Who Should Replace Kofi Annan?–Name his replacement
If Colin Powell is unacceptable as a replacement for Kofi Annan as UN Secretary-General — who should replace him? I’m looking for serious nominees– someone with the spine, personal clout, vision, experience,and integrity to begin and sustain the necessary institutional and political reforms. A commenter on my Kofi’s Depression post suggested no American was acceptable (the commenter thinks that any citizen of one of the permanent Security Council members would be a no-go for Secretary-General). Okay, Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer might get Jacques Chirac’s blessing, but remember, I said I want nominees with spine, personal clout, vision, experience, and integrity.
In my view the Secretary-General who will “lead the reformation” has to be dedicated to democracy. He/She must not only prosecute the corrupt officials behind the Oil for Food scam, but work closely with the World Bank to reform the entire developmental aid process. He/She cannot wither and dither in the face of Chinese, Russian, and French shenanigans. Does this unique individual exist?
Some time ago Glenn Reynolds suggested Vaclav Havel, who would be a great choice, he’s certainly a man of great character. But how about Mario Vargas Llosa or Hernando de Soto? Both would be excellent choices.
Comment by phil — 3/27/2005 @ 5:58 pm
Bill Clinton is the ONLY American with any chance of getting the post. Powell has no shot. Since Clinton is not desirable, we have to look to the foreigners. My opinion is no one can
Comment by zorel — 3/27/2005 @ 6:48 pm
Michael Moore is an “American” who would get plenty of support.
Comment by Mick Wright — 3/27/2005 @ 6:52 pm
Dude, its gotta be King Abdullah of Jordan. Right guy from the right area with the right education.
Comment by Bill — 3/27/2005 @ 6:57 pm
I see that Hernando de Soto has already been nominated. He would be great. Havel would also be great.
Comment by Lexington Green — 3/27/2005 @ 7:00 pm
I agree about Havel, but I heard a suggestion about the location of the U.N. It should be the top 20 floors of the tallest building in the world, to be located in N.Y.C.
Comment by m — 3/27/2005 @ 7:02 pm
Just saw Hotel Rwanda. Even with the obligatory western self-flagelation and bizarreprotrayal of Belgians as models of moral virtue and courage, it is a powerful fim. It does not give me any insight into who should be UN Secretary-General, but the film drives home the point that the organization, as it is currently constituted, is a waste of time and effort. Also, a sympathetic portrayal of the ICRC (of course, Israelis need not apply).
Comment by Eric Johnson — 3/27/2005 @ 7:02 pm
Vacelev Havel
Comment by laurence zuriff — 3/27/2005 @ 7:03 pm
It’s not in the charter, but there’s a consensus that the SG cannot be from a permanent SC member. They also try for geographic diversity. There have been three from Europe, two from Africa, one from Asia, and one from Latin America. A SG from Europe or Africa would therefore be unacceptable. High-profile candidates never pan out, either. So find a competent but unknown senior official from an Asian democracy.
Comment by AT — 3/27/2005 @ 7:05 pm
Jackie Mason
Comment by cali white bear — 3/27/2005 @ 7:07 pm
Gareth Evans (Australia)
Comment by Dylan — 3/27/2005 @ 7:14 pm
TWO AMERICANS: Fouad Ajami; or Zalmay Khalilzad or ONLY TO PLEASE THOSE WHO WANT HIM OUT OF THE PENTAGON: D on Rumsfeld OR A BRIT: SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK OR Spaniard: Jose Aznar Or for his accent and his ability to play four-sides against the middle and still come out smeilling likme a roise: King Abdullah II of Jordan!
Comment by reliapundit — 3/27/2005 @ 7:14 pm
If only an American could take the post I would recommend Doug Feith, to go along with John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN and Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. But since no permanent member of the UN Security Council can hold the post, how about John Howard, the current Prime Minister of Australia? He’s a no nonsense guy whose head is in the right place.
Comment by charles austin — 3/27/2005 @ 7:17 pm
Natan Sharansky comes to mind, and he’d be great, though there’s no chance of him getting the job. Former President Lee of Taiwan might make a decent choice also, though the ChiComs would make sure he can’t have the job either.
Comment by Kurt — 3/27/2005 @ 7:18 pm
If the UN really wants to change for the better, how about picking the outspoken and highly-qualified former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, for Chairmanship? Oh well, one can always dream…
Comment by Robert Koslover — 3/27/2005 @ 7:23 pm
Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf
Comment by JoeS — 3/27/2005 @ 7:26 pm
Who says it has to be a man? I nominate Condoleeza Rice.
