generation should launched missile, the plans for our underwater missile system - necessary becasue the latest generation Russian and Chinese submarines can very nearly *outrun* our fastest torpedos, stole the tehnology for our bfast breeder reactors for manufacturing plutonium, stole the plane we use for machining weapons parts from plutonium (from the Purex plant at Handford), stole the stealth technology we use to make our stealth fighter jets. This later has rendered those jets sitting ducks duing an subsequent war where they are used. China, Russia, North Korea, and god knows who else, all have obtained from India information and designs for systems to detect and destroy those planes. I suppose this ought to be enough, but it gets a lot worse. India is no friend of the West. It is, in fact, an enemy state on a par with North Korea or China. It is far more dangerous to our survival than Al Qaida. We might actually do better making Osama Bin Laudin the Secretary General over anyone from India.

UN has lost its meaning over a period of time. To restore the institution it's share of respect and glory, following recommendations are made -
1. UN Assembly should be the power house. There should be NO veto power for any member; always try for a consensus and settle for majority ruling. NO country should behave as the sole power in UN.
2. The countries should have weightage for their vote, per their contibutions to the organisation.
3. Move UN to a agreeable country like Switzerland in Europe or Japan in Asia, let America be relieved of this burden.
4. Decentralize - by disbanding UN and let every continent have their own Council; who talk to each other.

Srikanth Raghunathan - Concerning India and an Indian national as U.N. Secretary General. India has long had active and government sanctioned (and sometimes *sponsored*) programs of industrial and industrial espionage.

Beyond this, we supidly have allowed our public universities to enroll Indian nationals in 50% of the openings in our engineering schools. Those students almost always have their tuition and fees paid for by the Indian government. For India, this is a lot cheaper than building and staffing universities. It also keeps U.S. competitors out of the market (in **EVERY** case, a fully qualified U.S. naional was turned down for the spot taken by the Indian student. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "qualifications". The university receives four times as much money for enrolling the Indian student and, in every state, that money is above and beyond any state budgetted amount.). It also foces us into greater and deeper dependency on India and Indian talent. India, in a series of leaked but ignored reports, views that U.S. as greedy idiots and they plan on milking us for verything we are worth and, then, simply walking away, leaving us to third world status as they and China become the new world power. India, I feel, is actively an enemy state and I strongly believe that doing business with them is tantimount to treason. Having an India as Secretary General of the U.S. will place India in a position to hasten our demise. I feel so strongly about this that I will make a prediction - if Shashi Tharoor is appointed Sec. General, the West will end up in a conflict with Asia within four years and it will mark them extinction of the U.N. as an international body. And, Srikanth, "yes", I dispise India and Indian culture. Next to Islam I view it as the most backward and morally bankrupt philosophy in the world today.

UN has lost its meaning over a period of time. To restore the institution it's share of respect and glory, following recommendations are made -
1. UN Assembly should be the power house. There should be NO veto power for any member; always try for a consensus and settle for majority ruling. NO country should behave as the sole power in UN.
2. The countries should have weightage for their vote, per their contibutions to the organisation.
3. Move UN to a agreeable country like Switzerland in Europe or Japan in Asia, let America be relieved of this burden.
4. Decentralize - by disbanding UN and let every continent have their own Council; who talk to each other.

Kay Bergstrom,

Clinton would make an outstanding Secretrary General of the UN. He's extemely bright, great speaker, has an indepth knowledge of world affairs, visibility, stature, etc. etc.. However, it will never and can't happen.

Personally, I like neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland the best. However, as long as they rotate the geographical area for UN Secretary General (and this time it's Asia) it will be rare when the best person is even considered.

Srikanth,

I have to agree with your assessment of Kofi Annan. He hasn't exactly been the world statesman you would expect in this position.

Changing the election of the Secretary General to the General Assembly is never going to happen. I don't know of one permanent member of the Security Council who would agree to this. The vast majority of the funding for the UN comes from the 5 permanent members (with the US being by far the largest contributor) and they all have a vested interest in at least retaining veto power over any one they don't want. Alas, even the UN isn't a democracy.

None of the above. The leading candidate I see is Anwar Ibrahim. He has experience dealing with difficult issues, knows human rights, and is respected by all member countries because his political imprisonment. While I don't know if he is interested, I see no better candidate. Also, being from Malaysia he can align with the causes of Asia (esp. India, China) yet also influence the middle east.
Has he been mentioned as a candidate anywhere? I recall hearing his name at one point.

The UN is one useless organization as long as it is bullied by the US government.

3rd world countries could break off of the UN and form their own.

This is the only to restore some balance in the world.

Bill Clinton: energy and vision

The UN panel could start sorting the wheat from the chaff by excluding ANY candidate from ANY country which has amassed ANY unpaid traffic violations in New York City. Thus the rest of Planet Earth's law-abiding citizens could be certain that we won't end up with a Secretary General whose cultural background suggests a disdain for the rule of law.

Bill Clinton: energy and vision

MikeB:

Something crazy is going on with this PostGlobal website. My response to you has appeared before your comments?! I think that there may be a problem with the PostGlobal server clock. (Look at the "posted" time.)

BobL:

Thanks!

Why not pick a Jew? Then the Israli's and American's would finally shut-up about the "anti-semitic" (read even-handed) tendencies of this all-important body.

Responding to people who say it has lost its teeth, or is no longer effective: Why do you think it is no longer effective? It's because of the UNSC and America's idea that "some pigs are more equal than others." In other words, it is bad when someone else does it, but don't lay any blame at our door.

We only rely on the UN when there is something that WE want, who cares about the rest of the world.

Male, Female, Asian, Black, Arab, European, Muslim, Christian, Hindu,or Buddhist... So many choices. Who to appease and who to disappoint? With the Rwandan tragedy happening on Boutros Boutros Ghali's completely ineffectual watch, and corruption rampant and global terrorism burgeoning during Annan's, how about the UN selection panel just find a candidate with old-fashioned character traits like these four I's: integrity, intelligence, incorruptibility and impartiality. That would be a good start.

MikeB:

MikeB, MikeB,..............I never thought, even for a second, that you would despise India and Indian Culture. I thought you were above parochial, narrow-minded, and myopic views. Please do not tell me that I was wrong. (I take it that you meant "Indian" Indian, not Native American, and you are of Native American heritage) Unfortunately, I, too, am partly Indian (also Italian and Irish); like I said earlier on one of the other blogs, I am a mongrel. I could not control as whom I was born!

You are stating many things about India and our educational system, of which I was not aware. I have had many Indians and other international students, including Europeans and Africans, (undergraduate- and graduate-level) as colleagues at universities. (Granted that my university experience has been a very long time ago!) I always felt that India steadfastly refused to pay for Indian students' tuition, room, and board; at least, it was NOT widespread. India does offer scholarship to a select (read: handful of) students. However, majority of them come to the U. S. and other developed countries on scholarships provided by the universities and the U. S. Government.

Furthermore, I was not aware of the fact that Indians and other international students were given preference over Americans. My undertsanding was that we, Americans, did not want to educate ourselves, wehereas Indians and Chinese were dying to get a decent education. Most of these people wanted to look for "greener pastures" and wound up staying back in the U. S. However, lately, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the applications from these international students have significantly declined since September 11, 2001 attacks. To make matters worse (for us, the U. S., anyway), their economies have started growing at a very rapid pace. Their educational system is getting better. Add to this the fact their their cultures certainly emphasize education much more than we, Americans, do.

Now, can we blame the Indians and Chinese for this? No, unfortunately, we cannot. (I have a separate blog on nanotechnology: http://nanomat.blogspot.com - if you are interested.)

I am not saying that the Indian gentleman is the right person, much less the best person for the UNSG position.

I can assure you that India will NEVER initiate a fight with us (the U. S.). (Now, I cannot say the same thing about China, though.) They have enough of their own problems, with which they have to deal. However, if you are saying that economically we are retrograding, then I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Hey, you know what, if we do not shape up, then the whole world is going to be against us. We WILL become a third-world country. By the way, China is exptected to be largest economy in 20 years. Are we shocked, yet?

