Chrétien to take job with UN: report

[Tripper11]

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien will accept a job with the United Nations, a move that could hasten his retirement plans, according to published reports.

According to the Montreal newspaper La Presse, Chrétien was offered a foreign post, most likely with an African development agency. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also invited Chrétien to sit on an advisory council to promote institutional reform.

Chrétien spokesman Steven Hogue would neither confirm nor deny the story.

"His plans will be known when the time is right," Hogue said.

Chrétien has expressed an interest in serving with the United Nations.

CBC.ca

[emad]

1. Quite enough cretins in the UN, thanks very much....

Perhaps a typing/secretarial bursary at the Thatcher Foundation may be more to his liking....

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. ahem - "cretin n : a person of subnormal intelligence "

. . cretin = "n : a person of subnormal intelligence (syn: idiot, imbecile, moron, changeling, half-wit, retard)"



Your use of the word does NOT reflect our PM in any way, he is neither dumb nor a warmonger, as is the USA's pResident.

I have no false pride as a Canadian, but Americans should certainly be ashamed of their "leader"

I beliieve that our Chretien would be a good person to advance peace, and the UN would be a great place for him.

Just My Humble Canadian Opinion

[emad]

11. No disrespect, ConcernedCanuk.....clearly your leader is in

a different league to Junior, but to throw him into the deep end at the UN - totally bypassing Carlyle and the chance to rub shoulders with the likes of John Major etc - would be a career setback.

The trouble with commonwealth leaders past their sell-by date is they know too much and tend to congregate with others of similar magnitude in ignorance. A nice safe sinecure usually brings on the required amnesia that forges great senior statesmen...

[Spazito]

12. Hmmmm, don't agree with you...

"throw him in the deep end at the UN"? Chretien has had 40 years in politics and 10 of them leading this country. He is well able to maneuver anything that may arise in his position (assuming he takes one)at the UN. Chretien has been passionate about aid to Africa and would be WELL suited to be working within the UN in this area. I don't understand your amimous to Chretien. Could you explain?

[emad]

14. The comonwealth is heading for a massive shake up.

Chretien belongs to the old guard that was reared in cold war policies and defended the indefensible. Not saying he didn't do his best for his party or that in some foreign policy areas he may be sound. But he belongs to a group of old timers who allowed, inter alia, Robert Mugabe to come to prominence.

The UN needs to become more focused and dynamic. That means radical changes in those who serve and the appointments system that ensures cushy sinecures for domestic has-beens.

[Spazito]

16. I don't disagree with you re the UN needing reform....

but I don't see Chretien as being a problem in that area. He has shepherded many progressive reforms in Canada, many of the "ahead of the curve", as it were. Who would you see as an asset to appoint to the UN, my question being asked is out of curiosity only, not argumentative.

[emad]

18. An Elliot Spitzer type lawman who will smoke out all the

Opus Dei cronies that the Vatican - in it's indefensible observer status at the UN - has patronised.

Pity that Bob Morgenthau has said he's too old for further public office.

[Spazito]

19. Thanks for your quick response!

I think the best "mix" in any organization, especially one with global implications, should be made up of new and old, so your "Elliot Spitzer type" is a good choice for the "new". I think Chretien is a good choice for the "old". Wisdom is needed along with "fire in the belly" if the UN is to progress.

[emad]

20. I take the view that as far as Africa is concerned the problems

have reached such a magnitude that 'anchormen' and women must take second place to hard nosed lawmen/women prepared to impose the kind of sanctions that allow for financing massive health programmes, clean water and sanitation initiatives and social reform. I don't doubt that Chretien has potential for an advisory role, but who is to stand up to the likes of Mugabe - who has nothing but contempt for other commonwealth leaders and flaunts his tyranny much like Idi Amin?

I believe the fault lies with Queen Elizabeth who has allowed the commonwealth to stagnate to a flaccid tourist photo opportunity instead of becoming a dynamic organisation geared to problem solving. Few commonwealth leaders in the UN have made much impact on reversing decades of corruption. The UN needs ex-politicians less than it needs development and legal specialists who are not tarred with the same ineffectual complacency of many of their contemporaries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Was the Commonwealth ever dynamic?

I don't think so, and I doubt it ever could be. Membership is optional - even if all members agreed to sanctions on another country, there are plenty of alternative countries to deal with. It can have a role as a voice for a collection of nations that isn't purely geographic, and in which some North/South debates can be thrashed out slightly easier than the huge United Nations. With the growth of things like the G22 (or whatever number they're at now), this aspect may become less relevant too.