Comment by RebeccaH — 3/27/2005 @ 7:29 pm
Arnold! No, seriously!
Comment by Guy from California — 3/27/2005 @ 7:38 pm
Dick Cheney, spine, vision and a proven bureaucratic infighter.
Comment by Gary Bezowsky — 3/27/2005 @ 7:39 pm
Some guy in a clown suit. If we can’t get it in the Secretary Generalship, then we should have him replace Bolton. Make a general mockery, pound his huge red shoes on the table, talk idiocy. You know - fit in.
Comment by Cutler — 3/27/2005 @ 7:40 pm
Brian Mulroney - got friends all over the world and is a personal friend of the Bush family
Comment by piper — 3/27/2005 @ 7:40 pm
Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, to raise the intellectual tone of the place…
Comment by richard mcenroe — 3/27/2005 @ 7:44 pm
You want to send a message? Make Iyad Allawi head of the U.N.
Comment by Iyad Allawi — 3/27/2005 @ 7:45 pm
No one. Disolve the UN and get them the HELL out of the US. The UN serves no purpose except to pilfer funds and bash the US and Israel. With all the money the UN has spent in the last 50 years, poverty should have been wiped out, Africa should be a developing nation, and the Palestinians should be well on their way to statehood, with a robust economy. The money has gone to support despots (Hussein, Arafat, Mugabe, etc., etc., etc). The UN is a feckless organization whose time has come for extinction.
Comment by Opine6 — 3/27/2005 @ 8:04 pm
Arnold is a great idea!
Comment by thedragonflies — 3/27/2005 @ 8:07 pm
I always read that it is Asia’s turn to have a Secretary General from that continent. It’ll probably be a UN flunky I’ve never heard of, just like Annan and Ghali were. But yes, Vaclav Havel would be an inspired choice. A hero of mine since I was a teenager.
Comment by Moonbat_One — 3/27/2005 @ 8:17 pm
If you want a non-nonsense administrator who will pull no punches prosecuting, try Rudy Giuliani.
Comment by Mark — 3/27/2005 @ 8:17 pm
Another Havel vote. (See his stand on Cuba, on Taiwan in the last few months - and figure about what the chances are that such a tough-minded person will get (or want) the job.)
Comment by Ginny — 3/27/2005 @ 8:21 pm
Even though I never voted for him, I think Bill Clinton would be an excellent choice. So would Vaclav Havel. The best new idea in the comments so far is Brian Mulroney, who I hadn’t thought of but who immediately struck me as a sensible idea.
Comment by TigerHawk — 3/27/2005 @ 8:21 pm
Vaclav Havel. Perfect.
Comment by Patricia Downing — 3/27/2005 @ 8:25 pm
I think that a citizen of the five permanent security council members CANNOT be the Secretary-General, so with that in mind: Vaclav Havel.
Comment by David R. Block — 3/27/2005 @ 8:26 pm
I agree with the earlier posters who think that no Americans have a chance of becoming Sec. Gen. of the UN. Fine. Havel would make a good choice, but so would Lech Walesa. More likely would be someone out of India, Korea, or Japan. Some bureaucrat that no one has ever heard of and has such a low profile that he, and it invariably would be a he, would not be on the radar. Also, I do not expect the UN to pick a woman for the post, which would be an inspired move.
Comment by lawhawk — 3/27/2005 @ 8:27 pm
Henry Kissinger. Alternatively, some retired US marine whose only job is to veto everything.
Comment by Jason Bontrager — 3/27/2005 @ 8:27 pm
Bill Clinton. He has the clout and charisma to truly reform the UN; he’s desperate to establish some sort of legacy; and he has a good relationship with President Bush. The irony is that the UN membership would vote for Clinton thinking they were sticking their finger in Bush’s eye (a la giving Carter the Nobel Peace Prize) and would only realize too late that a clever scoundral like Clinton is their worst nightmare, because (a) he’s smarter than any of them and (b) he can anticipate just what they might do. ..bruce..
Comment by Bruce Webster — 3/27/2005 @ 8:35 pm
What about …?
Comment by Mr. Joe — 3/27/2005 @ 8:43 pm
What about Gorbatchev? He is conversant with bureaucracy, appreciative of the nuances of leftist-global dialogue (all that time with the Non-aligned States and third world dictators) and a realist. Moreover, he is flexible. The highest compliment I ever read of Eric Blair applies to Gorbatchev as well: ‘he was not in a habit of seeing something for what it was not.’ The move would placate Russian obstructionism and comfort old fellow travelers.