MikeB:

MikeB, MikeB,..............I never thought, even for a second, that you would despise India and Indian Culture. I thought you were above those parochial, narrow-minded, myopic views. Please do not tell me that I was wrong. (I take it that you meant "Indian" Indian, not Native American, and you are of Native American heritage) Unfortunately, I, too, am partly Indian (also Italian and Irish); like I said earlier on one of the other blogs, I am a mongrel. I could not control as whom I was born!

You are stating many things about India and our educational system, of which I was not aware. I have had many Indians and other international students (undergraduate- and graduate-level) as colleagues at universities. (Granted that my university experience has been a very long time ago!) I always felt that India steadfastly refused to pay for Indian students' tuition, room, and borad; at least, it was NOT widespread. India does offer scholarship to a select (read: handful of) students. However, majority of them come to the U. S. and other developed countries on scholarships provided by the universities and the U. S. Government.

Furthermore, I was not aware of the fact that Indians and other international students were given preference over Americans. My undertsanding was that we, Americans, did not want to educate ourselves, wehereas Indians and Chinese were dying to get a decent education. Most of these people wanted to look for "greener pastures" and wound up staying back in the U. S. However, lately, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the applications from these international students have significantly declined since September 11, 2001 attacks. To make matters worse (for us, the U. S., anyway), their economies have started growing at a very rapid pace. Their educational system is getting better. Add to this the fact their their cultures certainly emphasize education much more than we, Americans, do.

Now, can we blame Indians and Chinese for this? No, unfortunately, we cannot. (I have a separate blog on nanotechnology: http://nanomat.blogspot.com - if you are interested.)

I am not saying that the Indian gentleman (Shashi Taroor) is the right person, much less the best person for the UNSG position.

I can assure you that India will NEVER initiate a fight with us (the U. S.). (Now, I cannot say the same thing about China, though.) They have enough of their own problems, with which they have to deal. However, if you are saying that economically we are retrograding, then I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Hey, you know what, if we do not shape up, then the whole world is going to be against us. We WILL become a third-world country. By the way, China is exptected to be largest economy in 20 years. Are we shocked, yet?

Bill Clinton, is the right person.He is brightest person around,most experienced, most respected(except hardcore republicans),loved &admired even though he is a American, that perhaps the reason he will not be elected,but if the world has any hope to be in less in tormoil,he should be persuaded to accept,the post, by all well meaning peaple regardless of the fact he comes from much hated nation,but it is asking too much from a troubled world,so at end the world will settle for much less able person,but he should be persuaded,regardless of the fact he is from u.s.a. so, good luck u.n. a llgoowell meaning peaple regardless of the fact he comes from very much disliked nation.But it is asking tomuch from troubled world.So we will settle for a much lesser person in the end.good luck u.n.

Why not Kemal Dervis, the former IMF Professional who, as Finance Minister of Turkey, turned around his country's economic fortunes, and has been Head of UNDP for some time already and is therefore an insider as much as Sashi Tharoor? I know that he is not yet officially a candidate, but it has been reported that the list of potential candidates is still open.

Mr. Dervis has all the qualities to position him well to turn around a vital global institution that is too often unfairly qualified as a failure. He is an economist of the most rigorous category and is as much at ease with the major global concerns of our time — (1)global military security articulated through a realpolitik-inspired multi-polar world; (ii)fair trade and equitable reform of the international financial architecture reflected in their corollaries of a more merit-based global distribution of wealth and attendant opportunities for graduation to developed country status as well as access to social amenities for the world's various peoples in all their diversity; and (iii) dialogue with a crisis-ridden but nonetheless fast-modernising Muslim world (in its constituent individual countries as well as its notional collective of the 'Ummah') that wants to take in its own hands the full resposibility for its economic development and to be treated with respect and as equals by the great powers.

I think the next UN Secretary General should be Ernesto Zedillo, the former president who almost singlehandedly brought democracy to Mexico. The Asians say they have held the position only once. So have Latin Americans, and that man was a SOUTH American. No NORTH American has ever been Secretary General. Zedillo is an obvious choice—a proven democrat, a man of the world, and a man whose administrative experience has included presiding for six years over one of the world's twelve largest economies.

Bill Clinton, is the right person.He is brightest person around,most experienced, most respected(except hardcore republicans),loved &admired even though he is a American, that perhaps the reason he will not be elected,but if the world has any hope to be in less in tormoil,he should be persuaded to accept,the post, by all well meaning peaple regardless of the fact he comes from much hated nation,but it is asking too much from a troubled world,so at end the world will settle for much less able person,but he should be persuaded,regardless of the fact he is from u.s.a. so, good luck u.n. a llgoowell meaning peaple regardless of the fact he comes from very much disliked nation.But it is asking tomuch from troubled world.So we will settle for a much lesser person in the end.good luck u.n.

Bill Clinton, is the right person.He is brightest person around,most experienced, most respected(except hardcore republicans),loved &admired even though he is a American, that perhaps the reason he will not be elected,but if the world has any hope to be in less in tormoil,he should be persuaded to accept,the post, by good luck u.n. all well meaning peaple regardless of the fact he comes from very much disliked nation.But it is asking tomuch from troubled world.So we will settle for a much lesser person in the end.good luck u.n.

Bill Clinton

On the U.N.: Supposing all the above posts—all 57 of them—are reasonably accurate—I would have to conclude that the U.N. is pure chaos. I would hope that the most powerful nations—the U.S., the European nations, Russia, China, Japan and India—somehow get it together even if their policies offend others.

I would hate to see the U.N. become something like the U.S. in its relationship to the Middle East in the sense that many in the U.S. believe Muslims do not dislike us for our freedoms, our way of life, etc. but only dislike us because of our policies in the Middle East.—In other words, change the policies and all will be fine.

I find that outrageous—to believe our policies are entirely at fault. It makes it seem as if all the undeveloped world is free of such policies and all we have to do is keep from our questionable policies and there will be a match between the developing nations and our freedoms, our way of life.

I would ask all who believe our policies are at fault—particularly those people who believe merely changing our policies will make things fine in the Middle East—to go into the Middle East (a group of lesbians, femininists, gays, etc.—anyone who believes the problem is mere "policy")—and directly question Middle Easterners and see what happens. Or simply conduct a poll and see how many Middle Easterners like gay marriage, feminism, etc.

Simple scientific experimentation can give us results which should not be discovered by simply believing our policies are at fault and simply allowing anyone to just enter the Western world and modify it as he wishes...

The most powerful nations of the U.N. must be conservative in this sense and not be swayed by accusations that they are evil, have bad policies, etc. This is not to say the most powerful nations are saintly—of course not—but to allow everyone to just toss in every jackass opinion possible on existence and to take everyone seriously when human beings are so fallible...

The World must be united by the most powerful nations in a type of controlled revolution—an integration which keeps the most powerful nations in complete control even as poverty in alleviated, the most undeveloped nations develop, etc. There must not be an upheaval by the most undeveloped nations in our world of unparalleled weaponry. That should be obvious....

Not only is the UN overdue for an Asian leader, but with both India and China weighing in at well over a billion inhabitants, it is just plain ridiculous for the UN to go on without proper representation from the most populous areas. It is also crazy not to draw upon the excellent choice available of UN "insiders", as they can hit the ground running at a time when such abilities are sorely needed. Unfortunately, both the US and China are prone to veto most candidates from that pool. This is where public pressure must be applied if we are to have a UN that can actually make effective changes on a global level.

MikeB - you aren't really off topic at all.

Given recent scandals involving food-for-sex deals by UN peacekeepers and sexual harrassment in the Secretariat I think Foley would fit in perfectly as Secretary General.

Of course recent revelations of how the "Oil for Palaces" program operated makes me think we should nominate John Gotti Jr. instead.

Great political leaders nowadays do not come forward to contest for the post of the Secretary General. It is because, after completing successful political careers at home, nobody wants to become puppets of the powerful dictating nations at UN. Today UNSGship is ideal only for career diplomats, who aren't world leaders but mere moderators. Added to that, the desire to hang-on to the job for a second-term makes him/her even weaker. In effect the UNSG doesn't have much bargaining power nowadays, nor has the guts to speak his mind.

Kofi Annan is a living example of what I am trying to say. I think neither his words nor action correlated with what he thought. (Normally politicians think and say the same, but act differently). During an interview two years back about the Iraq war, a BBC interviewer forced out the word "illegal" from Mr.Annan's mouth. If Annan believed that the war was illegal, then what took him so long to tell that? The clear answer is to this question is: Moderators don't tell their opinions!

