Is Clinton eligable for being the head of the U.N or isn't he?

[cidliz2004]

Someone was saying that somebody for the U.S. wouldn't be eligible because of the U.S. being a permanent member?

[Maple]

1. There is no such rule

[BattyDem]

2. That's my understanding ...

No one from the 5 permanent member countries is eligible. :-(

On edit: Randi Rhodes was talking about this the other day ... and she never says something like that unless she has her facts straight.

[Maple]

3. There are no rules on it in fact

The security council can appoint anyone they like

[BattyDem]

4. I edited my post to include my source

I hope she's wrong, but she rarely is. :-(

[Maple]

6. She is a DJ

Did she give her source?

I can't find any rules on it at all.

In Cold War days other countries could veto the US, but there's no reason for that now.

[BattyDem]

18. I don't know ...

I was in the car and I didn't get to listen to the entire show, but she did say no one from the five countries was eligible. As I said, Randi normally doesn't say something like that unless she has her facts straight, but there's always the possibility her source was wrong - honestly, I really hope she's wrong because I think Bill Clinton would be perfect!

[babylonsister]

5. Why would Clinton express

an interest if it was an impossibility? Did he express an interest? I've been away for a week but did hear this on CNN Headline News.

[charlie]

9. Security Council recommends a candidate

but it's the General Assembly that appoints him/her.

[carpediem]

17. here it says they are barred from nominating someone from

the 5 permanent members of the security council

This is from a Q & A about the Secretary General position.

Q. Who elects the Secretary-General?

A. The Security Council nominates a Secretary-General to the General Assembly which then votes to appoint the Council's choice. The Security Council is barred from nominating an individual that is from one of Security Council's five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, U.S.).

Typically, the post of the Secretary-General is rotated after two five-year terms so that the position is held by someone from another region of the world. Member states belong to one of the five regional groups: African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Latin American and Caribbean States, and Western European and Other States. Kofi Annan, who succeeded Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt in 1997, was re-elected in 2001 although Africa had already held the seat for two terms. Because of Annan's popularity among member states and UN staff, the Asia states, who were up for the seat, did not challenge Annan's reelection.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/un/life/job.html

[Maple]

23. That just repeats the same belief

with no proof or source

[dogtag]

7. Historically they have come from 'small' countries. (n/t)

[Maple]

10. Define 'small'

Small in population...like Canada?

Or small in size?

Historically they came from countries not involved in the Cold War, so no one on the security council would veto them.

[dogtag]

14. Sweden, Burma, Austria...

[Maple]

15. Then you mean size and population

however there is no rule on it, that I can find.

The Cold War distorted things for years, but that's not part of any rules or requirements.

[stavka]

8. Not quite so simple...

The Secretary-General, is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council for a five year, renewable term.

-Meaning, the Big Five (France, UK, USA, Russia, China) have to agree on a nominee, or at least agree to disagree, but allow it for a general vote....

It is hard to imagine a scenario where an American would pass that test.

[Maccagirl]

11. Wouldn't it be ironic if the only member

of the Security Council to vote against Big Dog would be The Bush toadie from the US?

[Maple]

13. The general assembly votes for

whoever the security council picks. Even if they have to vote, there won't be much of a choice. It's a formality for the general assembly.

Depends on how popular Clinton is...seeing as it's the turn of the Asians.

[stavka]

20. China, Russia, and France would never allow any American

and the UK would be a tough sell. I don't blame them, read a bit about Poland...

[Maple]

24. Why not?

BushCo isn't liked. Clinton is.

[stavka]

25. Power!

That is way too much power for one country to hold...

[Maple]

26. Well as Sect'y General..you aren't American

you are a 'citizen of the world,' and acting on behalf of all citizens of the world.

At some point you know, he might have to oppose something the US is doing. Annan had to. The only question is...could Clinton?

[stavka]

27. ...but Clinton will never be Sec Gen of the UN....

