Despair at UN over selection of 'faceless' Ban Ki-moon

[cal04]

Despair at UN over selection of 'faceless' Ban Ki-moon as general secretary
· Officials 'glum' over choice to succeed Kofi Annan
· Staff believe US pushed for weakest candidate

Senior officials at the United Nations expressed despair yesterday at the prospect of Kofi Annan being succeeded as secretary general by Ban Ki-moon, the South Korean foreign minister.

"The mood among staff is glum," one of the officials said. "We are not very excited about the outcome." With morale low at the UN after five years dominated by divisions, deadlock and corruption, they are sceptical about Mr Ban's ability to turn the organisation round or provide the strong, inspirational leadership they had been hoping for.

(snip)
Although Mr Ban was supported by Britain and France in the straw poll, they did so reluctantly, according to one UN insider. In private both countries wanted the selection process to run for another month or so in the hope that a more impressive candidate might come forward. In the end, they concluded it was not feasible to hold out against the enthusiastic backing of the US, China and Russia.

(snip)
UN officials are convinced that the Bush administration, ideologically hostile to the UN and still smarting from Mr Annan's opposition to the Iraq war, wanted the weakest candidate possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,1889800,00.html

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Although I have no clue about the Korean surname structure...

Is ban Ki Moon any relation to Sun Myung Moon?:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Funny, that seems to get asked a lot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2548699&mesg_id=2548846

No, no relation.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Thank you - as I said, I wasn't sure about Korean surnames...

:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

4. Here's a discussion of Ban Ki-Moon in the context of No. Korea's nuke

ambitions. Sounds like Mr. Ban might be just the right kind of diplomat to resolve that situation peacefully. This is a good article by Donald Kirk (10/5/06). There are also sidebar articles of interest on No. Korean nukes.

North Korea calls the shots
http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ05Dg02.html

---------------------------

Here's a blistering article on Kofie Anan's tenure and legacy. The writer (Alexander Casella) has too much of an agenda (anti-Anan) for my taste. He damns him utterly--and sounds almost Ann Coulterish in doing so. He seems to condemn Kofi Anan for having a health breakdown over the US invasion of Iraq--something that clearly crushed Anan's hopes of being a peacemaker--as it crushed the hopes of so many of us that a US regime would never do such a dreadful thing. I can't tell if Casella is just bitterly disappointed that Anan couldn't do something to stop it, or is a sneering Bushite with contempt for weakness, sorrow and peaceful ways, and supported the invasion. Asia Times usually is more informatative, and more even-handed and thoughtful than this. It mentions Mr. Ban in passing. But just for ref, here it is:

"UN mess is Ban Ki-moon's challenge"
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HJ06Aa01.html

-----------------------

I'm wondering about this Reuters title and the slant of the article. "DESPAIR at UN over FACELESS Ki-moon..." I don't trust it. Too much unattributed "insider" talk. Is this a story? Or something cooked up by the reporter? Why dis a peacemaker and a diplomatic sort of man--who seems to have done good keeping North/South Korea at peace for many years--before he's had a chance to do anything, or even say anything? (Note: The So. Koreans and Mr. Ban are very much against the Bushites' confrontational approach to No. Korea.)