Rivers of Exile

Who’ll pick the next UN Sec Gen? April 20, 2006

Posted by Delilah in : World , trackback

We can only guess. Annan is leaving soon and the General Assembly wants to assert itself.

The United Nations Security Council will today face a challenge to its monopoly on choosing a successor to Kofi Annan, the outgoing secretary-general.

At a General Assembly meeting, disgruntled second-tier nations will ask why the 15-member Council - and in particular the US, China, France, Russia and Britain - should secretly control the most important decision the organisation faces this year. (emphasis mine)

That’s just one of the numerous outrages having to do with the self-assigned, self-implemented, self-controlled, privileges of the permanent five. The GA has been screaming about this for many years. To. No. Avail. Nada, zero, zilch.

When the west created the UN, they weren’t stupid, they made sure that whatever criteria they picked to appoint themselves bosses of the world could never be matched by the great majority of the world’s nations. Their only criteria was, basically money (GDP) and nuclear power. They declared themselves bosses of the world, et voilà.

The poor, huddled masses of the world would just have to do as they were told because, you see, the rich and powerful governments know best what’s best for everyone else. They regularly throw in incentives to keep the subservient subservient and, sitting in their various bubbles with odd names (G8, IMF, IBRD, IFC, Davos) don’t seem to understand why that kind of crap just doesn’t wash anymore. They are blind and deaf.

So, once again, the GA tries to assert itself, on behalf of the so-far-subservient:

Jan Eliasson, president of the UN General Assembly and the incoming Swedish foreign minister, told the FT there was a “strong sense” that the General Assembly’s role should become “more meaningful and more substantial than in earlier elections”.

“I find it in the interests of the UN, and the next secretary-general, [that he or she] be appointed with as much legitimacy as possible,” he said.

New ideas include a process of hearings, briefings by candidates to regional groups, or “off-campus” seminars in UN-affiliated think tanks.

There are also calls for the General Assembly to be given more than one candidate to choose from, or to be allowed to ask the Security Council to nominate an alternative candidate.

The permanent five are trying to be sympathetic towards these sentiments with promises of greater transparency without surrendering the current wording in the UN charter, which dictates that “the secretary-general shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”.

In theory, this leaves room for greater General Assembly involvement. But a 1946 resolution determined the Security Council should offer only one name, and that debate on the nomination should be avoided. (emphasis mine)

The arrogance is what really gets me: “They are trying to be sympathetic”? It should never have been up to them in the first place. They need to make amends and get real. This isn’t 1945 anymore.