Nore will any other American, or Brit, or Russian, or Red Chinese or Frenchmen...so I miss your point.

[Maple]

28. Again I ask...why not?

There is no reason to disallow any of them that I can discover...

PS...and there are no more 'red Chinese' and the French have the same genders as everyone else.

[stavka]

30. Call China what you will....

It is a totalitarian Nation that will never allow another Security Council Member State to stand for election...

I'm not going to speak more about France

PS - Don't forget about Poland.

[Maple]

34. Nothing to do with what I call it

it has to do with reality...they aren't 'red Chinese'

And you have no source for them refusing an American for Sect'y General.

[stavka]

36. That's almost science fiction....

No- I have no source that says THE PEOPLE'S REBULIC OF CHINA would catagorically not allow a vote for a citizen of the United States of America to be the Secretary General of the United Nations...

I'm shaky on their break from Moscow, their nuclear weapons program, and their invasion of Vietnam over Cambodia too...

[Maple]

37. Whaaaat?

You follow any world news at all??

Businessmen are welcomed in the party. There are billionaires in China.

Yes, it's a dictatorship. No it is no longer communist.

Don't get so hung up on words...or history.

They have maglev trains from Germany, they are the worlds factory, you do billions in business with them, they are the next big power...and you still have no knowledge about how they'd feel about Clinton as sect'y general.

As far as I can recall, Clinton had good relations with the Chinese.

[No2W2004]

12. the first (acting) secretary general

was from the UK

The position of UN Secretary-General is supposed to rotate by geographic region, but that rule is often broken. Since Annan has had two terms, the next one will probably come from Asia.

There has not been a Secretary General from North America, or Oceania.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/United_Nations_Secretary-General

EDIT: So to answer the question, yes Clinton is eligible to be Sec. General, and no, it probably won't happen.

Jimmy Carter on the other hand.......

[stavka]

21. Key word - "Acting" - this was a VERY provisional appointment

[Barney Rocks]

16. I will probably get pounded--

but I am against Clinton doing this. Now I do love him--and I think he would do a great job. BUT the US tries to dominate everything.
I think the many many smaller countries in the world love the idea of the UN because it gives so many countries an equal voice. I don't want it to seem like the US is taking over the UN.

[charlie]

19. That's why I don't think it could happen

I doubt any country wants to see a SC member also have the staff of the Secretariat under its control.

[Maple]

22. Dunno...think it could depend on the person here

Clinton was never a 'take over the world' type...and he certainly has the network connections...the only other way you'll have a North American Sect'y Gen is a former PM of Canada, or President of Mexico...or at least a very well known and qualified citizen of those 3 countries.

Clinton isn't multilingual, it's more administrative than the power he was used to...but Clinton is a young man...where else can he go?

And he is personally popular...maybe in the other security council countries? At least enough to be backed.

And I can't find anything in the rules that would disqualify him.

Other S-Gens have been relative unknowns...maybe his name would carry him.

[stavka]

33. On the Global level NOBODY speaks solely for themselves

[sangh0]

29. Why do you bring this up twice?

Rumors of important jobs for Hillary Clinton is a regular feature of republican fundraising letters.

[Maple]

31. This isn't about Hillary

It's about Bill Clinton

[sangh0]

32. Big difference

.

[Maple]

35. Most of us can tell

Bill and Hillary apart

[Walt Starr]

38. Under the U.N. Charter, he can be

Longstanding tradition is that no person from a permanent member of the Security Council is chosen, but that's just tradition. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen and Clinton is beloved in the world.

He probably will be chosen, but only under a Kerry administration would it happen. There is no way they would choose Clinton if Bush was re-selected.

[Maple]

39. Exactly

There is nothing preventing him from being appointed that I can find. So-called 'tradition' means nada.

I doubt he is 'beloved' anywhere other than the Democratic party, but he is a 'name', and he has a network.

I don't know that Kerry would be keen on it either...but Bush certainly would NOT be.