Unfortunately Moon, Tharoor and Prince al-Hussein haven't distinguished themselves from being mere moderators. All they have shown us are their weakness than strengths. Tharoor draws his strength by being an insider (in other words, he thinks what is in place is correct). Moon has already lowered his bargaining power by promising aid for votes (he'll need to keep placating them for ensuring his next term also). Prince al-Hussein is projecting himself as a moderate Arab leader (a moderate card doesn't play well in mid-east just like an extreme view in west).

So isn't it time for the UN to think out of the box? Let the UNSG be from any nation, but he/she should be a successful political leader and should be willing to limit his/her time in office to one term. The UN has to go in search of a leader, ignoring all candidates who have campaigned so far. Let this position go to world-class leaders like Mandela or Clinton.

Note to David Ignatius: - As far as I know, Tharoor is not an Indian candidate. India didn't propose his candidature, but rather endorsed him after he became a candidate.

Sashi Tharoor is the best candidate. He has the experience, education, tempermant. My bet is that US, China will veto him.
If qualifications are a consideration, he should have won the race
slam dunk. But, that is not the case with the selection of the
UNSG. By tradition, UNSG cannot be from a big, consequential country which India is.. So, lets get ready for Mr. Moon. UNSG has to get
along with Washington DC.

So, Ban Ki Moon is a fine Candidate. My guess is that he will get
along well with Washington DC. As a S. Korean educated in US, how can
he not be... My bet is he will not make waves. S. Korea can provide
money too.

If we really want UN to fulfill its mission, world leaders should
find someone who has stature, commands respect across the board.

But no one of that kind would want this painful job. So, we have an
institution destined for irrelavance. Its unfortunate. The world needs UN despite what conservatives think in the US. The powerful countries donot want to be taken for a ride. The powerless hope for a lot..

The UN needs a SG who is able to accommodate the US, the highest paying member in the UN. Call it unfair; so be it. The fact remains that the US interests have to be dealt with with compassion and with understanding. This is not only the way to keep the UN bureaucracy functioning; it is another way of strengthening the programs it undertakes world wide.

I am no expert in world politics, but it is amazing to look at this problem from the eyes of the Iranian administration, who really need some help in UN and the security council. If India or Korea gets the position, I will be waiting to hear the name of the close ally India/Korea in the national news everyday. That also means hundreds of contracts in the gas industry plus others for importing and licensing cars and heavy equipments. That would be great for the developing economy of India. Whereas, if Jordan gets the job, the Iranian leaders will completely loose their temper. Just imagine, a "bad" Muslim who is too much friends with the Israel, that's not a good choice for the UN. And he is probably a Sunni.
So, as they look at it, none of the above is the obvious answer. Then, they will point at the best candidate of all, Ahmadinejad, with a smile.

Gosh, what a waste of time - discussing who will head this singularly useless organization. The organization has no reason to exist as long as there is a "Security Council" with the attendant veto powers, consisting of a group of countries armed to their teeth with WMDs and which collectively can be credited with having taken the maximum amount of human lives in the history of mankind.

The Security Council consists of two members who have distorted facts, blatantly lied, and circumvent this very organization by unilaterally attacking, occupying and commiting genocide on a member state. Pick any war criminal and make him the Secretary General, at least there is hope that he will be reformed - other than that its just a waste of time.

Ban Ki Moon is likely, to win the utmost jop in the world because, Ban Ki-Moon, the South Korean foreign minister, he so far retained his lead in an informal Security Council poll for UN secretary-general
yesterday, the only candidate to get a clear majority. He received 13 votes in favor, one against and one "no opinion," one less favorable vote than in the last poll on September 14, diplomats reported. Hence, I think; Ban Ki Moon deserves to be the next UN secretary General After Kofi annan, because of his education, Experience, seniority,
Competency. But there is one thing which needs to be pointed out. Everyone whether he is straitford or puppet of powerful states Is the declining reputation of the united nations. Today, the reputation of the UN as a whole and its security council is at a stake! The UN�s fiasco in Dafur region; the long conflict of Arab/Israel; the Western Sahara And the Somaliland/Somalia must be the top agenda of the new secretary whether He delivers sensitively or not remains to be seen in the future. But the other candidates, especially the Indian, and Jordanian are not Qualified to become the chief diplomats of world.

Did anyone see the interview on Foreign Affairs with Fareed Zakaria this afternoon? Shashi Tharoor was, yet again,thoughtful, articulate honest and knowledgeable. We haven't heard anything similar from Mr. Moon yet. While there is still a chance to make a decision that can really make a difference (tomorrow's straw poll)I feel it is necessary to call attention to Shashi Tharoorís qualifications.
Yes, it is true that as the Under Secretary for Public Information and Communication, Shashi Tharoor, has had tenure of 28 years of service to the United Nations, but that is precisely what makes him a compelling candidate for the post of SG. Mr. Tharoor has worked in a wide variety of areas integral to the principles of the UN ñ protecting and assisting refugees at the peak of the Vietnamese ìboat peopleî crisis and conducting humanitarian operations while he was in the UNHCR; coping with the many challenges of peacekeeping at the end of the Cold War; serving in the Secretary-Generalís office during Kofi Annanís transformative first term; and now managing and leading a large department that he was appointed to reform, while conceiving and articulating a vision of the Organizationís role in the world. These are compelling arguments for endorsement from the country that sees itself as a leader of the free world. To reiterate, Tharoor has, therefore, seen, from the inside and the ground up, most of the major types of challenges with which a Secretary-General can expect to be faced. As Tharoor himself stated in his response on the Candidate Questionnaire, posted on August 27, 2006 ìI offer both continuity and change: continuity with the best traditions of the United Nations, change because change is a constant in our Organization.î

He is articulate and intelligent and completely committed to the mission of the United Nations. As Salim Lone said in the Guardian, ìa UN without credibility is of no use to the USî. Shashi Tharoor, with his diplomacy and powers of persuasion and his 28 years of valuable work experience would be the most effective global leader. He recognizes that it is essential to broaden our perspectives of human rights ìto recognize that the perpetuation of poverty is itself a violation of those rights.î As Secretary-General, he has stated that he ìwould seek to use [his] influence to promote greater awareness of the human rights of vulnerable populations such as internally displaced persons, migrants and members of religious and cultural minorities.î He has pledged the Organization to ìgreater transparency, higher ethical standards and public accountabilityî, he has ìwalked the talkî on gender issues by heading a dept. that has equal number of women as men.

Shashi Tharoor is a man worthy of our serious attention and I urge the members of the security council to make the right choice tomorrow.

The question is flawed. What does Ghana have to do with Kofi Annan's generalship? Nada. We should be asking about appropriate personal qualities and experience. So far I have not seen much good material describing their bio's in a narrative format. Perhaps that is a job for you Fareed, David :)

Give it to Bill Clinton.

Ban Ki Moon is likely, to win the utmost jop in the world because, Ban Ki-Moon, the South Korean foreign minister, he so far retained his lead in an informal Security Council poll for UN secretary-general
yesterday, the only candidate to get a clear majority. He received 13 votes in favor, one against and one "no opinion," one less favorable vote than in the last poll on September 14, diplomats reported. Hence, I think; Ban Ki Moon deserves to be the next UN secretary General After Kofi annan, because of his education, Experience, seniority,
Competency. But there is one thing which needs to be pointed out. Everyone whether he is straitford or puppet of powerful states Is the declining reputation of the united nations. Today, the reputation of the UN as a whole and its security council is at a stake! The UNÔøΩs fiasco in Dafur region; the long conflict of Arab/Israel; the Western Sahara And the Somaliland/Somalia must be the top agenda of the new secretary whether He delivers sensitively or not remains to be seen in the future. But the other candidates, especially the Indian, and Jordanian are not Qualified to become the chief diplomats of world.

