Kofi Annan, it is fair to say, is a thorn in the side of President Bush (liberals like me find satisfaction in this of course). But the Nobel Peace Prize winner, originally from Ghana, who has been the Secretary General of the United Nations since 1997, won’t be the U.N. Sec Gen forever. Who will replace him in 2007? The New York Sun reports:
The early scramble to see who will fill the shoes of Kofi Annan has begun, with states and regions vying to bring one of their own into the position of secretary-general of the United Nations and all the bully pulpit privileges that come with it.
The latest Iranian attempt, floating the candidacy of President Khatami for the position, was seen, at Turtle Bay, as a diversion. But it also stirred the pot in the hallways, and as world leaders gathered here for a week of meetings, some wonder whether it is too early to ask: Who will be Mr. Annan’s successor?
More than anything, the early maneuvering for the position, which will become vacant at the end of 2006, underlines the chaotic method of selecting someone for the high-powered position. To be successful at this stage of the race, one has to feed the rumor mill.
Well hell. I feel like Sepia Mutiny is obliged in that case to feed the Rumor Mill, so I will take it upon myself to do so.
Shashi Tharoor
At the U.N., where Mr. Annan is held in high regard, many believe that, as one official put it, “he raised the bar.” And so they assume his replacement has to be someone of stature – no more junior than a foreign minister. Others assume that Mr. Annan has set another trend: a secretary-general from the ranks of the institution itself. One such candidate whose name is whispered around the halls of the world body is the undersecretary-general for public information, Shashi Tharoor, an Indian-born, British-educated writer with a Hollywood flair who some swear is the real source for his own name’s being floated.
With what sounded like a well-honed non-denial of his candidacy, Mr. Tharoor told the Sun: “The secretary-general is barely halfway through his second term. We all have a great deal of work to do to fulfill what remains to be accomplished in this term, and we’re all concentrating on that. I am certainly focused on that.”
I have listened to Tharoor give a couple talks and once shared an elevator with him as well. In addition to being a good U.N. official he is a fine author. But is he ready for the prime time? I have never seen him display the hard edge that might be needed for the job, but not all good leaders need a hard edge. Also he needs a good haircut. Any other objections?
Despite his meteoric rise within the organization, however, Mr. Tharoor is widely viewed as being not yet ready for prime time. The reason he may even be under consideration is that he fits one job requirement, at least according to common wisdom here: He comes from an Asian country.
.
.
Indeed, while Asia contends that its candidate must become the next secretary-general, some groups disagree. At an inter-regional meeting recently, some members of New Europe contended that while the Burmese U Thant’s term ended as long ago as 1971, one region has never had a secretary general: Eastern Europe, which once was the Soviet bloc.
You guys should read the article to see the other contenders as well. One candidate that should absolutely NOT be considered is that weakling Khatami from Iran. He couldn’t even run his own country, so how is he going to run the U.N.?
I wish Kofi bothered to be a thorn in the side of the Sudanese……I would think that would give all people, liberal or conservative satisfaction.
Agreed. I wish EVERYONE would be a bigger thorn in the side of the Sudanese. I beleive that to be the single most important issue anywhere in the world at this moment. The U.N. is pretty toothless though as most would agree. They don’t have the political backing as an entity to send in troops. What we need are multi-national rapid reaction commandos that can go anywhere in the world in 48 hours and start kicking ass. But who would they answer to? That’s the problem.
Annan doesn’t have a good track record in that regard. The UN may be toothless, but they also haven’t made the best choices. The excellent We wish to inform you… by Philip Gourevitch chronicles the genocide in Rwanda, and the ineffectual responses by everyone from the UN to Albright. Very disturbing and disappointing that no one did much to preemptively control the brewing civil unrest that led to such violence.
That’s the sad state of world affairs. If the country doesn’t have oil, or isn’t conveniently located so that an oil pipeline can pass through it, then response to any crisis there tends to be ineffectual. In general though I think being the head of the U.N. is like herding cats. Cats always do whats best for them.
