Thread: The CFR & the UNITED NATIONS

Don't count Klinton out...he's been politiking for this post for years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13638508/site/newsweek/

Clash of the Diplomats

The race to succeed Kofi Annan has begun. But can the winner fix the United Nations?

By Malcolm Beith
Newsweek Korea
Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET June 30, 2006

June 30, 2006 - Standing before an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon spoke quietly in heavily accented English. Saying all the right things—he stressed the need to go "beyond the zero-sum games" that the United Nations is notorious for and emphasized "facing responsibility" and building "trust"—he appeared to be the epitome of diplomacy. He offended no one while offering little concrete detail on what he might do if elected secretary-general of the world's largest international body. "We must all be accountable to ourselves and to others and to our future generations," he declared, stressing that he is a "harmonizer."

Harmony is just one of many things the United Nations needs right now. Allegations of corruption in the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq have tainted the organization's reputation and even led to calls for Secretary-General Kofi Annan's resignation. The Bush administration's popularity on the global stage continues to sag as a result of the war in Iraq, but it's no longer alone in questioning the performance and relevance of the United Nations. A growing army of critics is demanding fundamental changes in the way the international body operates. Later this year when a new U.N. secretary-general will be selected to replace Annan, whose five-year term will expire on Dec. 31, the new leader will face a huge challenge: proving to the skeptics that he or she knows what to do to lead the U.N. out of its current crisis.

Ban is just one of three declared candidates so far; the others are Sri Lankan diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala and Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai. But just because they have declared their intent doesn't mean anyone has an inside track for the job. The selection process for U.N. secretary-general has historically been considered a smoke-and-mirrors affair—backroom lobbying and power struggles between the Security Council's permanent members have traditionally dominated the process. Former undersecretary-general Brian Urquhart once reportedly described it as the "most labyrinthine process imaginable, shrouded in big power secrecy." Nothing can be taken for granted at any point in the race.

It's worth remembering that the United Nations has often selected a completely dark horse. One of the first U.N. bosses, Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold, didn't even know he was in the running until he was notified of his selection on April 1, 1953. His first reaction to the news was to dismiss it as an April Fool's joke. But this year may be different. Although the names of several dark horses have already been floated—among them, Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberg and U.N. Development Program administrator Kemal Dervish, a former Turkish economic minister—there's a push to prevent surprises.

The United Nations has been answering calls to make the selection process more open, as well as to distribute the power of choice beyond the closed doors of the five permanent nations of the Security Council. So far, this seems to be happening. The three declared candidates, Ban, Dhanapala and Sathirathai, are already making public appearances around the world—effectively campaigning. This has led some U.N. watchers to believe the Security Council's power has already waned. "They'll have to be more accountable for their decision because the public knows about [the candidates]," says Ayca Ariyoruk of the United Nations Association of the United States, a New York-based nonprofit that specializes in the U.N.

Accountability is one thing, however, and power is another. Whether or not the Security Council will relinquish all that much power in the decision-making process remains to be seen. Opening their doors "won't make the Security Council happy," says Ariyoruk. "They don't like to be held accountable." The United States and China, in particular, are not expected to shy away from using their clout to get their pick. Indeed, China has already hinted at what kind of candidate it is looking for. Geographic rotation has historically played a part in choosing a new secretary-general, and 2006 is technically Asia's turn, much to China's delight. But even though Beijing has stressed that it wants an Asian candidate, the Chinese government doesn't seem terribly pleased with the three already in the running. "There's a kind of dissonance going on with China," says U.N. expert Stephen Schlesinger, director of the World Policy Institute. "They're very leery of having another Asian in the Security Council. They want the honor of having an Asian candidate, but he could take away the limelight."

The United States, too, has been hesitant to jump on the Asian candidate bandwagon. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has repeatedly stated that his country wants the most qualified candidate, regardless of nationality. He has made clear that the U.S. pick would be someone who can "lead a major reform effort" in the U.N.'s budgeting and personnel activities. "Bolton [wants] someone who would work on internal management," says Edward Luck, a U.N. expert at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in New York. So where does that put the current candidates? Luck says that Ban appears to have the qualities Bolton is looking for. "I'd guess that Ban would emphasize competence more than flash," he explains. "He would not develop a cult of personality—he'd run the office."

Indeed, substance does seem to be high on everyone's agenda this year: after two high-profile bosses in a row—Annan and Boutros-Boutros Ghali—most experts believe the international body will opt for an efficient, low-profile successor. Ban does have an edge in this respect. "He's seen as mild-mannered and soft-spoken," says Ariyoruk. Contrast that with Latvia's Vike-Freiberga, who has come to be known for her ruthless, provocative decision-making style. "Someone like her is what the United Nations needs," says Ariyoruk. "But she's not likely to get elected." The fact that she is a woman—the United Nations has stressed the need for more gender equality in the upper echelons of the organization—is unlikely to override the fact that her confrontational style will not be very welcome at such a diplomatic institution.

Ban has other qualities, too, particularly his experience working with North Korea. When it comes to peace and security issues, says Luck, Ban's "got the credentials." But that experience could actually work against him. Some experts believe his involvement in the recent six-party talks could put Ban at a disadvantage: he has performed so well in that role that the Security Council may prefer he finish the negotiations rather than take on the U.N. post.

Expect more confusion as the race progresses. Although the Security Council has declared that it will release a selection-process timetable in July, China and the United States will also likely step up efforts to produce a decision to their liking. And experts are divided over who will wield the most clout. "The United States, as the only superpower on the planet, will put the final stamp [on the choice]," says Schlesinger of the World Policy Institute. "[But] China is the key player. The Chinese are very stubborn—they vetoed Kurt Waldheim [in 1981]—and that kind of stubbornness is likely to be evident this time around." The result could be a stalemate, which could send the selection process back to square one.

"In the past, when the Security Council has come to loggerheads, the only way out was to search outside [the pool of candidates]," says Schlesinger. That would be bad news for Ban and the other declared candidates. Worse yet, it could be bad news for the United Nations—if the choice appears to mock that institution's new proclamations of openness and reform. This time around, the stakes couldn't be higher for everyone.

2nd,

I agree.

He seems to be re-inventing himself, a la Carter.

I don't think he would be happy as First Husband.