Did anyone see the interview on Foreign Affairs with Fareed Zakaria this afternoon? Shashi Tharoor was, yet again,thoughtful, articulate honest and knowledgeable. We haven't heard anything similar from Mr. Moon yet. While there is still a chance to make a decision that can really make a difference (tomorrow's straw poll)I feel it is necessary to call attention to Shashi Tharoorís qualifications.
Yes, it is true that as the Under Secretary for Public Information and Communication, Shashi Tharoor, has had tenure of 28 years of service to the United Nations, but that is precisely what makes him a compelling candidate for the post of SG. Mr. Tharoor has worked in a wide variety of areas integral to the principles of the UN ñ protecting and assisting refugees at the peak of the Vietnamese ìboat peopleî crisis and conducting humanitarian operations while he was in the UNHCR; coping with the many challenges of peacekeeping at the end of the Cold War; serving in the Secretary-Generalís office during Kofi Annanís transformative first term; and now managing and leading a large department that he was appointed to reform, while conceiving and articulating a vision of the Organizationís role in the world. These are compelling arguments for endorsement from the country that sees itself as a leader of the free world. To reiterate, Tharoor has, therefore, seen, from the inside and the ground up, most of the major types of challenges with which a Secretary-General can expect to be faced. As Tharoor himself stated in his response on the Candidate Questionnaire, posted on August 27, 2006 ìI offer both continuity and change: continuity with the best traditions of the United Nations, change because change is a constant in our Organization.î

He is articulate and intelligent and completely committed to the mission of the United Nations. As Salim Lone said in the Guardian, ìa UN without credibility is of no use to the USî. Shashi Tharoor, with his diplomacy and powers of persuasion and his 28 years of valuable work experience would be the most effective global leader. He recognizes that it is essential to broaden our perspectives of human rights ìto recognize that the perpetuation of poverty is itself a violation of those rights.î As Secretary-General, he has stated that he ìwould seek to use [his] influence to promote greater awareness of the human rights of vulnerable populations such as internally displaced persons, migrants and members of religious and cultural minorities.î He has pledged the Organization to ìgreater transparency, higher ethical standards and public accountabilityî, he has ìwalked the talkî on gender issues by heading a dept. that has equal number of women as men.

Shashi Tharoor is a man worthy of our serious attention and I urge the members of the security council to make the right choice tomorrow.

Mr. Williams

Responding to your concern that this year's selection process is "a retrograde step in overtly requiring the candidates' home country to nominate," the process does in fact allow any country to nominate a candidate.

In June, Ellen Margrethe Loj of Denmark, then President of the Security Council, notifed the General Assembly President Jan Eliasson that

"...the Security Council intends to start in early July
the process of consideration of candidacies which will
have been presented to its President by a member State.
As in the past, a member State may present candidates,
nationals and/or non-nationals of that State, at any
state of the process."

With this in mind, we can see how significant was the decision of the Security Council to requiring a formal nomination. Contrary to the past, this prevents the U.S, China or other permanent members to veto through any known candidates to the end, then "suggest" a candidate whom they'll accept, springing it on a General Assembly which has had no opportunity to learn about the candidate before being asked to appoint him.

I favor Shashi Tharoor for Secretary General and agree with much that Emarbe of London eloquently pointed out. He is articulate, knowledgeable and experienced in UN matters. He also appears to be keyed in on the various problems of the UN, with a firm grasp of what changes he can most readily accomplish.
Appearing on "Foreign Exchange", Sunday Oct. 1, he articulated his views towards working with the U.S., the UN's need for resources to efficiently carry out the ambitious programs of the UN and making the UN an institution of the 21st. century.

David Ignatius poses a question which seems to be based on several dubious premises.

He asks "Should the U.S. support reliable South Korea, rising India or a troubled Middle East?"
In fact, the successful candidate should not represent any country, or indeed region, except in the most general sense. He, or she, (if only!) should represent the entire international community - in fact the "us the peoples" of the UN Charter not any one country.

Certainly, any candidate who followed instructions from ANY US adminstration of the last few decades would have a hard job either honestly implementing the UN Charter, or representing the rest of the world.
In my blog www.deadlinepundit.blogspot.com and in the Nation last week I dealt with this election in more detail.
Although this campaign has indeed been far more open than every before, the straw polls have all the opacity of the election of Medici to the Papacy. Indeed, symbolically, the process marks a retrograde step in overtly requiring the candidates' home country to nominate - in the past, no matter how forlorn the hope, anyone could nominate.

Consider the implications for a nomination for Aung San Suu Kyi, who is Asian, a woman, and doubly blocked from nomination both by the military regime, and the ASEAN consensus for the Thai candidate.
Ian Williams
Editor, Congressional Quarterly Guide to the United Nations
and Deadline.pundit.blogspot.com

Anybody that worked at the UN knows Sashi Tharoor is a flake. Just look at his personal website...

I endorse Shashi Tharoor for many reasons:

I am a Muslim (of Middle Eastern origin) and I am British and for some sections of the media to suggest that because of the "tensions between the west and Islam mean that Jordan's Prince Zeid would be a more inspired choice" sounds patronising and offensive to me as a Muslim and on a global level the argument is frankly nonsense. We are talking of the leader of the United Nations and religion, nationality and race should not be a factor in determining the right candidate. The very qualities that will galvanise and unite nations on a global level are to be found on Mr Tharoor.

We live in a troubled world. We live in a world of diverse beliefs, but shared suffering and more than ever I believe that morality and ethical plurality should transcend all faiths. Peoples of all faith should join together in harmony to make this a better world. No conscientious person of any faith can afford to affirm a claim of exclusive truth at the risk of engendering hatred and demonisation of other humans. It is in this very context that as a Muslim and a British citizen, I am writing to endorse Shashi Tharoor for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations.

I feel it is necessary to draw attention to Mr Tharoor's credentials. Whether it is his academic qualifications, his vast experience at the UN, his intellectual analytical capability, his deep and passionate commitment to the humanitarian causes of the UN or his secular but faith based upbringing. He comes from a country that has an impeccable secular record. The world's largest plural and secular democracy, a predominantly Hindu country that has produced at least two Muslim Presidents, where Muslims of every denomination are free to practice their religion without fear of reprisal or persecution, where the Islamic Sharia Law applies to Muslims, and where generally Hindus and Muslims (and Christians) live in peace and harmony.

Shashi Tharoor has served the UN for 28 years. He has served in various capacities and has risen through the ranks to become the Under Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. He has an impeccable record in all the areas that he has served and that is precisely what makes him a compelling candidate for the post of SG. Mr Tharoor has worked in a wide variety of areas integral to the principles of the UN - protecting and assisting refugees at the peak of the Vietnamese "boat people" crisis and conducting humanitarian operations while he was in the UNHCR; coping with the many challenges of peacekeeping at the end of the Cold War; serving in the Secretary-General's office during Kofi Annan's transformative first term; and now managing and leading a large department that he was appointed to reform, while conceiving and articulating a vision of the Organization's role in the world. As he himself wrote a few weeks ago, "I offer both continuity and change: continuity with the best traditions of the UN, change because change is a constant in our Organisation."

He is articulate and intelligent and completely committed to the mission of the UN. As Salim Lone said in the Guardian, "a UN without credibility is of no use to the US" and may I add to the wider world. Mr Tharoor, with his diplomacy and powers of persuasion and his 28 years of valuable work experience would be the most effective global leader. He recognizes that it is essential to broaden our perspectives of human rights "to recognize that the perpetuation of poverty is itself a violation of those rights."

As Secretary-General, he has stated that he "would seek to use [his] influence to promote greater awareness of the human rights of vulnerable populations such as internally displaced persons, migrants and members of religious and cultural minorities." He has pledged the Organization to "greater transparency, higher ethical standards and public accountability", he has "walked the talk" on gender issues by heading a dept. that has equal number of women as men.

Mr Tharoor is a man of vision and in a recent interview he has said that "let us never forget that the UN will only succeed as recourse for all and not the instrument of a few. It must amplify the voices of those who would otherwise not be heard, and serve as a canopy beneath which all can feel secure.....," All nations, strong and weak, rich and poor should feel comfort in his leadership and should therefore support his candidacy. In conclusion, Shashi Tharoor is a man worthy of our serious attention and we should urge all the governments of the P5 to support his candidacy.

Somebody wrote: "The interests of humankind are best served by supporting leaders who embrace Western values: promoting democracy, advocating human rights, ensuring equality for women, protecting children, fighting ethnic discrimination, etc."

What an oversimplification.