Comment by bob — 3/27/2005 @ 8:43 pm
Spine, personal clout, vision, experience, integrity? To squeeze such traits into one UN secretary general will require a Vatican sized miracle. Especially the ‘integrity’ part. I’d gladly settle for a savvy, tough-as-nails former CEO, such as Jack Welch (GE). The UN is corrupt from the top down, and it will take a Welch type to clean up that cesspool of international thieves and third-world whores. We need is a no-nonsense ass kicker - an individual who has already earned enough money to match his ego. Therefore, I nominate myself - a man who never met a fool he didn’t fire.
Comment by David Baker — 3/27/2005 @ 8:43 pm
Glenn Reynolds
Comment by Randy Morrell — 3/27/2005 @ 8:48 pm
The current Prime Minister of India, his name escapes me, has done more to acclimitize,not stabilize, the world’s largest democracy and, therefore, propel peace in the subcontinent. This, combined with tsunami relief, would force the short-memoried diplomatic corps to recognize democracy at work, as opposed to democracy for “them” (while the diplomats remain “special”). I apologize for the blank on his name.
Comment by William Boggess — 3/27/2005 @ 8:49 pm
Ambassador Allan Keyes…he could fire the lot and we could then send the UN packing.
Comment by Neal Lemerise — 3/27/2005 @ 8:50 pm
Can’t we give it to Hillary? It’s perfect for her. No? Ahnohld it is, then.
Comment by Joan of Argghh! — 3/27/2005 @ 8:52 pm
Havel is my definite first choice. I’m a huge fan of Hernando de Soto’s work, but I don’t think Secretary General is a good fit for him — I’d be more inclined to see him try to turn UNESCO into an actual functioning agency. When I saw Gorbachev in the comments, I was floored — but if you want a Secretary General that will shake up an entrenched bureaucracy and institute huge change, well, he’s certainly been there and done that. Wow.
Comment by Kirk Fay — 3/27/2005 @ 8:53 pm
Jose Maria Aznar.
Comment by rt — 3/27/2005 @ 8:54 pm
Sonny Barger. Any man who could run the Hell’s Angels for that long gets my vote to run any organization.
Comment by George Lee — 3/27/2005 @ 8:54 pm
I am a Clinton detractor, but he would be my first serious choice, after Triumph the Comic Insult Dog. He’s a gifted politician who believes in democracy and the UN. He’s a multilateralist who strongly supports Israel and Palistinean statehood. He’s popular around the world, and his heart is in the right place. If he could keep his pants on, he’d do fine. Now, this will never happen because Hillary is running in ‘08 and it would create a conflict of interest. Plus, being an American, I think he would be vetoed. So Havel is a great choice. However, being “New (Pro-Bush) Europe” doesn’t help him. So my dark horse is Japan’s Minister of the Environment, Yuriko Koike. Obviously, she is female. She speaks Arabic and has an Egyptian university degree. Moreover, she has the added and completely irrelevant qualification of being smokin’ hot.
Comment by dan — 3/27/2005 @ 9:01 pm
Rumsfeld would be inspired, simply inspired as a choice. It would be worth it just to see the cookie-pushers jumping to their deaths from the UN building in despair. But this really misses the point. The objective should be to continue the UN on the path to oblivion. It has no legitimacy; as the Declaration of Independence points out, governments derive “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and the one-nation, one-vote system in the UN security council, with many being dictatorships, does not reflect this. We want an obscure technocrat who wil turn a blind eye to scandal. That should bring to the fore the UN’s worthlessness, even in the eyes of people who cling to it. Luckily that’s probably exactly what the choice will be, absent any pressure for reform from the US or perhaps the UK. So a little benign neglect on the matter will probably move things along nicely.
Comment by Ernst Blofeld — 3/27/2005 @ 9:02 pm
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.
Comment by thibaud — 3/27/2005 @ 9:03 pm
I think Bolton would be fine. Gorbechev would be great if he would preside over the dismantling of the UN. Don’t bring in Bill Clinton he would pardon Kofi.
Comment by mudbath — 3/27/2005 @ 9:05 pm
I liked the idea of Triumph pooping on everyone, or of Vaclav Havel serving as the pillar of human rights, but now I think that the best person for the job for the job would be someone with the skills of Terry Tate, Office Linebacker.
Comment by Deacon Jones — 3/27/2005 @ 9:06 pm
Havel would be great, but Lech Walesa or Elie Weisel wouldn’t be bad, either.
Comment by Andrew — 3/27/2005 @ 9:32 pm
Fouad Ajami. With our boy at the world bank, we might as well make it a Johns Hopkins double.
