Clinton and the UN

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about Bubba and the UN Secretary General position.

Can the POTUS block this?

What do you guys think?

[Airbornelawyer]

Can the POTUS block this? Yes. The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, so we have a veto.


Would the POTUS block this? Who knows? The choice to exercise that veto is a political one.

The current leading candidate is Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand's Foreign Minister. Reportedly, he has China's backing (which may not be a good thing) and it's supposed to be Asia's turn, but there has never been a North American SecGen so it's arguably our turn too.

[Roycroft201]

My response to NDD's question, " Can the POTUS block this?" .

The US is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Although there are 15 members of the Security Council, decisions on substantive matters require 9 votes of the 15, and of those 9 all five permanent members - China, France, the Russian Federation, the US and the United Kingdom-
must concur.

The rule of "great Power unanimity", also known as the 'veto' power.

Back to NDD's original question - one can answer yes, but theoretically, there is a bit more involved.

Just my .02.
Roycroft201

[rubberneck]

Can the UN draw its next Secretary General from someone who isn't currently at the UN ? And can they draw its next Secretary General if that persons country doesn't nominate him in the first place?

[Achilles]

I don't think it would be possible for us to put a conservative person in the SecGen position. Remember the countries we are dealing with. Much of the UN is composed of Cheese-or-Kraut-eating-surrender-monkeys. Clinton would be a HELL of a lot better than Kofi Annan or some China-backed shithead. If its either him or some communist I'd vote for him. Lesser of two evils. The UN still wouldn't be as pro-active in preventing (and stomping out) terrorism as we would like to see, but at least they would no longer silently condone it as they do now. I do not like Clinton either but he could turn the UN from a "monument of hypocrisy" to a somewhat useful organization.

Just my .02

[Airbornelawyer]

The custom is to rotate UN leadership positions, including Secretary-General, among regions.

There is no requirement that Secretaries-General be drawn from the UN bureaucracy or nominated by a specific country.

The first Secretary-General, Trygve Lie was Foreign Minister of the Norwegian government-in-exile from 1940-45 and the restored Norwegian government from 1945-46 before becoming SecGen.

His successor, Dag Hammarskjöld, was a Swedish diplomat. He was sent to the Swedish delegation to the General Assembly in 1951 and elected Chairman of the General Assembly in 1952. A year later, he became SecGen. He was killed in a plane crash in the Congo in 1961.

U Thant succeeded him. He had previously headed the Burmese delegation to the General Assembly from 1957 to 1961.

Kurt Waldheim was Ambassador to Canada from 1956-60, an official in the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1960-64, Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN from 1964-68, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1968-70, and again Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN from 1970-72. In 1971 he lost the Austrian presidential elections. In 1972, he succeeded U Thant as SecGen.

After three Europeans and an Asian, in 1981 the job went to a South American, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. A Peruvian diplomat since 1940, Pérez de Cuéllar was Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN from 1971-75. From 1975-77 he was Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Cyprus. From 1979 to 1981, he was UN Undersecretary-General for Special Political Affairs.

By 1990 or so, there was talk of needing a new SecGen. The Africans argued it was their turn (Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, now President of Nigeria, lobbied hard for the job, including the most boring lunch of my entire life). The Organization of the Islamic Conference lobbied for a Muslim representative. The UN in its wisdom chose Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Boutros-Ghali was from an African country but was not black, and was from a Muslim country but was not Muslim. If you can't make everyone happy, I suppose the next best thing is to make no one happy. Boutros-Ghali was Egypt's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1977 until 1991, when he became SecGen.

When the US opposed giving Boutros-Ghali a second term, another African, Kofi Annan, succeeded him. Annan was the first semi-professional UN bureaucrat to become SecGen. Previously, he was Resources Management and Security Coordinator (1987-90), Controller (1990-92), Director of Peacekeeping Operations(1993-94), Undersecretary-General (1994-95), Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the former Yugoslavia (1995-96) and Secretary-General, 1996 to date.

So, two things of note: one, there is no requirement that you come out of the UN hierarchy and two, the US has vetoed (albeit behind the scenes, not officially) a SecGen, when the Clinton Administration opposed Boutros-Ghali's reappointment.