Every country has the right for its own history. Or you get chaos and things get even worse. I am starting to like the candidate from Jordan.

reporter, USA, theclearsky.blogspot.com:

Reporter:

India refused to sign the NPT, precisely because it just did not feel obligated to doing it. However, do you know who the worst nuclear proliferators are? China, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, the U. S., Canada, France, the U. K., et al. Guess from whom China got its technology. (India has not provided its technology to anyone.) Tell me something, why are we spreading the nuclear technology, in the first place? Is it not hypocritical to preach something, but not practice it?

Another thing, I want you define "Western" priciples and philosohpies. If it is democracy, human rights, etc., then we have a huge problem in supporting the regimes in the Middle-East and the Far-East. I take it that you are "new" to this blog. (If I have mistaken, let me apologize to you for my ignorance.) Had you read some of "past" questions and comments on this blog, then you would know what I mean by this statement (hint: do a search on "Western" principles on this blog).

We must understand that that aforementioned principles are fundamental dogma of Humanity and CERTAINLY NOT UNIQUE to the "West."

I see that you have a doctorate in engineering from Stanford. I do not know why you felt COMPELLED to publicize that "fact" right on the header of your blog. (By the way, your references point to the wrong citations!)

MikeB:

Although I agree with you on many occasions, I am afraid that you are lumping India with many of our (the U. S.') "fair-weather" friends, without a solid rationale. Let us consider our "friends" that are appraently vying for the UNSG position: Latvia, Jordan, South Korea, Thailand, Afghanistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and India.

Of all these "friends," India gets the least amount of aid from us, in one form, or another (military, economic, disaster, etc.). Hence, you have mistakenly stated that we (the U. S.) are sending "boatloads" of money. We are not, by any stretch of imagination. Even during the 2004 Tsunami Relief, India declined the financial aid. By the way, India is the fifth-largest donor nation to Afghanistan for its reconstruction efforts (after the U. S., Japan, The World Bank, and European Commission - the WSJ article is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115897120342072027). Now, you ask yourself why the U. K. (a UN Security Council member) is doing less than is India.

Now, I am not saying that Shashi Tharoor is the best-qualified candidate. But your argument that India ia "fair-weather" friend is a flawed one. If anything, India has been neutral since the end of Jawaharlal Nehru's (Indira Gandhi's father) reign as the Prime Minitser. Granted that India is neutral. Is neutrality not what is sorely needed at the U. N. As "Agnes from Nairobi, Kenya" aptly stated, we do not need a lapdog at the U. N. as much as a just, fair-minded, and conscientious person at the helm. If there is one way we can promote peace worldwide, then the U. N. is it, despite the fact that it has lost its footing along the way, largely in part to our meddling in its affairs.

As regards, "outsourcing" to India and others, well, we (the U. S.) are at fault - not India. We are educating ours kids enough, we are wasting too much money addressing other people's problems and not enough on our our own. How could one blame others for for one's own doing? As much as I hate to sya this, if we do not shape up very soon, we will be a third-world country in no time.

Hence, while your knee-jerk comments are not ALWAYS correct, but you CERTAINLY are entitled to making them.

Natasha Tynes, mentalmayhem.com, Washington DC, USA:

Thanks, but no thanks to Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein. For your information, Jordan is NOT a democracy. It is incredibly shameful to see that King Abdullah speaks highly of his country, with very little to back it up. Let us (the U. S.) first abolish the monarchic rule in Jordan and elsewhere and then we will consider the candidacy from those countries for various worldwide bodies. I do not want another kingdom in the U. N. (I tried to visit your website: http://www.mentalmayhem.com, but to no avail!)

Moon is the one who would handle US concerns appropriately. It would be best if the prince does something about lack of democracy in his country first.

A Jordanian blogger has an interesting take on Qatar's refusal to back the Jordanian candidate:

http://shifaa.blogspot.com/2006/09/shame.html#links

Tharoor is the right choice for this post.
India is a nation which has a large Muslim population. An Indian would definitely be respected in most nations including Arab and Muslim nations, due to the ethnic and culturally rich background that India is well known for.

The female from Latvia would not be respected as much as Tharoor since Muslim Nations do not give much opportunity to women in decision making and a womens say in any matter would not be given much weightage.
(and also her name is very tough to pronounce and remember - which would be tough for students studying History )

Psychologically speaking, most nations would look up to Tharoor and respect his word.

Ban Ki Moon would definitely NOT be the right choice for UNSG since his power siphoning techniques are visible to all.

Why should only a few nations be given such tremendous power to VETO etc.? Why should the UNSG be decided by a non democratic system which has concentrated powers?

Hence a candidate from India would be ideal. A person who has tasted democracy in its true sense is definitely the one to bring a revolution or rather an evolution in the UN. Also please see Tharoors experience in and out of the UN and compare it with any other candidates credentials.

You will notice that Tharoor stands far above any of the others.

Tharoor is the right choice for this post.

India is a nation which has a large Muslim population. An Indian would definitely be respected in most nations including Arab and Muslim nations, due to the ethnic and culturally rich background that India is well known for.

The female from Latvia would not be respected as much as Tharoor since Muslim Nations do not give much opportunity to women in decision making and a womens say in any matter would not be given much weightage.

(and also her name is very tough to pronounce and remember - which would be tough for students studying History )

Psychologically speaking, most nations would look up to Tharoor and respect his word.

Ban Ki Moon would definitely NOT be the right choice for UNSG since his power siphoning techniques are visible to all.

Why should only a few nations be given such tremendous power to VETO etc.? Why should the UNSG be decided by a non democratic system which has concentrated powers?

Hence a candidate from India would be ideal. A person who has tasted democracy in its true sense is definitely the one to bring a revolution or rather an evolution in the UN. Also please see Tharoors experience in and out of the UN and compare it with any other candidates credentials.

You will notice that Tharoor stands far above any of the others.

MikeB:

Although I agree with you on many occasions, I am afraid that you are lumping India with many of our (the U. S.') "fair-weather" friends, without a solid rationale. Let us consider our "friends" that are appraently vying for the UNSG position: Latvia, Jordan, South Korea, Thailand, Afghanistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and India.

Of all these "friends," India gets the least amount of aid from us, in one form, or another (military, economic, disaster, etc.). Hence, you have mistakenly stated that we (the U. S.) are sending "boatloads" of money. We are not, by any stretch of imagination. Even during the 2004 Tsunami Relief, India declined the financial aid. By the way, India is the fifth-largest donor nation to Afghanistan for its reconstruction efforts (after the U. S., Japan, The World Bank, and European Commission - the WSJ article is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115897120342072027). Now, you ask yourself why the U. K. (a UN Security Council member) is doing less than is India.

Now, I am not saying that Shashi Tharoor is the best-qualified candidate. But your argument that India ia "fair-weather" friend is a flawed one. If anything, India has been neutral since the end of Jawaharlal Nehru's (Indira Gandhi's father) reign as the Prime Minitser. Granted that India is neutral. Is neutrality not what is sorely needed at the U. N. As "Agnes from Nairobi, Kenya" aptly stated, we do not need a lapdog at the U. N. as much as a just, fair-minded, and conscientious person at the helm. If there is one way we can promote peace worldwide, then the U. N. is it, despite the fact that it has lost its footing along the way, largely in part to our meddling in its affairs.

As regards, "outsourcing" to India and others, well, we (the U. S.) are at fault - not India. We are educating ours kids enough, we are wasting too much money addressing other people's problems and not enough on our our own. How could one blame others for for one's own doing? As much as I hate to sya this, if we do not shape up very soon, we will be a third-world country in no time.

Hence, while your knee-jerk comments are not ALWAYS correct, but you CERTAINLY are entitled to making them.

Natasha Tynes, mentalmayhem.com, Washington DC, USA:

Thanks, but no thanks to Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein. For your information, Jordan is NOT a democracy. It is incredibly shameful to see that King Abdullah speaks highly of his country, with very little to back it up. Let us (the U. S.) first abolish the monarchic rule in Jordan and elsewhere and then we will consider the candidacy from those countries for various worldwide bodies. I do not want another kingdom in the U. N. (I tried to visit your website: http://www.mentalmayhem.com, but to no avail!)

A Jordanian blogger has an interesting take on Qatar's refusal to back the Jordanian candidate:

http://shifaa.blogspot.com/2006/09/shame.html#links

Amongst the officially announced candidates so far, Shashi Tharoor surfaces as "The Suitable Man" for the UNSG.