Comment by Jim in Chicago — 3/27/2005 @ 9:36 pm
Paul Bremer
Comment by Intensive Care — 3/27/2005 @ 9:37 pm
Former secstate Colin Powell would be the best American for the job; former POTUS William Jefferson Clinton would be a more politically likely candidate, health permitting. George Soros might be acceptable to a lot of the other members, although he’s nominally an American citizen. Unfortunately, his hypothetical candidacy puts one way too much in mind of the Left Behind series’ anti-Christ figure.
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 3/27/2005 @ 9:43 pm
Vaclav HAVEL
Comment by Kristian — 3/27/2005 @ 10:15 pm
It’s Asia’s turn. Asian free market democrat with guts and determination and ambition and INTEGRITY? Someone with proven executive and consensus-building ability? Someone with vision and clarity and the human touch? Go to your search engine and get to know Japan’s Shinzo Abe.
Comment by Buddy Larsen — 3/27/2005 @ 10:17 pm
Britney Spears. I was going to nominate her for pope, but apparently they have rules. And some people still resepect the Catholic Church.
Comment by Pixy Misa — 3/27/2005 @ 10:18 pm
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the former PM of India.
Comment by Eddie Beaver — 3/27/2005 @ 10:22 pm
I too have heard it is Asia’s turn. Australian FM, Alexander Downer. An Aussie would be even more delicious than an American. Abe also sounds interesting. None of this Lee Kuan Yew business. We need a candidate from an American ally whose appointment and actions will send a clear signal that the U. N. is geting back on the right track.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 3/27/2005 @ 10:25 pm
Aung San Suu Kyi. She’s Asian. She’s pro-democracy and rule of law. She’s available. And she’s got more guts than the floor of a Tyson Chicken plant.
Comment by Dick Eagleson — 3/27/2005 @ 10:34 pm
Who’s turn is next is part of the old UN system and mentality, let us not continue any part of it!
Comment by FastNed — 3/27/2005 @ 10:35 pm
How about nobody? We should resign our membership in the UN, give them notice of eviction, and do the World Congress of Democratic Nations kind of thing. Such a body could establish strict rules of membership, such as the necessity of a popular constitution and elected leaders, no hereditary leaders, no life appointments, a fair legal system, etc., with a nation’s number of votes dependant on its freedom index, that way nations would compete to make their populations more free, instead of less.
Comment by Improbulus Maximus — 3/27/2005 @ 10:52 pm
Look at the map. Look at global trade patterns and international finance. Look at who has earned and is ready for a higher international profile. Find someone in that country who is a strong ally.
Comment by Buddy Larsen — 3/27/2005 @ 11:04 pm
The way they rotate the post, I think it goes to a European this time, and I have too much respect for Havel and Walensa to throw them into that tarpit. Isn’t there a reasonably nice European mediocrity we could back?
Comment by utron — 3/27/2005 @ 11:23 pm
Vaclav Havel, no doubts!
Comment by Thomas Vincent — 3/27/2005 @ 11:29 pm
I think you’re asking the wrong question. You are assuming the UN should be reformed, rather than dissolved. There’s little reason to keep it. It’s an entirely artificial edifice, and can be eliminated without consequence, unlike the government of an actual country. What is needed is someone who can deliver a message, and then move on to something more worthwhile. I’m thinking in terms of Cromwell’s message to the Rump Parliament, “In the name of God, go!” Or perhaps Trotsky’s message to the Mensheviks about belonging on the rubbish heap of history. If someone can come up with a memorable soundbite-type line, the job will be half over.
Comment by big dirigible — 3/27/2005 @ 11:32 pm
Jose Maria Aznar Lopez, former Spanish prime minister. If it is Asia’s “turn” then I suppose there must be someone from that continent that would be acceptable to China, India, Japan, Indonesia, and the United States and other Security Council members. But I doubt that such a person would be able to reform the UN, and in fact would probably view his job as covering up the corruption.
Comment by Jerry Baustian — 3/27/2005 @ 11:35 pm
What about Kemal Dervish of Turkey who instituted economic reforms in Turkey and was Vice Chairman of the World Bank? I think, however, that there is an unwritten rule that each geographic region gets two consecutive terms as UN Leader and the next term will need to be filled by an African. I think Havel would be a great choice, as would Gorby, who as someone mentioned does have a history of making changes. The candidate will need to be acceptable to the Muslim world as well as there are 57 muslim majority countries, which means that no Indian candidate will be acceptable to the body. On the other hand, we could nominate the dictator of Venezuela. He’s likely to do less damage as UN chief.
