There's a lot of discussion going around about who should take over as Secretary General of the United Nations if Kofi Annan should resign or be forced out. Captain Ed
over at Captain's Quarters
makes the case for Bill Clinton.
What would George Bush get for backing Clinton? First, he'd get Clinton out of his hair at a minimal cost. Second, he could then claim a spirit of bipartisanship by reaching out to one of his bitter political rivals. And while Clinton wouldn't bend over backwards for Bush by any means, Clinton did offer defenses of the American strategy in the war on terror while the rest of his party did the Pied Piper routine behind International ANSWER and MoveOn. That defense in the UN could disarm some diplomatic tension over American strategies.
I would second his nomination of Bill Clinton. Not only for the reasons mentioned above, but Clinton really does have a knack for unifying people. While he wasn't that great at stemming the growing terrorism, he surely had a good opinion with most leaders and nations -- possibly because of his innaction and pressure on them, but that's beside the point.
Irreconcilable Musings has this to add.
There's an additional benefit that Ed doesn't talk about, but is just as valuable. Making Bill Clinton the face of the UN makes it much easier for those warning about ceding any sovereignty to the UN to galvanize support amongst their adherents and take their case to a much larger audience. It's too easy to dismiss UN critics as "isolationist black-helicopter conspiracy theorists". But with Clinton as Secretary-General, given his record (supporting HillaryCare, Kyoto, etc), it forces the sovereignty-grabbing nature of the UN into the spotlight.
There are some that see Clinton being in there would inevitably end up creating a worse scandal than the oil for food fiasco and put a final nail in the coffin of the UN. OKIE on the LAM
has this to say.
It’s hard to imagine something more damaging that the Oil for Food debacle, but the inevitable scandals in a Clinton led U.N. could finally be the last straw for that pathetic institution!
That seems a little harsh. Clinton is an egomaniac and is really worried about his legacy. I doubt seriously if he would risk there being a major scandal under his watch. He would have massive amounts of eyes on him after this oil for food thing and with the current Bush adminstration in control.
Others commenting on this
Hyscience -- a blog that is quickly moving into my favorite websites list -- really puts things in perspective with a personal story while CEO of a biotech company.
robby at Abstract Musings has his own pick, which aligns with Glenn Reynolds
Malnurtured Snay comments on the Clintons.
"While he wasn't that great at stemming the growing terrorism, he surely had a good opinion with most leaders and nations -- possibly because of his innaction and pressure on them, but that's beside the point."
We have found out just how inactive Clinton was against terrorism. A seldom known fact though is Clinton sent our soldiers to more places overseas than any president in the past 50 years. The problem though is whether or not Clinton has awoken to the threat of terrorism and would act in the best interests of the world rather than himself.
This is one of my major concerns. Sure, Clinton would do better than Anan, however who wouldn't? As far as scandals, Cliton has always been around scandals. Again though, would he be able to act in the best interest of the world rather than himself?
Posted by: Chad Evans on December 7, 2004 10:46 PM