By the way, I didn’t mean to imply in my previous comment that oil isn’t a factor in Sudan, although my comment came out that way. Human Rights Watch has an extensive report on the history of Sudan, Oil and Human Rights: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/
Alas, I think it’s worse than that… Everyone knows that something needs to be done w/ Sudan and Powell/Bush are among the loudest voices here. I fear – only half facetiously – that many of the world’s otherwise-self-righteous are simply waiting for Bush to do something concrete so they can express outrage at whatever it is.
Until the rubber meets the road, we can all be morally high & mighty like the UN….
Vinod, its true that the U.S. is the strongest proponent of action in the Sudan but Bush’s leadership is certainly not what I’d point to as the primary cause. The wise choice of appointing Danforth (who has plenty of first hand experience on the Sudan) to the U.N. coupled with constant pressure from the extreme religious right (Bush’s political base) here in the U.S. is what is causing Bush to be forceful in the Sudan. Perhaps the only time ever I will see eye to eye with the extreme religious right.
abhi,
another reason shashi is unlikely to become the next SG :: india’s more focused on getting their permanent seat on the security council and wouldn’t want to sabotage that chance. however, I think shashi would make a pretty good SG. he worked his way up from peacekeeping and refugee missions to become the youngest under-secretary general the UN has ever had. bonus :: he’s mallu 🙂
abhi,
Well, oil is certainly one of the problems in the Sudan. The Chinese and Indians have oil contracts in that part of the world. The Chinese in particular, as part of the Security Council, are a big problem.
I wonder if that rapid action commando force that you propose would have gone into Iraq?
Actually, my point had little / nothing to do with the religious right. The Real Issue is a couple fold –
1) Inaction is always easier to verbalize / pontificate over than action. There’s always that last little detail / issue that someone’s gonna wanna soapbox / issue dire warnings about. If there’s one thing the blokes @ the UN enjoy, it’s verbalizing & pontificating.
2) There’s a pervasive Kantian Good Will ethic buttressed with an almost axiomatic belief that Might makes Wrong. Well, when you’re in an ugly situation (Sudan), you sometimes need Might (US Military) to do ugly things (drop a JDAM on someone’s ass). At that point, you’ve crossed the line on several different issues
folks who don’t like the US doing anything (MidEast, China, Africa, etc.)
folks who don’t want to believe that Might is actually occasionally Right (the international / NGO / anti-globo Left)
folks who don’t want to believe that sometimes bad things & bad people can only be countered by doing bad things back to them (the Noble Savage Left; the peacenik crowd; the “cycle of violence” argument)
folks who don’t like one group / race (white men) making assessments / doing things to another group / race (Blacks / Muslims in Sudan) (the Arundhati Roy crowd)
’tis a mess.
Agree on UN ineffectuality (many cultures, including India’s and Italy’s, love jawboning over action). But let’s not forget one stark fact: it’s their relatives being killed, not ours (10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and rising). If U.S. bombing accidentally killed your children, the impulse to stop the perps, and the war, would be very Texan, wouldn’t it.
If U.S. bombing accidentally killed your children, the impulse to stop the perps, and the war, would be very Texan, wouldn’t it.
I’d think it’s more universal than texan, but maybe that’s because i live in texas …
I do wish that the UN would start asserting some authority in world affairs … the fact that they spend more time talking than doing is what causes the US to think of itself as the world’s police : “if no one else is doing the job, might as well do it ourselves.” I think I fall into Vinod’s Arundhati Roy crowd myself – GWB telling the rest of the world what to do makes my skin crawl – but right now it honestly does not seem like there are any alternatives to the situation. Alternatives that are very much needed. I only wish I knew what they were.
Many types of debates – particularly Kantian Good Will Ethic ones – break down because they implicitly assume that our options are Good vs. Bad. In actuality many of life’s options are between Bad vs. Worse.
The latter case is perhaps the surest prescription for UN paralysis I can imagine. Thomas Sowell often says that the least used line in debate is “Compared to What?” It’s one thing to list all the reasons why something is bad. It’s the mark of wisdom to recognize why it’s better than the alternative. The UN (and, for that matter, the Press), are pathetic in this regard….
Disagree. This is often used as a copout, to justify a lack of innovative solutions, because coming up with those is hard work.
