Clinton For UN Secretary-General!

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N21262314

Earlier in the news conference, Annan, whose second five-year term ends in December 2006, had some advice for the man or woman who will succeed him.

"They need a thick skin. They need a sense of humor, and they should laugh a lot inside and outside and at themselves ... and be able to reach out and work effectively with leaders across the world," Annan said.

Sound like anyone we know?

Talk about one job *ush will never get nominated for....

his campaign kick-off.

Who would do a better job!

has global appeal. Our allies genuinely like him. He is the Anti-Bush.

respect for the US that has been so miserably squandered under *Co!

Sorry, but this isn't the man we need. A man who has been cozying up to Bush Sr? The man who ripped the social safety net out from under us? The man who unleashed free trade upon this country and the rest of the world? The man whose answer to want in the Third World was the IMF?

Not just no, but Hell no!

as has been the case before. Have a good day

I'm sure that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on:hi:

of course we do. we both here.

agree to disagree is bliss:hi:
Whats happened to the chiefs anyway

They actually made a little progress defensively this year, but the last few games they seem to have forgotten everything they've learned.

And sadly this upcoming offseason could bring more bad news. I wouldn't be surprised to see Priest retire, and the offensive line is getting real old, and needs a makeover. And they had better start thinking about future QB, because Trent is getting up there too. We'll see what happens:shrug:

Were Clinton in charge, you can bet he would be working to install safeguards against corporate domination of economies and labor standards. He vetoed a hell of a lot of garbage that Bush signed off on.

And Clinton can hardly be accused of ripping out the social safety net from under us. He compromised with a Republican majority that was trying to destroy him, and he lived to tell the tale. He stood up to them enough times to get the benefit of the doubt from me the few times he caved.

That is all.

Go down to the Mexican side of the Tex-Mex border and look at the carcass of a landscape that NAFTA left behind during the Clinton years. Go talk to the Mexicans who have had their livlihood, and their lives destroyed by NAFTA. Go talk to the blue collar workers in this country who have watched as their well paying jobs went south under Clinton. Sorry, free trade is a wonderful theory on paper, but in reality under both Clinton and Bush it has been a disaster for the ordinary person, while the rich and the corporations have made out like the bandits that they are.

And frankly the only time I really saw Clinton take a serious stand was when it came to his own affairs. Looking at his record, he was more than willing to compromise the rest of us away when it suited him. Gays in the military? Rather than take a bold stand as C in C like Truman did with African Americans in the military, Clinton wimped out with "Don't ask, don't tell". Universal Health Care? Rather than using the power the president has in the bully pulpit, Clinton caved, handed the mess over to his wife, and let it fade into the background. Welfare "reform"? Rather than using the power of the veto(and he had enough votes so that it wouldn't have been overridden), he embraced it, and thus sold out another segment of the traditional Democratic base.

Sorry, Clinton may have been the best Republican president we've had, but he still sold all of us down the river time and again, and set us up royally for the madness of King George.

I have been to Mexico recently. In fact, I've been to Mexico before and after NAFTA. I know that there is a lot of bad to come from NAFTA, but there is also a lot of good.

The mere fact that it didn't magically erase poverty from the region, and allowed some corporations to take advantage of people does not erase the fact that it brought jobs into Mexico that paid better than what was there before.

Mexico, and the border region in particular, is better off than it was before NAFTA. It's not great, but it's getting better, not worse.

People are being taken advantage of for labor right here in Washington, DC. No trade agreement is going to end poor labor standards anytime soon.

Or if you have, you haven't been outside of the resorts, because Mexico has been trashed, both economically and enviromentally.

NAFTA absolutely ruined Mexico's domestic agriculture industry, since US subsidies keep US farm prices artificially low. This devestated Mexican farmers under NAFTA, so they started fleeing to the border country in hopes of picking up a job at one of the US factories that had moved in. Trouble was, after a couple of years of work, the vast majority of these US factories pulled up and moved to where labor was even cheaper, China and Asia. That left Mexico with chronic unemployment, and people unable to make a living off of the land.

