Can Blair Really be Eyeing UN's Top Job? (UK-Independent)

[Gloria]

Jeebus, how much more of this crap can we take???????

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article620247.ece


At last, an exit strategy for the PM: can he really be eyeing UN's top job?
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 27 May 2006

Call it the ultimate exit strategy. A $400,000 (£215,000) salary plus expenses, a rent-free townhouse on Manhattan's East river instead of a mortgage in Bayswater, and freedom from those troublesome backbenchers. Add world travel and loads of goody bags for Cherie, and Tony Blair could well be tempted by the job of UN secretary general, which just happens to fall vacant at the end of this year.

Sounds far-fetched? It is, because Britain is one of the five veto-holding powers on the UN Security Council. Nobody from the five big powers has ever been head of the UN, whose secretary general has always hailed from a biddable small state so that he or she won't get ideas above their station.

And the big five are the ones who actually pick their servant, the secretary general, even though the full 15-member Security Council takes the decisive vote. Naturally, the five permanent members want the ideal candidate to be more secretary than general.

So why did the speech that Mr Blair delivered in Georgetown yesterday read like a job application? He sounded so convincing in his advocacy of UN reform that he has already been forced to deny to reporters that he would like to take over from the Ghanaian UN chief, Kofi Annan. Mr Blair's friend, Bill Clinton - whose name has also been jokingly linked to the top UN job - has said the Prime Minister would make a "good" secretary general.


MORE

[leesa]

1. Funny. I'm sure the UN would like to have this war criminal at the helm.

Blair belongs in jail.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. What a combo: Blair as Secretary General & Bolton as U.S. ambassador.

The take-over would be complete.