PDA

View Full Version : Clinton eyes U.N. post


DroppinScience
10-21-2004, 06:40 PM
Hmmmmm.... VERY interesting.

-----------------------------

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/10210010aaa038a4.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

Analysis: Clinton eyes U.N. post

By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI Chief International Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.

"He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week.

A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?

The political wisdom is that a second George W. Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from "the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House. If Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wins on Nov. 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won't exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder -- if not impossible -- to go against it.

After a Middle East U.N. Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post, U.N. experts say. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have U.S. support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support, the experts say.

No American has ever been U.N. secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget. A hostile U.S. Congress held up its dues for years -- until the Clinton administration negotiated a payment plan for Washington's arrears. Clinton also revived U.S. membership of UNESCO though the Americans did not actually move back into their offices at the Paris-based scientific and cultural U.N. agency until after the start of the Bush presidency.

President Reagan had taken the United States out of UNESCO in protest against alleged corruption by former top agency officials.

Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month, and this has kept him away from the Kerry campaign after a few initial support appearances. The former president has told friends and Kerry staffers he plans to resume campaigning for Kerry, but on a limited scale because his recovery has been gradual. He has talked of his interest in taking over at the United Nations since the publication of his commercially successful autobiography, which he recently said had sold 1.9 million copies. Writing the book kept him busy after leaving office in 2000, but he is now ready to channel his considerable political skills and energy into another role in public life.

There had been rumors that he would run the Third Way organization, the world Social Democratic movement he had talked of launching together with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But the political alliance had come unstuck and the idea ran out of steam partly because Blair and Schroeder found themselves on opposite sides in the Bush-led Iraq war.

Putting Clinton in charge of the United Nations would be a real test of international intentions, observers say.

"Critics of the U.N. complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the U.N. source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

Baraka
10-21-2004, 06:47 PM
The Bible Belt and Evangelicals will demand his head. Oh wait, they've been calling for his head for years. But it's another reason for out-of-touch-with-reality Bush supporters to hate Clinton and the UN even more.

Ace42
10-21-2004, 07:53 PM
An American ex-president secretary general who has personally breached the UN charter? That would doom the UN. Also, "the major contributer" ? Yeah, *now* after it came back the the table with a handful of dollars after everyone got fed up with them.

Funkaloyd
10-21-2004, 08:02 PM
This has actually got me more worried than the possibility of four more years of Bush.

"Critics of the U.N. complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the U.N. source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."

Because we need multilateral strikes on third world pharmaceutical plants? Jesus fucking Christ.

DroppinScience
10-21-2004, 11:20 PM
I think Clinton would rock the house as Secretary-General. (y)

Schmeltz
10-22-2004, 01:46 AM
Hmmm... a logical choice for the postmodern cursus honorum. Perhaps there's something yet to be said for internationalism.

Funkaloyd
10-22-2004, 01:58 AM
I think Clinton would rock the house as Secretary-General. (y)

Why?! His position on Iraq, trade and the Kyoto Protocal?

*pulls hair out*

Ali
10-22-2004, 05:28 AM
I think Clinton would rock the house as Secretary-General. (y) Me 2.

Whois
10-22-2004, 09:06 AM
I can only hope someone shoot him before it happens...

Clinton (n)

Baraka
10-22-2004, 09:12 AM
Why?! His position on Iraq, trade and the Kyoto Protocal?


Although I agree with you on the Iraq sanctions and trade/NAFTA, what's wrong with supporting the Kyoto Protocal?

Ali
10-22-2004, 09:38 AM
I can only hope someone shoot him before it happens...

Clinton (n) Pourquoi? Without the Republican Senators and the Military Knuckleheads fucking with with, he'd make a damn fine Secretary General! Why you don' like him? The Lewinsky affair was a set-up which he handled badly, but other than that, he's got what it takes IMHO.

jegtar
10-22-2004, 11:51 AM
Pourquoi? Without the Republican Senators and the Military Knuckleheads fucking with with, he'd make a damn fine Secretary General! Why you don' like him? The Lewinsky affair was a set-up which he handled badly, but other than that, he's got what it takes IMHO.

Setup?

Whois
10-22-2004, 12:26 PM
Pourquoi? Without the Republican Senators and the Military Knuckleheads fucking with with, he'd make a damn fine Secretary General! Why you don' like him? The Lewinsky affair was a set-up which he handled badly, but other than that, he's got what it takes IMHO.

I have many reasons, but the biggest is like most politicians he has no respect for the Constitution and treats it like an impediment.

DroppinScience
10-22-2004, 03:25 PM
I like Bubba, him and the UN would be good friends. (y)

Oh and I don't share your concerns of how he'll work the UN. The neo-cons are dead wrong about the UN being irrelevant, but I'm the first to admit that the UN has flaws (if there's so many resolutions against Israeli policy towards the disputed territories, why are they allowed to do whatever they want?). Clinton could be the boost the organization needs to ending injustices worldwide.

Funkaloyd
10-22-2004, 06:13 PM
Although I agree with you on the Iraq sanctions and trade/NAFTA, what's wrong with supporting the Kyoto Protocal?

That's just the thing:

The United States, along with Australia, Canada, and Japan, insisted that it be able to count the carbon absorbed by carbon sinks -- forests and farms -- against the emissions ceiling specified in the 1997 agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan. The articles wrongly identified the battle over this issue as a question of the willingness of the European nations and others to accept "market mechanisms" or to recognize the importance of carbon sinks as a tool to combat global warming.

This is inaccurate. The way the United States proposes to count carbon sinks would significantly increase the emissions ceiling agreed upon in 1997. These ceilings were based on an assessment of the costs of reducing emissions and the probable impact of the continued accumulation of greenhouse gases. Rather than being bound by the ceiling specified in the 1997 agreement, the United States is proposing that it be able to deduct the carbon dioxide that is pulled out of the atmosphere by its forests and farms. The negotiators at Kyoto were fully aware of the fact that forests and farms pulled carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and took this into account in setting the ceilings. The United States position means that it wants to have the earlier ceiling raised significantly.

http://www.cepr.net/Economic_Reporting_Review/nov25_dec12000.htm
Google 'Clinton "carbon sinks"' for more.

Baraka
10-22-2004, 07:08 PM
Well, you've just demonstrated that Clinton is douche. But Kyoto is definitely a step in the right direction.