But was these companies did leave behind was a devil's brew of enviromental problems, raw sewage in the water system, pools of god knows what chemicals dotting the Tex Mex border, a multitude of cancer clusters, entire landscapes denuded of any kind of plant growth, and on and on.

No, NAFTA has ruined Mexico and their economy. Why do you think that the percentage of Mexicans coming north has increased so dramatically? There's nothing left for them down in Mexico, that's why they're willing to risk life and limb to come to America and get a crap job.

And now with the expansion of free trade over to China, Asia and elsewhere, multinational corporations are free to wreak havoc on a global basis. Yes, free trade is a good thing, but only for the few. For the vast majority of people, both here in America and abroad, free trade is destroying people, literally. Enjoy that next pair of sneakers, drenched in the blood of Chinese slave labor:eyes:

Condescending to me with your holier than thou rhetoric isn't going to persuade me any. I'm well aware of the problems inherent in free trade. And I never said Mexico's in great shape. Honestly, it has never been in very good shape, in my experience.

Corporations are terribly irresponsible in general, and history shows that if governments don't hold them to standards, they will take advantage of any situation. They have to in order to maximize shareholder value. I don't agree with it, but that's the nature of the beast at present.

Government should be regulating these businesses. Where was the Mexican government while all of this was going on?

Which it seems now that even you are admitting to. So what's the beef? Can't stand the truth?

As far as where was the Mexican governent goes, well it was, and is, in the same hands that the American government was/is, the hands of corporate cronyists who are fully willing to sell their population down the rive just so they and their buddies can make a buck.

You stated earlier "Mexico, and the border region in particular, is better off than it was before NAFTA", and I was just pointing out that you were wrong on that score. Sorry if you don't like the truth, but there it is.

Yes, government on all sides should be regulating these corporations, but they aren't. That's what happens when you get corporate cronies into positions of power, like Clinton, and Bush.

Free trade as it is currently practiced both here and abroad is a disaster, and it will only get worse. That is the truth of the matter. You may not like it, but many hard things are difficult to like. It is time that we reigned in this beast of free trade and replace with something that is much more fair and equitable, something that doesn't destroy people and the enviroment. This is the legacy that Clinton left for the US, and god forbid that he gets into the UN and be given free reign to spread this free trade madness to the rest of the world.

corporate and government practices. Corporations should factor in other stakeholders besides shareholders. Government should factor in other stakeholders besides corporations.

But closing down borders? Isolating economies? Bariffs and Terriers? :)

I don't feel that de-globalizing is a real strategy. Forcing the current government and corporate elites to act responsibly on a global basis seems like something more plausible and worthwhile.

What do you think is the answer? Repealing free trade agreements, or passing new legislation that reigns them in a bit? I favor the latter, personally.

If the world wants to slow down rampant free trade that is likely to devastate the developing world, then neither Bill Clinton, nor Tony Blair, nor any hard-edged conservative corporatist should be allowed to gain the helm of the UN as a vehicle to push for corporate globalization. The world needs someone with the mettle to slow things down and allow adequate safeguards to be put in place and return some balance. The IMF and World Bank have their inherent corporatists at their helms and the UN head should be a counterweight to them. Obviously the developing world as well as the middle and lower class workers in the developed world need consideration in moving the world forward.

But I don't agree with your assessment of Clinton and Tony Blair as, "hard-edged conservative corporatists."

You don't think that's the slightest bit of an exaggeration?

Secretary General.

I don't know how the process works, though.

SG is elected by the Security Council, all candidates come from second tier countries (Ghana, Egypt, Burma, Norway, etc). I think the trend since Hammarskjold has been from "non-aligned" or third world nations. Clinton would be fine with me, but I'm sure the rest of the world won't accept an American.

That would be a very interesting scenario. Even more interesting would be Bill at the UN and Hillary in the WH(although I dont support that, just think there are better candidates out there)

By convention, the position of UN Secretary-General rotates by geographic region, but since Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt served only one term, a successor from Africa, Kofi Annan of Ghana, was chosen. When Annan had finished his first term, the member states were so impressed with his performance that he was appointed for a second term despite the fact that the next Secretary-General should have been from Asia. There has not yet been a Secretary-General from North America or Oceania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secretary-General

So there have been three terms from Africa in a row? Weird.