A mediocre leader will say, ‘How can I pull our asses out of the fire?’ A great one will say, ‘How can I turn this crisis into an advantage? How can I make it a hat trick, a win-win-win?’
I was reading a book about operations in Somalia. It was interesting to see how different countries approached their peacekeeping responsibilities.
Claims were made in that book that certain nations struck deals with the local warlords to keep a status quo environment (you dont hurt me, I wont hurt you). This resulted in countries like Italy and Saudi to practically waltz around and really not do anything other than sit there and collect the payment from UN.
Other countries tried to enforce laws but did not have the cohesiveness throught their structures to perform their duties. 2 Pakistani commanders approached the same problem in different ways. One guy enforced the Rules of Engagement (ROE), while the other did not.
The third,which the US fell in along with some other western, African, and middle east nations actively enforced the ROE set by the UN. This resulted eventually in the UN tweaking the ROE to tone down the proactive approach. Initial ROE included anyone walking around with weapons was a legitimate target. The revamped ROE was changed to anyone with crew served weapons (Machine Guns, RPGs, Recoiless Rifles) were legit targets.
Problem with these peacekeeping missions is that they lack command, organization, structure, and proper objectives. Its great you get participation but as mentioned here earlier, trying to herd cats won’t get you anywhere. Failure of the UN is a world problem and needs to be solved by the world with fundamental interests in mind. The USA perfoms the missions in the interst of itself simply by default as a result of incaction in the UN. Many problems could have been interdicted by the UN if the will and common goal were there, but neither exists.
You want team players that are there to win, not simply to be a sideline participant. The UN has several organizations that have done great such as UNICEF and WHO. The security council will NEVER be cohesive since every nation will jockey for its own position.
And often the ideal solution is an utterly mythical option… and the interminable debate searching for it yields… inaction.
No such debate. I’m a big fan of small team sizes and unilateral action. Not a big fan of the UN’s current structure, though some org like it must exist.
given the UN’s track record, I’d suggest nomination someone in the Kurt Waldheim mould (ex-Nazi, ex-UN sec general)…
the candidates that best reflect the spirit of the UN:
all of these guys are good candidates for secretary general because they embody what the UN represents: a gang of unelected thugs and dictators.
for liberals who will object, answer this: out of the 170+ countries in the UN, how many are democracies? and how many are thugocracies?
case rested…
and of course, if the above 4 meet some static for not being anti-American enough…
Like many others who grew up in India, I’m somewhat tepid about Shashi Tharoor (see this http://www.stringinfo.com/pkblog/archives/002556.html)
Ithink it would be great if Shashi Tharoor became Secretary-General, but we have to realize that articles like the one in the Sun are being out about by his enemies to bring him down. That permanent seat looks pretty unlikely, and having an Indian in the top job would be far better. By the way, though this has nothing to do with it, I grew up in India myself, and I can’t think of another writer who better expresses the views of Indians like myself on our politics and society. It would be a real triumph for all thinking Indians to have him there.
right on, Kirti! I absolutely agree about Shashi Tharoor. And the prospects for that permanent seat don’t look so good these days, so why not try for an Indian Secretary-GeneraL? And who better than Shashi Tharoor? if you’ve seen him on TV he could really do the UN a lot of good in American public opinion.
Just curious: is Tharoor a mallu?
I think the next SG has be a woman or the UN will loose the last of its credibility.
Ms: you bet he’s a mallu. Read “India: From Midnight to the Millennium” for the whole story. And dumonde: I’d rather have an Indian man than another European or whatever, woman or not.
With all the trouble Kofi annan is in, I wonder if Shashi Tharoor will want the job. But from what I’ve seen and read of the guy, he would easily be the most impressive Secretary-General the UN has ever had. I think the world body could use someone with his brains and eloquence.
You can keep up with all the developments, news and rumors on the Secretary General race at UNSG.org. Leave your thoughts about Shashi Tharoor, a woman candidate or on whether it is Asia’s “turn.”
Thanks, Tony. There’s a terrific piece about Shashi Tharoor’s views about the role of the Secretary-General on the UNSG website today. Makes me proud to be an Indian. Check it out!