Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clinton As UN Sec General  
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

The UPI has a story on Pres. Clinton purported interest in being UNSecGen.

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

I think it would be great for the US, perhaps helping mend relations with the rest of the world after the divide that has developed.

I do think that Sen. Clinton's possible run for POTUS would create a very interesting problem. Kofi's term ends in early 2006 and the next presidential election wouldn't be until 2008, therefore assuming Bill gets the post, we might end up with a Clinton running for president (and possibly being elected)while the other serves at the UN? This would create very big potential conflicts of interest.

Any thoughts? I'm particularly interested in non-American's view of the situations.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Intriguing idea, but I thought that the UN Secretary General could never be from a country with a permanent seat at the Security Council. I could be wrong of course, but certainly there never HAS been a UN SecGen from a permanent member before, and somehow I can't see the General Assembly picking an American SecGen.

User currently offlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4504 posts, RR: 71
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Interesting idea, but I think it'a Asia's turn to put forward a name, and they've already been left waiting 5 years longer than expected, as Africa is in its third term holding the office. I read somewhere the current Thai FM is one of the strongest contenders for the job...



User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Africa's third term ? Who's number 3 ? I can only think of Butros Butros Ghali and Kofi Annan.

User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

I believe that Kofi's served two terms

User currently offlineQantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

yes, it goes in turns by country or region i believe, Clinton wouldn't be able to as he is from a country with a permanent seat on the council.


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

A nice idea indeed, and not a bad one, but as mentioned before, it's legally impossible.

Another idea comes to mind: Jimmy Carter is rather old now, but he does good work all over the work bringing war parties to the table again. He could do that, too, and no legal restraints here!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5393 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

I believe that Kofi's served two terms

Yup, correct. Asia couldn't come to a consensus on an SG candidate and, as a result, Kofi's served two terms.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Another idea comes to mind: Jimmy Carter is rather old now, but he does good work all over the work bringing war parties to the table again. He could do that, too, and no legal restraints here!

Bringing war parties to the table? HA. Carter was the first American President to deal with Islamic terror and he appeased them. Hell will freeze over before Carter is SecGen.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Carter was the first American President to deal with Islamic terror and he appeased them.

How did he do that? By bringing Israel and Egypt together? I don't think you have a flying frack what you're talking about. I don't know of a single American president that has "appeased" terrorists. I think you're so full of partisanship that it's clouded your vision.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1317 times:

I would be pretty hard pressed right off to call Carter an appeaser.

However he clearly did not know how to fight terror, and there for we had a bunch of Americans spend 400 odd days in Tehran and a bunch more die in that half assed desert one rescue attempt.

Carter was terrified of getting more people killed to the point that he had to be forced to consider military options.

That and what it did is stealing most of Alaska's land to make into a private park for the lower 48, without the consent of the people that actually have to live off it was also uncalled for IMHO.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

I guess some people here are indeed more...well ok..let's not get into details:

I wasn't talking about Carter as GenSec, but of Clinton trying to step into the footsteps of Carter as a "free-lancing" diplomat, neither of them will ever be GenSec and they don't need to be...as former US presidents with some sort of backing by the US government they have the clear advantage that absolutely everybody will be "willing" to talk to them, at least nobody in his right mind can afford NOT to talk to them!! And they do have much more power to "force" people to negotiate than the GenSec.

On the other hand this may be exactly what the current US government does NOT want, somehow I can't fight that feeling!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Carter "appeased" by sending troops to free the hostages in Iran (which the military couldn´t pull off). Rj, you´re so clueless you´re funny!  Big thumbs up

Clinton won´t have a chance. And he shouldn´t, for the reasons given above. He could still play a constructive non-official role in specific situations, though.


User currently offlineProsimtec From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

However he clearly did not know how to fight terror, and there for we had a bunch of Americans spend 400 odd days in Tehran and a bunch more die in that half assed desert one rescue attempt.

Yeah! We're so much better off at fighting terror...Now the hostages get their heads loped of after 2 or 3 days.

As for the botched rescue...You blame Carter for that, yet 1100 dead Americans after Bush's showcase landing on an A/C and subsequent victory speech, Bush is still your Golden Boy????




User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

I do think that Sen. Clinton's possible run for POTUS would create a very interesting problem. Kofi's term ends in early 2006 and the next presidential election wouldn't be until 2008, therefore assuming Bill gets the post, we might end up with a Clinton running for president (and possibly being elected)while the other serves at the UN? This would create very big potential conflicts of interest.

If Kerry gets elected this year, Hillary would not be able to realistically run until 2012. Using 1980 as a guide (Carter vs. Kennedy), the Democrats know all too well what happens when an incumbent president faces a primary challenger from his (or her) own party.

A few years back, Oliver North on his Common Sense radio program mentioned the possibility of Bill Clinton becoming Secretary General to the U.N. and I'm almost certain that both Left Behind author Tim LaHaye and his wife, Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, hinted on that possibility around the same timeframe.

Which leads to another question:

Is Bill Clinton the prophesied Anti-Christ?



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 1211 times:

Re: Is Bill Clinton the prophesied Anti-Christ?

Only if you're a Republican  Smile


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

Or Monica Lewinsky. Unless that's the same thing...?  Big grin


She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Where is everyone getting this rule about a UNSECGen not being able to come from a UNSC permanent member? Do we know this for a fact or is it speculation / group think?

[Edited 2004-10-22 18:54:20]

User currently offlineCadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

Chapter XV, Article 97 of the UN Charter states that:

"The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

So there certainly doesn't appear to be any official prohibition on someone from a permanent member serving (although I'm guessing the veto's would be deployed pretty quickly if one of us tried it). However, since the current Deputy Sec-Gen is Canadian I personally think it's unlikely that another North American would be considered for either post at this time.



Understanding is a three-edged sword
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

Its speculation. I can find no evidence to support it.

I can, however, find ample discussion that Clinton does actually want the job, and could actually have it.

N


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

Wow...good news for Monica Lewinsky. "I blew the UN SG....."






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bolivia: Chavez Gives Up UN Sec Council Bid posted Wed Oct 25 2006 01:43:06 by Luisde8cd
Guatemala Edging Over Venezuela In UN Sec Co Vote posted Mon Oct 16 2006 20:27:35 by Derico
New UN Secretary General In Jan '07 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 10:33:37 by ANCFlyer
Norman Mineta Out As Tranportation Sec. posted Fri Jun 23 2006 21:48:46 by FXramper
Guatemala-Venezuela: Fight For UN Sec Council Seat posted Sat Jun 3 2006 05:56:55 by Luisde8cd
Who Would You Pick For UN Secretary General? posted Thu Aug 25 2005 19:31:29 by VC10BOAC
At Look At The Potential Next UN Secretary-General posted Sun Oct 3 2004 05:37:24 by Garnetpalmetto
Germany In Charge Of UN Sec. Council posted Fri Jan 3 2003 17:28:07 by ROSWELL41
Clinton As The Next Barbera Walters?!? posted Wed Dec 20 2000 21:41:15 by Cfalk
President Bush Addresses UN General Assembly posted Tue Sep 19 2006 18:21:46 by AerospaceFan