Comment by Josh M — 3/27/2005 @ 11:36 pm
Havel would be a brilliantly courageous choice for the UN (if they were truly interested in the promotion of genuine reforms (especially towards reform in the ways the blocs of Arab and Aligned nations vote in tandem against Israel, restructuring or ending of the Human Rights Commission, promotion of democracy, and market economies and using the UN to actively prevent genocide, exploitation of women and children when they occur).
Comment by Paul Elman — 3/27/2005 @ 11:47 pm
Goh Chock Tong from Singapore. Experienced and very talented.
Comment by AMP — 3/27/2005 @ 11:55 pm
I nominate Osama bin-Laden. It would get him out of his cave where we could see him and he would have unlimited freedom from double-parking fines by NYC’s finest which should be enough to get him to renounce terrorism. I’m not sure what to do about Zaraqawi - is there an Asst Sec’ty Generalship open?
Comment by Hardstarboard — 3/28/2005 @ 12:15 am
Michael Jackson
Comment by ralph phelan — 3/28/2005 @ 12:17 am
Sympathize w/ all those who want to eradicate the beast…but, the worst may be over…think about it…it’s just a people problem, after all. Of course, what isn’t? But…what a tool UN could be–to facilitate the rapid democratization of the world–in the right hands. The place has been attracting bugs because of all the crumbs scattered everywhere. This can be cleaned up. Leadership.
Comment by Buddy Larsen — 3/28/2005 @ 12:21 am
I sincerely nominate Christopher Reeves.
Comment by tscottme — 3/28/2005 @ 12:22 am
Michael Jackson! It would make it a lot easier for him to pick up… to entertain… to um…
Besides… Michael Jackson has extensive applicable experience with Neverland.
Comment by DANEgerus — 3/28/2005 @ 12:39 am
Why don’t we conduct a little exercise and see who the anti-semitic peoples of the world really are? I nominate Ariel Sharon. If you feel yourself screaming ‘no way’ perhaps you have a mental orientation which will not permit you to see your own bias.
Comment by Herr Zopff — 3/28/2005 @ 12:39 am
How about the Easter Bunny? While I think Michael Jackson would be OK also - what we need is someone even less competent than Kofi - that is a fairly small group.
Comment by DrTaxSacto — 3/28/2005 @ 12:40 am
The President’s favorite horse.
Comment by Tim Shell — 3/28/2005 @ 12:41 am
Gerry Adams
Comment by ralph phelan — 3/28/2005 @ 1:13 am
John Gotti Jr.
Comment by ralph phelan — 3/28/2005 @ 1:22 am
Whoever the fellow was who had the ‘Diplomad’ web blog, if Americans are inelgible, Mark Steyn would be my choice. Whatever he could or couldn’t do, he would certainly be entertaining doing it.
Comment by Scott Wod — 3/28/2005 @ 1:43 am
If only her health were better, it would be fun to see what Margaret Thatcher could do at (and to) the UN.
Comment by moseyingdave — 3/28/2005 @ 2:12 am
Jose Maria Aznar, seconded.
Comment by Mike Kochin — 3/28/2005 @ 2:15 am
Give the job to Osama Bin Laden. Then, you would hope, that we would have just cause for getting rid of the whole damn place altogether.
Comment by Richard — 3/28/2005 @ 2:29 am
Jesse Helms! Senator (Norman Coleman?) of Minnesota!
Comment by Warren Windrem — 3/28/2005 @ 2:30 am
Aznar of Spain, Havel of the Czech Republic, Howard of Australia: all excellent choices. But my nomination is for the ultimate tough guy with an outstanding record of chewing out the UN, General Dellaire (sp?) from Belgium, the man the UN back-stabbed when he was their Rwanda peace-keeper.
Comment by Don Kirk — 3/28/2005 @ 2:47 am
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.
Comment by Alan K. Henderson — 3/28/2005 @ 3:04 am
Howard Stern! Bababooey! Both great choices. Seriously Though, Vaclav Havel
Comment by Zip Zap — 3/28/2005 @ 3:22 am
A correction. Although born in Holland, General Dellaire is Canadian. If anything, that makes his nomination even better!
Comment by Don Kirk — 3/28/2005 @ 3:26 am
Manmohan Singh of India.