Shashi Tharoor is the only contender with almost 3 decades of work experience with the UN and is well versed with the functioning of this global governing body. The reforms carried out by him in his Department-of-Public-Information-and-Communications as its current Under-Secretary-General speak spectacularly about his competency. This proves his capability to make 192 heads of states converge on diverse issues concerning welfare of the world, and bring about the required reforms related to the geo-political realities of 2007 by balancing changes with continuity.

Moreover, Shashi Tharoor's 'adventure with Indian pluralism' as an Indian supplements his suitability to administer the UN which is so similar to India in its constitution: of being singular while remaining plural. With his belief in 'a world safe for diversity', he is most likely to emerge as a worthy successor to Kofi Annan, and thereby, succeed in retaining the relevance of the UN in the time of radicalism.

Being an author-diplomat also complements Shashi Tharoor's candidacy. In his work he is sure to espouse the same supreme sensitivity towards the 'larger idea of humanity' which he has shown in his writings, though they have been exclusively about India and Indians. This is plausible because of his ability to inhabit alternate spaces simultaneously: living as an 'Indian' author with his idea of 'an India for Indians' while managing myriad matters of the world as an international diplomat.

These are precisely the merits which make Shashi Tharoor "The Suitable Man" to adorn the Top-Seat as the next UNSG and do justice to probably the 'most impossible job on earth'!

Clearly, the world needs more candidates comming forward. It has been rumored that some respected figures like Singapore's ambassador to the U.S., Chan Heng Chee, or Thai's former foreign minister, Surin Pitsuwan, are better qualified for the job than those six candidates available at this point. I hope that they will come forward in time.

We need new candidates, especially now, because it's been reported by the Times of London that Mr. Ban Ki Moon, the front runner in the race, has been trying to buy votes from Security Council members in return for providing a lucrative trade deal or a aid package. I don't think this is going to be a proper precedent for choosing U.N. Secretary General.

At a time when the world body is caught in a storm over sensitive issues dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan's reconstruction, Israel-Middle East relations, UN reform, climate change, and global disarmament, the stakes are high for selecting a new Secretary-General with the right mix of moral stature, political deftness, and management skills. The right choice will also be critical in shaping whether US policymakers engage or further sideline the UN on national security and global cooperation imperatives.

Regrettably, global public opinion will play no role in this selection. On the contrary, the process will be deliberated upon secretly within the UN Security Council and later confirmed by the General Assembly.

Though it would be constructive to further open the race, particularly to consider more female candidates such as New Zealand's formidable Prime Minister Helen Clarke or Pakistan's High Commissioner to the UK Maleeha Lodhi, one candidate stands out among the current list of favorites: Dr. Shashi Tharoor. A UN Under-Secretary-General since 2002 in charge of the UN's communications strategy, Dr. Tharoor has demonstrated the benefits of streamlining bureaucracy and results-oriented management in one of the larger departments of the Secretariat, with field offices in 63 countries. Prior to this, he displayed exemplary leadership in the UN's peacekeeping and refugee organs.

Dr. Tharoor would be a valuable choice for Americans in at least three ways: i) He would offer a vision to make the UN an effective global player, in accordance with the UN Founding Fathers of the 1940s such as Presidents Roosevelt and Truman; ii) His skills as a negotiator and his Indian nationality (a country with the second largest number of Muslims) would afford him credibility in defusing conflicts, especially in the Middle East); iii) His knowledge and instinctual commitment to UN reform would usher in more innovations in the areas of increased performance and transparency and reduced waste and corruption - all issues at the center of US led reform efforts of the world body.

Educated at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Dr. Tharoor is an accomplished political historian and novelist, with nine titles to his credit. His proven track-record in the UN, combined with political acumen and creative pragmatism, make him a strong candidate for the next UN Secretary-General.

The question of whether the US should support South Korea, India, or Jordan is poorly framed. What matters is that the next Secretary General is able to command moral authority while working effectively with the great powers of the Security Council, including but not limited to the United States. From that perspective, it's seemed obvious for a long time that Shashi Tharoor is by far the best candidate. The South Korean candidate seems solid enough, but has nowhere near the global presence which a Sec Gen will need. Jordan's Prince is too young, and wouldn't do much for America or the UN with the Arab or Islamic worlds given the very low esteem in which the Hashemite monarchy is generally held there (as opposed to Washington) - it's interesting that Qatar is allegedly lobbying against him, and that the prominent Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab, in this forum, admits that he's never heard of him. Tharoor has both the demonstrated intellectual chops, the global presence, and the experience at the UN that the next Sec Gen is going to need. The US really shouldn't be trying to force an "American" candidate on the UN, it should be interested in getting the best and most effective person for a tough job - someone who can stand up to the US when he needs to but can effectively work with the US to accomplish shared objectives. Tharoor seems like an obvious choice.

I beilive that the candidate who is most likely to bow to US presure will be elected. All recent involvement of the UN in international hot spots has been minimal and restrained by US foreign policies. It is clear that it is the US government who controls the UN. The fact is that the Secterary General will merely be a puppet and face of the UN while having very little power or say.

The Candidates for Secretary-General of the United Nations

http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115967192466858300

The interests of humankind are best served by supporting leaders who embrace Western values: promoting democracy, advocating human rights, ensuring equality for women, protecting children, fighting ethnic discrimination, etc. Based on that criteria, we evaluate the nations
represented by certain candidates campaigning to become secretary-general of the United Nations (UN).

Ban Ki-moon is currently the frontrunner for the post. He hails from South Korea and represents a society that (1) is ardently anti-American, (2) despises non-Koreans, and (3) believes that blood should determine the value of a person. The Korean educational system teaches Korean youth to hate Americans, and Korean parents teach their children to despise non-Koreans. Despite this hatred, the majority of Korean orphans who are adopted join ethnically non-Korean families in the West, and the majority of Westerners who adopt Korean orphans are Americans. A typical Korean views anyone outside of his blood relatives to be inferior: this disgusting kind of thinking is the primary reason that most Korean orphans who are adopted find homes in the West, not Korea.

Korea is a democracy, but being a democracy does not mean that it is a Western nation. Indeed, Korean values assault not only Western sensibilities but also global sensibilities like those in the UN. The UN is a home to many nations of peoples who do not have Korean blood, and the typical Korean views them with haughty condempt. [1]

Washington, London, and Paris should veto the election of Ban to the leadership of the UN.

The second prominent candidate for the top post at the UN is Shashi Tharoor. He represents India. Like Korea, India is a democracy but is not a Western nation. The Indians reject the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have aggressively developed nuclear weapons. New Delhi gave Washington an ultimatum: the Indians will support the strategic American objectives of promoting democracy and human rights if and only if Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) agrees to greatly increase the number of Indian laborers (in the form of H-1B workers) that are allowed to enter the United States. Washington agreed to the terms of the ultimatum. The Americans will now violate the NPT (which Washington signed) by giving nuclear technology to India: catering to Indian ruthlessness drastically undermines American attempts to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb. [2]

Equally egregious is the foisting of Indian economic problems onto the United States. The Indians continue to maintain laws that inhibit the creation of a free market, which would have provided ample jobs and wealth for all Indians. For example, numerous laws severely restrict
foreign investment or foreign ownership in many industries: insurance, aviation, coal-mining, media, retailing, etc. The Indians knowingly and deliberately destroy the wealth of their society and then force their unemployed or underemployed masses onto the United States. [3]

What most disqualifies an Indian from becoming secretary-general of the UN is the fact that Indians devalue women. Indians frequently practice abortions or infanticide that target baby girls. The result is that, among children under the age of seven, the sex ratio is 1.08 boys for each girl. The normal sex ratio is 1.05, which both Japan and the United States have. Further, after reaching adulthood, "[Indian] women whose families have failed to stump up a sufficient dowry still get killed and disfigured." [4][5]

Washington, London, and Paris should veto the election of Tharoor to the leadership of the UN. Neither South Korea nor India deserves to lead the UN.

With one exception, the remaining candidates for the top post at the UN also represent failed or grossly defective societies. Ashraf Ghani represents Afghanistan. Prince Zeid Raad Zeid al-Hussein represents Jordan. Surakiart Sathirathai represents Thailand.