I'm curious as to how you think sanctions can be designed to allow for huge reform programmes, while having a real effect on undesirable regimes. If anyone could do this, I'd be all for it, but I think just being a legal specialist wouldn't be enough - the problem is that the regime would just change the law to their advantage. And when the problem is the diversion of aid to the wrong purposes, it is the law of the target country that counts, not international law.

[emad]

23. There are cold war security agreements that all heads of

government of commonwealth countries have signed and adhered to since the early 1960s, that still apply today and are likely to do so until cancelled. They cannot be opted out of without the consent of all heads of government and ratification by the Head of Commonwealth. The last time they were tested was during the lifting of sanctions against South Africa following the end of apartheid. Previously the changeover from the Rhodesian government to that of the Zimbabwean also needed ratification by the 'inner cabbal' of the commonwealth council.

Much of its internal structure and hierarchy remains under a UK D Notice and the public perception of a loosely knit organisation of 'voluntary' countries is pure spin. What makes it dynamic is the structure of controls that has effectively fought corruption and graft, through enforcement of the rule of law. Where this has come up against obstacles is when professional con men like Mugabe have been enabled to challenge the status quo, much like Idi Amin before him.

More non-governmental aid (ie. non-tax revenue) has been spent by private individuals on support for the infrastructure of commonwealth countries than has ever been made public. Roughly twenty times the entire UK development budget since 1979 has financed educational, health, social and welfare programmes, from private individuals' donations. Since 1997 Blair has made it his business to gag any public discussion of this, purely for his own party political purposes.

Private law suits concerning the roles of the African Development Bank as well as activities by the now defunct Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in commonwealth countries bear testimony to the need for enforcement of those cold war security agreements.

Some material concerning these banking activities is likely to be placed in the public domain after the conclusion of next January's UK class action against the Bank of England by former BCCI creditors, who are suing for a sum in excess of one billion pounds sterling in compensation for the reckless behaviour of the banking supervisory body in the 1980s.

It may then be possible to lift some of the security lock outs that have veiled the inner structure of the commonwealth. Public perception may well change as a result.

[iverglas]

22. I've been trying to figure out ...

... what it is that seems "off" in your assessments.

First, I'm no Chrétien fan. He's better than what a USAmerican could ever hope to have, and he's better than that sport of nature Brian Mulroney whom he succeeded (and who is simply *not* the standard against which to measure Canadian politicians), but he's not my choice for the proverbial dogcatcher.

But I'm not sure what your assessment of the Commonwealth is based on ... and if it's based on knowledge of the organization, how you could even consider saying something like:

I believe the fault lies with Queen Elizabeth ... .

The Queen is the head of state of some, but not all, Commonwealth member states, but is no more than a figurehead in those cases (e.g. Canada, and even the UK). Her role as "Head of the Commonwealth" is no less titular. Neither any of the states in the Commonwealth nor the Commonwealth itself would brook any interference by her in its affairs.

Here's a bit about Canada and the Commonwealth, obviously from an official source: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/commonwealth/menu-en.asp

The Commonwealth has no constitution per say <my dog, "per say"??? I'm embarrassed beyond belief>, but it does have formal principles. The 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, adopted by Heads of Government in Singapore, states that member countries must strive for:

- the pursuit of international peace and order in support of the United Nations,
- the promotion of representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law,
- the recognition of racial equality and the need to combat racial discrimination and racial oppression, and
- be dedicated to lessening the disparities of wealth in societies.

In 1991, the Harare Declaration recognized the special emphasis the Commonwealth places on values such as human rights, the democratic ethic, gender equality, sustainable development and environmental protection. States who do not uphold these principles may incur suspension. This is currently the case with Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

The Commonwealth is not meant to have police powers.

The Commonwealth struggles with the same "constructive engagement" vs. loss-of-influence dilemma as any other state or international organization, and with the same lack of answers, to date, to the question of how best to deal with human rights violating governments to persuade/compel them to stop.

There is an argument to be made that Chrétien is perceived, in Africa, as a "friend of Africa", and therefore wields some degree of moral authority -- if not against an Idi Amin, at least among any others who might have a tendency to resist outside "interference" against an Idi Amin on general anti-colonial principle.