Comment by Tim Worstall — 3/28/2005 @ 5:08 am
For all those who say it is Asia/Arabia/India/japan’s turn. Just remember, that is how all those Human Rights violators got on the Human Rights Commission. First - what qualifications does the person need. It is very hard to keep a large organization under control so I would look for someone who knows how to get the best people to help him/her do the job. You also need someone with the vision to get out and fight to change the UN back to it’s intended purpose. I would like Havel or Dellaire at the top but need to know more about their organizational skills.
Comment by Davod — 3/28/2005 @ 5:08 am
SpongeBob SquarePants or Benjamin Netanyahu
Comment by J&T — 3/28/2005 @ 5:51 am
Why not Mr Jose Maria Aznar from Spain to replace the corrupt Kofi Annan and his administration, he has the right ideas and is a good friend of the states, could be a grear play and every antiamerican around the world will be surprised, also those europeans who create the marxism, comunism, nazism and fascim ideas and it’s totalitarian regimes. from Argentina, Santiago Lozano
Comment by Santiago Lozano — 3/28/2005 @ 6:22 am
You want organizational ability and someone who knows about corruption? Martha Stewart. And she’d give the place a nice sprucing up!
Comment by F — 3/28/2005 @ 6:40 am
If he’s still alive, Buddy Ebsen.
Comment by Jerry — 3/28/2005 @ 7:30 am
If Buddy’s gone, how about Mr. Ed?
Comment by Jerry — 3/28/2005 @ 7:32 am
I agree Havel would be the best choice, but he is getting old and would probably not want the job. My second choice would be the Ukrainian President, name escapes me, that survived poisoning to lead the Orange Revolution.
Comment by wayne — 3/28/2005 @ 7:46 am
I second the nomination by Dick Eagleson: Aung San Suu Kyi. In addition to those qualifications he listed, she has already won the Nobel Peace prize, so a “legacy” is not so important. And it will get her out of the house. (wink wink)
Comment by Some Seppo — 3/28/2005 @ 8:01 am
I don’t understand the eagerness to get rid of Kofi. I say we send the poor chap some Prozac and tell him to buck up. A few soothing words to bolster his self-esteem, perhaps a “get well” card from Mr. Bolton. Keeping Kofi in place but beholden to us will accomplish more than putting a decent person in as SG who will be suborned by that monstrous bureaucracy. As to the suggestion of Bill Clinton, please. He sees the SGship (correctly) as the ultimate vehicle for the enhancement of his engagement calendar, and the fact that he is pro-UN makes him even less desirable in that position.
Comment by Quid — 3/28/2005 @ 8:31 am
Luis Giusti, former CEO of Petroleos de Venezuela. Barring that, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. Gorbachev is a great suggestion. If an American could be nominated, the wise selection would be Lee Raymond, CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil, the most profitable company in the world.
Comment by CrudeBoy — 3/28/2005 @ 8:52 am
John Major, former PM of Great Britain.
Comment by OregonGuy — 3/28/2005 @ 9:03 am
I think Vaclav Havel has to be the choice. He fits all of Austin’s requirements, the perfect example being Havel on record lately as criticizing Europe’s dance with dictators like Castro. He’d shake things up, for sure, but would he be acceptable to Russia and France, ot to mention China?! I doubt they want a vehement pro-democracy guy like Havel in there. Aung San Suu Kyi is a great second choice, but her struggle for freedom in Burma / Myanmar hasn’t been won yet, alas.
Comment by Eric — 3/28/2005 @ 9:40 am
How about Justice Anthony “We Are the World” Kennedy? Or maybe Michael Schiavo?
Comment by Prof. Rick Duncan — 3/28/2005 @ 9:50 am
McCain.
Comment by Cridland — 3/28/2005 @ 9:57 am
An American we know Europeans love — Jerry Lewis. Seriously, we need to give the place to a good M&A shark, who will sell off the parts that halfway work and shut the empty shell of the rest down….
Comment by richard mcenroe — 3/28/2005 @ 10:05 am
#86 Don: Do you mean the Canadian general Romeo D’Allaire?
Comment by m'isles — 3/28/2005 @ 10:15 am
Barry McCaffrey
Comment by Mike Lancaster — 3/28/2005 @ 10:17 am
If Brian Mulroney could could do to the UN what he did to the conservative party in Canada, I’d be happy to see him in the top spot.
Comment by Al Valenti — 3/28/2005 @ 10:24 am
Tony Blair. Labour is going to win re-election, Gordon Brown is going to challenge Blair for the leadership, and possibly win. Blair is a multilateralist with vision, no one’s poodle but with a keen understanding of the US’s role in the world.
Comment by David A. Smith — 3/28/2005 @ 11:11 am
Ted Turner
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 3/28/2005 @ 11:13 am
No one! Dissolve the UN and kick their a$$ out of the USA!