5 years He's served 2.. which is not uncommon, but not usual either.

Asia would be chosen for the next term.

After reading all of that they tend to look down the nose at High profiled people.

our country would vote no. hehehehehehhe

The U.N. does not work that way.

The next U.N. Secretary General will come from Asia or Europe.
Secretaries General are picked by region in turn.
The Americas had their turn in the 1980's.

Also, U.N. Secretaries General never come from powerful states.



edited for typo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secretary-General#Term_and_Selection

Term and Selection
The Secretary-General is appointed to a five year term. UN Secretaries-General normally spend two terms in office; however, sometimes, they will serve only one. By convention, the position of UN Secretary-General rotates by geographic region, but since Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt served only one term, a successor from Africa, Kofi Annan of Ghana, was chosen. When Annan had finished his first term, the member states were so impressed with his performance that he was appointed for a second term despite the fact that the next Secretary-General should have been from Asia. There has not yet been a Secretary-General from North America or Oceania.

Most Secretaries-General are compromise candidates from middle powers and with little prior fame. While high profile candidates are frequently touted for the job, these are almost always rejected as unpalatable to some. For instance for the first Secretary-General such figures as Charles de Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower and Anthony Eden were considered, but were rejected in favour of the uncontroversial Norwegian Trygve Lie. As a result of international politics and mechanicisms of political compromise, there are many similarities between the process and ideals for selecting the Secretary-General and those of selecting leading figures in other international organizations, including the election of Popes in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General's selection is therefore subject to the veto of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council. S/he is not directly elected by the citizens in direct voting.


Reported possible candidates
Rumours have recently surfaced that former U.S. President Bill Clinton and current Chilean President Ricardo Lagos have set their sights on becoming Secretary-General. Also a possible candidate is Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, the current President of Latvia, who would be the first female Secretary-General. However, it is generally considered to be Asia's turn to fill the post and Clinton has denied he has aspirations to hold the job. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have U.S., Russian, and ASEAN support.Jayanta Dhanapala of Sri Lanka is also considered a strong candidate. Dhanapala is well reputed in UN circles especially for his contribution to disarmament issues.

He's admired nationally and internationally.

first.. right now Bolton is thrashing the place. Then voted in by his peers. Read the Wiki link it explains a lot.

Second, the SecGen is never selected from one of the five permanent countries of the Security Council. I'm not sure if that's a rule or just tradition.

Anyway, considering how much the US owes in back dues to the UN (well over 1 BILLION), I don't see the UN rewarding the US with the position, no matter how popular Clinton is.

I would be very surprised if the General Assembly elected any American, given the immense power the U.S. holds as a permanent member of the Security Council. Given the vast majority of members of the General Assembly are "third-world" (smaller nations, but with one vote each), the Secretary General would more likely come from a smaller nation.

Although the way Annan has been hammered from day one, it's hard to imagine any of them actually wanting the job.

Clinton is not the individual you want in that position because he is in bed with the corporations, is a corporatist himself, and although he makes a great show of caring for the poor and exploited people of the world, you can be sure he'd put the demands of Big-Money, Big-Oil, Big-Pharma, Big-Telecommunications ahead of the people. Just like he did as U.S. President.

He does give a nice speech, though.

But he certainly gave them more deference than I was comfortable with.

Still, I think Clinton weighs the corporate and populist objectives when he makes these decisions, which makes for some pretty balanced decision making.

Perfect? No. God, the Telecom Act was awful, and destroyed American radio, heralding the rise of Clear Channel.

But he never would have signed off on the Bankruptcy legislation Bush did. He vetoed things that Bush never would have (Bush still hasn't vetoed anything, has he?).

But this isn't about Bush, but to say that Clinton is not the corporatist's corporatist. He tries to keep all stakeholders in mind, and that's something to be applauded.

If he ignored Corporations, he'd never have been President, and that's a fact.

Having a rep from one of the powers is giving way too much power to the bosses.