"I take the view that as far as Africa is concerned the problems
have reached such a magnitude that 'anchormen' and women must
take second place to hard nosed lawmen/women prepared to impose
the kind of sanctions that allow for financing massive health programmes,
clean water and sanitation initiatives and social reform.

Hmm, yes. If only there were some "laws" for such "lawmen/women" to be enforcing in that respect. The fact is that it is still up to the member states of the UN -- and its affiliated international organizations -- to make those "laws", and that this is precisely what they aren't doing. There's nothing for someone like a Chrétien to enforce, as long as the member states don't start doing the precise opposite of what they are doing in most respects, e.g. loan-granting policies.

In the meantime, a little street cred, which he must be acknowledged as having among many African leaders (at the same time as being vulnerable, himself, because of his claim to moral authority himself, to moral suasion on the part of those in Africa with moral authority), can't hurt.

.

[emad]

24. The cold war security agreements I have referred to in #23 above

specifically detail the role of Queen Elizabeth in the commonwealth. Forty years of law suits in the UK high court have ensured that the true inner stucture of the commonwealth council is protected by D Notices that effectively gag all media discussion. While there have been some valid reasons for protecting the statu quo, this arrangement has also been abused and has effectively become a smokescreen to hide corruption and despotism. The actual organisation of the commonwealth is spun by politicians for photo opportunity journalism purposes.

Documents relating to media gagging go back to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953, and refer to UK government papers detailing sensitive discussions with the 'Windsor' family. Most hinge on the need to wait for the death of Georve V's wife Queen Mary, in whose lifetime much took place to strain the credibility of democracy in the UK. Although what has taken place since pre-1953 makes the World War 2 era seem like the epitomy of advanced civilisation. A massive spin effort has given a 'Disnified' picture of the UK monarchy, initially in an effort to protect it from the same fate that their Romanov cousins underwent in 1917.

Some of Queen Mary's private papers that place this in context may well be published next year. They relate specifically to the abdication of her son Edward VIII and his extensive written agreements with UK prime ministers, most notably Winston Churchill.

These papers form part of a private royal archive that UK politicians have no jurisdiction over. Seen in today's context, they portray an alarming picture of 20th century republican politics both in the US and the UK. If you think that G W Bush has a nasty habit of interferring in foreign countries' internal problems, that is nothing compared to what some of Bush 1's chums in the US republican party got up to in the UK in the 20th century.

My argument in opposing Chretien's involvement in any senior function in the UN concern his total flabbiness as a head of government in the commonwealth: he had opportunities to stem Blair's pro-republicanism and backing of Bush, but chose to lie doggo for fear of weakening his future chances of 'elder statesman' career opportunities. His role in negotiations to deal effectively with Mugabe and other crooks were tepid, though seen in context hardly surprising.

The UN needs more professionals in its core structure. Politicians are by nature partisan. Lawmen such as - for instance - Bob Morgenthau, would do the UN more good than any number of vote-chasers who still put in cameo appearances on their parties' behalf back home.
Without radical restructuring of its personel and organisation the UN will remain a loose organisation that fails to bat an eyelid in the face of such blatant rogues as George W Bush.

[Holly]

17. You make a good point

Chretien has never been an "action" man. The U.N. does need energenic people, who can bring about reform. Although, I believe that he is actually committed to U.N. reform and the African issues.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. - - THANKS Spazito - - Well Said !!

[rooboy]

2. Retired leaders always seem to go in one of two directions...

further service to humanity or to the Carlyle Group.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. This hardly seems fair

Why hasn't the UN offered a job to George W Bush? I mean, he's the one who kept them from becoming irrelevant. Also, the news people tell me every day that he's a "very popular president". I think it would've been decent of Kofi Anan to have offered Mr. Bush some sort of post, maybe International Hole Smoker.

[emad]

5. Goodwill ambassador for distillers anonymous

??

[Spazito]

4. I think this is great news!

Chretien will be a valuable addition to the UN, imo.

[Holly]

7. Yup

Gotta agree, this is great news...hope he accepts.

[number six]

6. Is there no retirement age for politicians?

Chretien's what, 69? He's already getting a little dottery.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

8. you'd think he'd be getting a pretty decent pension, right?

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. 'Tis not always about $$$ - He ain't owned or intimidated by the BFEE

n/t

[Screaming Lord Byron]

13. OK, fair cop. I personally dislike Chretien, but he showed major balls

over the war issue. However much I dislike him, I know which side he's on.