The exception in this field of unacceptable choices is Vaira Vike-Freiberga. She represents the nation of Latvia. [6] After living under Sovet oppression for about 50 years, the Latvians declared independence in 1991. In the ensuing 15 years, they built a prosperous, liberal democracy that firmly embraces Western values. Latvia, like the rest of Eastern Europe, is the gold standard by which underdeveloped nations (which comprise the bulk of the UN) should modernize.

Washington, London, Paris, and other Western governments should firmly support the election of Vike-Freiberga to the position of secretary-general of the UN. Vaira Vike-Freiberga will steer the United Nations toward strengthening the very Western values that affirm our humanity.

reference
————-
1. reporter, "Terminating the Military Alliance between the USA and Korea", 2006 September 10.
http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115794503217846124
2. "Nuclear proliferation — Dr Strangedeal", "The Economist", 2006 March 9.
3. "Reform in India — Democracy's drawbacks", "The Economist", 2005 October 27.
4. "Survey: India and China — It's the people, stupid", "The Economist", 2005 March 3.
5. "India — Missing sisters", "The Economist", 2003 April 17.
6. Olivia Ward, "UofT grad hopes to be first woman to lead UN", "Toronto Star", 2006 September 30.
7. "Latvia", _The_World_Factbook_, Central Intelligence Agency, 2006 September 19.

Choosing between moon,shashi and prince will be a very difficult choice for 5 permanant members. Liking of one is not necessary liking for another. Grading procedures for each contry is different.

Previously with all election or selection of Secretary Generals we have seen that the final choice was a surprise for many.

all 3 nominees have plus and minus scores. for the job of secratery general political skills and ability to listen is the most important. the action of course is somebody else responsibility.

recently shashee was on tv giving and interview. what i saw of him is a smart manager, intelligent man . this kind of peoples make their own decisions. a disqualification for the candidate.

the prince ofcourse will be rejected because belong to a volatile region.

moon therefore becoming a favourite. if china and russia can be pursuaded to agree then he will be an easy choice.

however no body should be surprised if suddenly a new star sighted on horizon

Speaking as an American, and concerned about world security (which must come first before other developments. Or at least we can argue that the most powerful nations now established must not be compromised), I would wish that far more than being concerned with who will be chosen for the U.N. that the nations and entities such as the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India are in full agreement on a particular problem the world faces today. The problem I mean is the one fully explicated in the essay "Epochal change: war over social and political organization" by Robert J. Bunker and found in the summer of '97 issue of Parameters. I just read the essay last night—just discovered it—and I am extremely angry because I have wasted time trying to articulate what was articulated as long ago as '97. Furthermore I consider it an indictment of both the Clinton administration and the Bush one we are now suffering in the U.S. I believe this essay deserves to known to the American public immediately. The Washington Post should put it or something like it in its Sunday edition. This whole notion of a U.N. makes little sense unless the most developed nations are well integrated and therefore able to be a foundation for world peace. A puzzle is built in sections and then the whole comes to light. Trying to have a U.N. in any other way is similar to incessantly brooding over which puzzle piece to pick up first—simply being confounded over all the pieces on the table and not starting at all. Or worse: dismantling sections one has already put together and building everything up again from some isolated piece for some reason. The situation the U.N. seems in now is something of a wandering eye over the table and dissatisfaction with puzzle sections already built and picking and choosing from isolated pieces and perhaps even deciding to break down sections and start the whole damn thing again from one isolated piece—in short, vastly inferior puzzle building. Thank God for the disproportionate influence of some nations at the U.N.!—Otherwise we would have pure chaos! Once again, I would have the most powerful nations read together the essay mentioned above and then decide on a new and superior foundation for the U.N.

Instead of using their military might and economic power to elect a Secretary-General sympathetic to their causes, the permanent members of the Security Council should lead by example in choosing Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein because he is the best person for the job.

Prince al-Hussein has served in the Jordanian army, as well as serving extensively in the United Nations. He has occupied the following posts at the UN: Jordan's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, president of the governing body of the International Criminal Court, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, Chairman of the Panel of Experts for the UN Secretary-General's Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice, political affairs officer in UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia, coordinator of the Non-Aligned Movement, Advisor to the Secretary-General on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and he currently chairs the Consultative Committee for the United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Complementing this wide range of experience is an education completed exclusively outside his home country of Jordan. The educational experiences certainly will help shape his identity as a citizen of the world rather than just one country. Such a figure would doubtless help to unite world opinion behind United Nation activities.

Anthony I
Patriarch of the Ancient Apostolic Communion.
Fides et Veritas blog located at http://www.taac.us/wordpress

No one who has heard, read or followed the career of Shashi Tharoor can doubt for a minute that he is the most qualified candidate for this post. Thoughtful, witty, and wise, he is an independent mind with a strong track record at the world body. After seeing and hearing him on the BBC twice in the last week, I am convinced there isn't another world leader who can explain issues to ordinary people the way he can. I can't believe the US prefers an "ally" who will be seen by the rest of the world as Washington's poodle, when they could have someone of this quality who could really make something of the UN.

As a Jordanian, I do have a pertinent perspective. Jordan's prince Zeid bin Ra'ad may have an outside chance but he's well qualified, having earned his BA in Poli-Sci at Johns Hopkins and a PhD in history from Cambridge. He served as Jordan's deputy permanent representative before his current permanent representative post. As a UN chief, Prince Zeid would most likely put the Middle East crises on the global agenda. In this day and age, this is more than needed.

I couldn't help but notice, though the debate is ongoing, there doesn't seem to be much support for the prince.

I would lean toward Shashi Tharoor or the Sri Lankan (I forget his name). South Asia has been misrepresented for many, many years. India is a big country and has about 25% of the world's population but has a weak voice. Then again India is also trying to get a premenant seat.

Corrections:

First of all, I would like the U. N. "General Assembly election" to be "independent of" the U. N. Security Council (UNSC), which is currently not the case.

Finally, I do not "feel" that there is a "best" person running, yet!

Sorry for the mistakes.

South Korea, is the obvious choice for most American's because South Korea has been a dependable friend of our country. But I think South Korea might be perceived by the world as too close to the U.S. and might not be acceptable to the rest of the world. India is a fair weather friend of the U.S. at best and will likely become an enemy in the very near future; at least once we put a stop to outsourcing jobs and cease sending them technology and money by the boatload. In very short order you will find an Indian politician like Shashi Tharoor to be a disaster for us an for the U.N. Prince al Hussein would make an interesting and wise choice. A moderate Muslim and a strong voice for rational Arab policies, he appears to be even handed and he might even be able to do the impossible and bring about peace between Israel and her Arab nighbors. So...my vote is for Prince al Hussein.

I really doubt the eventual winner has yet declared.

Ban Ki-Moon is currently front runner, but with that status, the attacks are coming thick and fast - although I think everyone knows that South Korea don't play nice when it comes to these sort of international positions - they use money and promises in a crude way. Nevertheless, the right aura does not seem to surround Ban (I am of course discounting the highly predictable Indian chorus seeking to benefit Shashi Tharoor).

It was significant that in the last straw poll none of the other candidates managed to secure the 9 votes they would eventually need and none can now be considered serious contenders, although with the exception of Dhanapala none have yet formally withdrawn, which has the preverse effect of boosting Ban's chances.

Machinations aside, who might actually be a good candidate? Frankly, it is only a little bit about the individual, and more about who they represent. The job is in good part a symbolic one, which is why the symbolism of what country and region the nominee comes from is important. This time, it might also mean that their gender is important too.

A woman from a small and non-aligned country in the Asian region would fit these bills - hence Singapore's Chan Heng Chee could well be a contender, as soon as ASEAN's 'official' (Thai) candidate is knocked out.

I would tend to lean toward someone from India, Singapore, or Thailand because they don't tend to have a lot of axes to grind. I would stear clear of anyone from the Middle East because in my oppinion, the Arab identity trumps nuetrality in dealing with Israel. I also don't like a South Korean as my choice, because they tend to be irrational in dealing with modern Japan, and feel a need at times to coddle North Korea.

First of all, I would like the U. N. to be independentof the U. N. Security Council (UNSC), which is currently not the case. The unilateral veto-power of the UNSC members must be rescinded. It has proved itself an impediment,, rather than an aid, to the peace in the world. Whomever the U. N. chooses, that person must have the mettle, guts, and gumption to resist the "temptation" to yield to the "oligarchy," which has become detrimentally ubiquitous in the U. N. Fundamentally, we need a person who is just, fair-minded, forthright, and does the conscientiously right thing, regardless of consequences of the political whims and fancies.