Comment by Andrew Bontje — 3/28/2005 @ 11:25 am
i agree with #24’s comment. disband the useless institution.
Comment by marcia rice — 3/28/2005 @ 11:31 am
Disband the UN.
Comment by Fausta — 3/28/2005 @ 12:23 pm
Mark Steyn. He’s Canadian, so if there’s a rule against citizens of permanent members of the Security Council, it won’t apply to him. As for Mr. Ed, I think that half of him is already the Secretary General.
Comment by Silicon Valley Jim — 3/28/2005 @ 12:57 pm
The U.S. should filibuster any nominee so as to leave the post vacant. Then when a new Secretary General subsequently takes office anyway, the U.S. should veto all U.N. resolutions for ever after in a fit of pique. I think most of you know Bill Clinton would use the office of the U.N. Secretary General to go from millionaire to billionaire. If you think the U.N. is corrupt now …
Comment by klrfz1 — 3/28/2005 @ 1:29 pm
From the “say it ain’t so” department: I can see that Bill Clinton might get offered the position. What better way to stick a finger in the eye of the Bush Administration whilst insulating against anti-Americanism? Clinton’s ego alone wouldn’t let him say no, and if he didn’t get a legacy as president, maybe he could as Secretary General. It would all depend upon whether or not he and Hillary feel that the position could help her chances in 2008. That said, it wouldn’t be easy to get rid of him once in, and France et al. could well come to rue the offer.
Comment by LizardAbroad — 3/28/2005 @ 2:26 pm
I like Havel as well, but Jose Maria Aznar, former PM of Spain, should be considered.
Comment by Dave Clark — 3/28/2005 @ 2:35 pm
Krusty
Comment by Stuart — 3/28/2005 @ 2:44 pm
I am nominating Ron Jeremy. Based on what I read about him on Wikipedia, he can teach the malignant narcissists that make up the UN apparatus how to Lewinsky themselves — doing literally what they have spent decades doing metaphorically. But seriously, Vaclav Havel, if anybody is to have a prayer of cleaning out these Augean Stables. And of course many Israelis are quietly hoping the UN will take Shimon Peres so they (we) are rid of him. Then again, Kofi Annan and Shimon Peres are two birds of a feather when it comes to living in alternate universes.
Comment by Former Belgian — 3/28/2005 @ 3:06 pm
Havel would be the absolute best choice, but he has health problems. I suggest Musa Hitam of Malaysia. Politically he’d have a good chance of getting support: there hasn’t been an Asian Secretary-General since 1971 (U Thant), and there has never been a Muslim in the post. He has UN experience (special envoy of Malaysia to the UN, leader of the Malaysian delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights, etc.). He used to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia and has a very heavy resume. But his personal qualities are why I recommend him very strongly. He has a wide reputation for being reasonable, not fanatical at all, and dead honest - it does you no good to be Musa’s friend unless your cause is right (it’s hard to express how rare this is for a Malaysian politician). He’s a very cultured, charming, civilized, open-minded man and a fine speaker. He’s also very interested in human rights. He speaks his mind without any thought of political correctness (which is why he didn’t make it to #1 in Malaysia).
Comment by Ken Bolland — 3/28/2005 @ 4:00 pm
Carly Fiorina - she ran HP into the ground, I’m sure she can do the same for the UN. (Though, in that respect, Kofi is a hard act to follow).
Comment by DMFD — 3/28/2005 @ 6:18 pm
Summarizing the more serious responses (though I am somewhat amenable to the argument that the UN deserves no seriousness), so far it looks like the main names are: William J. Clinton – former President of the United States. Colin Powell – former Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hernando de Soto – Director of Peru’s Institute for Liberty and Democracy Václav Havel – Playwright, former President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic Jose Maria Aznar – former Prime Minister of Spain Roméo Dallaire – Lt. Gen., Canadian Forces, former commander of UNAMIR. Alexander Downer – Foreign Minister of Australia Aung San Suu Kyi – ought to be head of state of Burma Goh Chok Tong – former Prime Minister of Singapore Manmohan Singh –Prime Minister of India; “architect of India’s economic reform program” Yuriko Koike, Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs I left out Vajpayee because he is likely too old (also an issue for Havel and Singh); I don’t know anything about Musa Hitam. Surprisingly, I don’t see the one person who has actually been endorsed by several countries and is a leading candidate. This is Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand’s Foreign Minister from 2001 until March 2005, and currently Deputy Prime Minister. He was endorsed by ASEAN last year to replace Annan, and supposedly has support from both the US and China. If the nomination goes to yet another professional politician, he would seem to be a more likely candidate than someone like Downer, Goh or Singh. The main thing working against him is that he is the conventional choice. If they were to go with an unconventional choice, Clinton or Powell or Aznar seem like better bets. Would being SecGen allow Jacques Chirac to keep his immunity from prosecution by French authorities? If so, maybe he’ll lobby for it. I suspect he is more popular among UN bureaucrats than among American or French citizens.
