Senior officials at the United Nations expressed despair today at the prospect of Kofi Annan being succeeded as secretary general by Ban Ki-Moon, the South Korean foreign minister.
...
Although Mr Ban was supported by Britain and France in the straw poll, they did so reluctantly, according to one UN insider. In private, both countries wanted the selection process to run for another month or so in the hope that a more impressive candidate might come forward. In the end, they concluded it was not feasible to hold out against the enthusiastic backing of the US, China and Russia.
...
UN officials are convinced that the Bush administration, ideologically hostile to the UN and still smarting from Mr Annan's opposition to the Iraq war, wanted the weakest candidate possible.
But Yasuhiko Yoshida, a Korea specialist at Saitama University in Japan, does not see weakness as necessarily a drawback: "Ban lacks the toughness needed to reform the UN. But that is why he has been chosen ... A weak man is an appropriate choice. The best role that Ban can play is not a leader, but a good coordinator and harmoniser of views."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,1889535,00.htmlIt looks like they wanted a candidate easy to push around, which either means deadlock, and no change in the UN (which enables Bush and Bolton to paint it as 'ineffectual'), or change as the permanent Security Council members want. This doesn't look good for adding new permanent members, or reforming the veto. :-(