With these criteria in mind, I am not certain that any of the candidates in the running qualifies as a "right" successor (not that Kofi Annan was of any use to the Humanity). In fact, I do not want a person like Kofi Annan, at any cost. Kofi Annan was ineffectual, vapid, jejune, and weak, at best. I do feel that we do not need another "prince" (Prince al-Hussein) in the U. N. to treat the World Body as his personal fiefdom. We have enough of those people, already. Jordan is under an oppressive leadership, and we do not need its handiwork at the U. N.

Finally, I do not that there is a "best" person running, yet!

It might be a moot point. Apparently, there is already a strong push for Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea and it's probably only a matter of the actual vote taking place.

Personally, I would have liked Jon Eliasson of Sweden, but unfortunately wrong part of the world this time around.

I like the guy from Korea but also the guy from India (from what little I know of them—and that is very little). I also thought the woman from Singapore was interesting. But in all honesty I know nothing about the U.N. But then again I am not entirely at fault: which person to go with who will unite the world—be a force for keeping the balance toward sanity? The problem seems to be the U.N. is not a structure which is at all stable—the nations are not united—and therefore trying to choose a leader for an organization which really is not in existence has some element of absurdity to it. I am far more concerned as to whether the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, Japan and India can work something out. A preliminary order by which a true U.N. can be later established—and therefore a U.N. which does not make trying to choose a leader something of an absurdity. Of course the above countries (and entities) already have considerable influence in the U.N. The guy from Korea is good because he in a sense is both removed from problem areas (the Middle East) and in the middle of others (between China, Japan, and North Korea). But the guy from India is from a nation which is familiar with dealing with people of various religions...Tough call. I like the lady from Singapore, but alas, the world is far from being like Singapore (I mean the positive qualities of Singapore of course—and as I become older Singapore seems more and more positive. I will let the reader interpret that any way he wishes...). a tough call. A better man or woman will have to solve this problem than me. I am definitely interested in hearing others opinions....

In the past and present we observe that the Secretaty General of UN is the papet of the powerful countries. I like to someone who is independant, does his/her job for the interest of the World and the citizens of the world, not a special country. The only person I see is Bill Clinton.

Let us not play politics with the future of this planet and the future generation just for a few people to get rich specially those who never get enough.

This is a difficult question to answer without some knowledge of the respective candidates' personal qualities. Whether the winning candidate can be an effective Secretary General will depend much more on these than on his country of origin.

In general terms, the UN's attention in the near future can be expected to be divided between crises in the Middle East and development challenges, most of them in Africa. The importance of American support for the UN will also require the next Secretary General to address the question of UN reform, and more generally to communicate in English forcefully enough to keep from being a passive object in public discussions of the UN.

It is probably well to consider not just what will be in the next Secretary General's "in-box" but also what the UN is most likely to succeed at, and what problems involve the largest number of people in the greatest need. My personal feeling is that the UN is headed for trouble if it allows its involvement in individual conflicts to become a substitute for one or more of the parties involved accepting the need to resolve such conflicts on something less than its maximum terms.

In short, this means no more Lebanons. Neither the UN nor the states willing to contribute materially to it have resources adequate to place a peacekeeping Band-Aid on crises like the one in Lebanon while still making progress on less well-publicized problems involving many more people. Even ignoring development issues, the fact that the UN was dragged into peacekeeping in Lebanon and has been unable to do anything about peacekeeping in the far more deadly conflict in Darfur reflects a badly skewed sense of proportion that the next Secretary General would be wise to address directly.

Other things being equal one would expect American support of the South Korean Ban Ki Moon, an experienced and respected diplomat well known to American officials. This support should not be expressed in such a way as to imply disrespect or disapproval of Shashi Tharoor or Zeid Raad al-Hussein, or indeed of any other candidates who may emerge if the upcoming straw vote does not produce a strong favorite.

Personally I have some concern about the prospect of an Arab Secretary General considering the extent to which Arab governments' unwavering support of the regime in Khartoum has enabled that regime's merciless war against civilians in Darfur; it is Darfur, after all that is the UN's salient failure at the moment. But as I suggest above we shouldn't think that whether the next Secretary General is effective or not will depend primarily on where he comes from.

How about giving a writer and journalist a chance? Sort of youthful (50), Indiaís Shashi Tharror has penned a number of books both fiction and nonfiction, political and literary. These works mostly deal with his native country, although his last, "Bookless in Baghdad," would suggest heís reaching out. Literature and writing are the tools of nuance and understanding and we could use heavy doses of both in the chest-pounding realm of John Bolton. Tharrorís an interesting fellow, cut along the lines of the engaged intellectual who can do two things, as his 18 years working at the United Nations would suggest. Koreaís Ban Ki-Moon is a diplomat who has done time in Austria as an ambassador, and in Seoul as a government/foreign minister guy, but his track record, at first blush, gives him the pasty pallor of the career bureaucrat (we emphasize "at first blush"). Jordanís Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein has spent six years at the United Nations, much less time than Tharror, so heíd lose out on the experience question. He should also lose out by virtue of the fact heís a prince. Surely the U.N. must respect the inner and baroque workings of tiny and ancient member kingdoms, but should preferably lean toward leaders imbibed with democratic sentiment and knowledge of how open and pluralistic political systems work.

I honestly think that South Korea's leader will be the most impartial
and suitable leader. Jordan's leader should be ruled out. We've had an
Arab Secretary-General in the 1990s (Boutros Boutros Ghali of Egypt)
and having another one so soon would be understandably unfair.
Furthermore, Prince Zeid would be too closely involved in a region
that will probably be the focal point of many important and
controversial UN measures. The UN can't survive allegations of bias or
unfairness.

India is a rising world power, and probably deserves a bigger voice in
international politics. However, I don't feel that it's right to
reward a non-NPT signatory and illegal nuclear power with such a
position of responsibility. We can't reward nuclear proliferation with
positions of power. Also, India is lobbying hard for its own Security
Council seat. This new position of power would allow it to exert an
unfair advantage in the race of many developing countries to procure
permanent seats on the Security Council.

The fact is that billions of Asians, and by Asians I mean oriental
East and Southeast Asians, have never been given the option of
providing a UN Secretary General. South Korea's Ban Ki Moon is the
only candidate who represents East Asia. He can be trusted to be an
impartial broker in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin
America. Furthermore, South Korea's experience as a transitional
economy means he can adequately understand the concerns of both First
and Third World countries.

The UN Charter describes the Secretary General as the ìchief administrative
officerî of the organization. If the role of the Secretary General can be
fully comprehended, then comes the next point of finding or rather
outsourcing the ideal befitting person for the post. The right successor to
Kofi Annan could be either Ban Ki Moon, Shashi Tharoor or Prince Zeid Raad
al Hussein. It could also be neither of them.

The Secretary Generalís role cannot be even typified by Rooseveltian idea
of a ìworld moderatorî. Its something more than that. Whether the
nominations are from Asia, Africa or Europe is also not a staggering issue
towards world peace and harmony. The main energy lies in selecting a woman
Secretary General.

Incidentally, Condolezza Riceís popularity in the US and her effective
handling of the US relationships with key European countries like Germany,
Romania, Ukraine, Belgium in the wake of the war crisis are few signs of an
emerging power of the era of new women in world politics that can be
reckoned with. Also Angela Merkelís victory in the German elections,
although by a narrow margin, points to the shifting of power towards a
safe, steadfast reign of new women in politics.

In a situation where threats of international terrorism is the towering
issue that stagnates human evolution and progress, a woman candidate for
the post of Secretary General would be ideal. The world is a family, the
mother is the nourisher of all, the protector , the guide and the one that
gives deliverance. She is the Body Politic, the charter of all
constitutions and policies. If everyone loves maa earth ( Terra Mater ),
then lets keep faith in her as she only knows the best for her children.
Had it been the Beatles era, then everybody would sing ì and when the
broken hearted people living in the world agree, there will be an answer,
let it be. For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they
will see, there will be an answer, let it be.î

Joy Roy Choudhury
South Asian Journalists Association
Calcutta