Comment by Dave Danner — 3/28/2005 @ 7:17 pm
No citizen of the 5 permanent member states of the UN Security Council will ever be Secretary General. Further, if they speak English they must speak French. Havel is the best choice. My second choice is bilingual Brian Mulroney, former Canadian PM, although the French would probably veto him.
Comment by Charles Quinn — 3/28/2005 @ 7:38 pm
My top picks: 1) Rudolph W. Giuliani 2) Henry Kissinger 3) Paul Volcker
Comment by Ledger Man — 3/28/2005 @ 7:39 pm
Angelina Jolie. I mean, a Secretary General gets photographed a lot. It might inspire some interest in what goes on at the UN.
Comment by Dan Collins — 3/28/2005 @ 9:05 pm
It is time to break up the S/G. Two parts..#1..taking care of the “ANT HILL” & reports to the S/C & #2 Will report to the S/C about politicalt thing (such as DAFUR). To keep the S/G as one is a mistake of power. Both should report to the S/C as ying/yang! Also can you see the debats?
Comment by Sir Mike of New Milford — 3/28/2005 @ 11:00 pm
I second Musa Hitam’s nomination.
Comment by ron jeremy — 3/29/2005 @ 2:36 am
Whether we mean to reform the UN or marginalize it, even eliminate it, we need a proven administrator. No particular candidate’s political stance is of any value in determining their effectiveness. For example, Gorbachev is widely despised in Russia, for good reason. His reforms led the country to dissolve out from under him. Hmmm …
Comment by Ed Hausman — 3/29/2005 @ 3:07 am
#124 - Giuliani, Volcker, and Kissinger on the same short list? Well, I can see a common thread: guys who are good at making reductions - in crime, inflation, and Southeast Asian democracy, respectively. #123 - There’s at least one good thing about Kissinger’s American citizenship… #128 - Nope. For all his reforms, Gorby is a statist at heart. Then again, maybe he could repeat history and get the UN to dissolve out from under him…
Comment by Alan K. Henderson — 3/29/2005 @ 4:19 am
The UN is a great organization. FOR ME TO POOP ON!!
Comment by Triumph — 3/29/2005 @ 8:23 am
If it is Europe’s turn, then Aznar would be a good choice. If it goes to Africa again, Nelson Mandela wouldn’t be bad. If it is Asia turn then go for the previous India prime-minister (I can’t remember his name right now and I’m too lazy to google for it, but I think it is something like Vayapajj).
Comment by Pedro Oliveira — 3/29/2005 @ 11:18 am
Give it to Bill Clinton: if that won’t finally and completely destroy the venier of credibility of the United Nations in hte mind of the hardest true believer, then nothing will. Then, it can go the way of the League of Nations, and we can try again, putting in place something that doesn’t suck.
Comment by JRP — 3/29/2005 @ 2:44 pm
For the past few years, it’s effectively been Jacques Chirac. Why not formalize it?
Comment by Laurence Simon — 3/29/2005 @ 3:01 pm
A Middle Eastern politician should get the job, preferably a pro-Western Muslim woman. That would send a message that no Euro could ignore…
Comment by Mark not Steyn — 3/29/2005 @ 3:09 pm
My selection would be Representative Jim Sennsenbrenner. He is Conservative, dedicated to doing the right thing, not the political thing, he is intelligent and steadfast and he is not corrupt. Rightfully so, he is re-elected by large margins consistently. He would fit well with world figures. Most people wouldn’t look his way, but for me he would be on a very short list.
Comment by Dean Herbst — 3/30/2005 @ 9:22 am
oh happy day Who Should Replace Kof…
Trackback by Espen Olafsen — 7/14/2005 @ 7:23 pm
How About Howard Dean? Glenn Reynolds nominates Vaclav Havel to replace Kofi Annan. I second that nomination. I can’t think of a single person in the world I’d rather see take Kofi's post. Austin Bay wants more nominations. Okay, how about Howard Dean? I…
Trackback by Michael J. Totten — 10/22/2007 @ 2:47 am