Next UN Secretary General?

[Galaril]

It seems the next Sec General will be coming from Asia and this guy seems to be the front runner. I find it ironic and dangerous for the writer to assume China would be against Ban's nomination because of the military alliance :rolleyes: between the US and South Korea. The real fact is that Ban like much of the current South Korean government is fairly leftist and anti-US.
Having lived in Korea for over adecade and being to a Korean I can honestly say this really worries me. That is if the US plans on working with the UN.

Next UN Boss? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/un_korea_ban_dc)

[ISiddiqui]

If Ban Ki-moon is really anti-US, why would the US say good words about him? This government isn't one to just be polite for the sake of being polite. Seems to be that this candidate would be more than acceptable to the US.

[JPhillips]

A couple of months ago Harpers Magazine made a persuasive case for the U.S. to push Clinton as the Sec. Gen. He's loved worldwide and is probably the only person that could work with the U.S. government and push forward meaningful reform at the U.N. They also advocated a split Sec. Gen. with an Asian assuming the day to day operations.

[Wolfpack]

I think too many people here and elsewhere would reject it out-of-hand. Overseas, I doubt they would want a US secretary-general because that would mean the the US would to them have too much influence at the UN. That and I'm sure the UN doesn't want to be "reformed" because so many of its kleptocratic members have too much vested in keeping the status quo and keeping Western nations out of their business.

Here, you'd invite a circus from the right ranging from those who'd have a coronary at the thought of Bill Clinton essentially being made "president of the world" down to the messianic nuts who think he really is the anti-Christ and the endtimes are coming. Then again, other conservatives would shrug and say that they're made for each other. (I say all these things as a conservative myself, in the interests of disclosure)

The only people who would seriously applaud Clinton as SecGen would likely be the intellectual left in US and Europe and I'm not sure that's nearly enough to get him the job.

[Buccaneer]

I would see the US Congress go predominantly libertarian long, long before seeing the UN act on any meaningful reform.

[Drake]

I've got my money on Bono. I think he's wrangling for UN Boss.

[Galaril]

Well my prediction seems to have come to pass. I am not too sure this is great news for the US. Since he is South Korean it should be assumed he is not a big pro-american guy to say the least. I met Mr. Ban a few times when working in the government in Korea and he seemed to be a very nice, kind man and a fairly level head guy. But, I am also very certain he is not Pro-American in any way, shape or form. He has fooled alot of people by sounding on the side of the US in the North-South Korea stuff for years but he really is a closet USA hater or Pro North Korean Sleeper disciple.This is only IMHO but also alot of other much smarter people than myself. And worse than all that is if you dislike the Golfing Wie Warriors hold on to your barf bags i am invisioning Ban Bannermen or something like that now.

THE LINK FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT IS:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060714/ts_nm/un_leader_ban_dc_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki-moon

[amdaily]

Am as pro-Bush and 'neo-con' as one can get but I second the Clinton nomination!

[Young Drachma]

Clinton as Sec. Gen would undermine Hillary's Presidential bid. No go for that reason.

[Dutch]

The only people who would seriously applaud Clinton as SecGen would likely be the intellectual left in US and Europe and I'm not sure that's nearly enough to get him the job.

Correct. Seven votes would not be enough.

[sterlingice]

Correct. Seven votes would not be enough.

:rolleyes: I'm sure that was necessary

SI

[Crim]

Correct. Seven votes would not be enough.
:D