Tehran, Iran - It's difficult to say what candidate Washington should back. Its whims are nearly impossible to forecast. But it is clear that it's Asia's turn at the helm.
Nevertheless, in order to try to see the UN candidates through Washington's eyes, I will first selectively skew common interpretations of treaties and international conventions like the Geneva Convention, the Law of the Sea, the Convention on International Sale of Goods and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I'll also junk the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. I won't touch the Security Council, however; that's far too radioactive for me! I'll also attempt to color-code UN candidates to appease the Department Homeland Security.
After these modifications, Jordan might well be a convenient candidate for Washington. This reliable rendition partner needs a reward. But its economic fortunes still aren't turning around despite making peace with its neighbours, forging a free trade agreement with the U.S. and receiving a windfall from rich Iraqis taking refuge in Amman. If the prince can't elevate his 6 million-person country, how can he manage 6 billion people -- 2 billion of whom do not have clean water? Has this prince ever managed such a large enterprise?
The Korean candidate may certainly represent a dynamic nation driving toward a strong economy and the latest technologies. The people of The Three Kingdoms, however, are also students of history with a long memory of confrontations with China and Japan. These are not good ingredients to mix into a region flush with nukes and other missiles. Moreover, the Korean record on democracy is spotty at best. Since 1980, two Korean presidents have been convicted of corruption and sentenced to death. Business practices are equally murky in Chaebol where businesses all let off a whiff of Enron and Worldcom. Independent foreign companies are unlikely to become active in Korea without a local sponsor; this is hardly the stuff of globalisation. Finally, the divided peninsula also proves itself to be a thorn in the side of the UN-monitored armistice dating back to the 1950s. Will a South Korean head of the UN be a fair adjudicator of a food program for its starving cousins to the north?
So in this simplistic analysis I am left with the candidate from India. Tharoor is an UN insider who knows his way around the system. As someone close to Indian politics, he also has seen complex structural reform occur within the developing state. He presumably represents India's values of a fair, independent legal system, a drive for education and development and the pursuit of real peace between a vast range of cultures, religions, languages and traditions. Over 135 million Muslims live within India, the largest democracy on the planet.
But I wonder whether India, a country so insistent on its own independence and on non-allied politics, firmly against colonial and imperial control, has any currency in Washington where the "us-or-them" doctrine has roughed up diplomacy beyond recognition. I really do wonder.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
