One pundit, Alykhan Velshi calls Ban “a crook”. Velshi works at the same think tank as Claudia Rosset, a reporter who has attacked the UN over the Oil for Food “scandal”.

Another says that Ban will be more “general than secretary” and claims that Ban will put little work in to address corruption.

Regardless of the merits of the allegations against Ban, the allegations themselves will create a ready excuse for US conservatives to attack the UN.

“Naturally, one is disappointed that the international community did not recognise my experience and qualifications, which were readily conceded by everybody,” Dhanapala told the Sunday Island, on his return to Sri Lanka. “It seems to me that decisions (at the Security Council) are more politics-based than merit-based… and I think analysing the politics of it must wait a while.”

“I am content that we conducted a very professional, dignified, ethics-based and low-budget campaign focusing on my merits as a candidate,” he added. “A withdrawal at this stage was the right thing to do at the right moment in the interest of securing a consensus around an Asian candidate, which has been our principled position from the beginning.”

Is that a point of contrast?

Sri Lankan press is reporting that Dhanapala and Sri Lanka are throwing support behind Ban.

AP is reporting that Japan will endorse at an upcoming event.  The Japanese Foreign Minister has been quoted as saying:

Assuming a summit meeting can be arranged, (Japan’s endorsement) would be offered at that point.

The only question at this point is who the sole discourage vote was on Thursday’s straw poll and whether more will occur as a consequence of allegations of corruption or improprieties in the way that Ban has fought the campaign.  Speculation is that the UK was responsible for the “discourage” as a delaying tactic. There is a chance that the news stories may solidify that, further encouraging more candidates, which has been the standard line of the UK and the US.

Tomorrow will be quite interesting.

Following the results of the third ‘straw poll’ in the election of the Secretary-General conducted by the members of the Security Council on Thursday 28 September 2006, the Government of Sri Lanka – with the total agreement of its candidate – has now decided not to further pursue the candidature of Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala in the interest of ensuring a consensus in electing an Asian candidate.

• Increase in total aid by a substantial amount in the years immediately preceding Ban’s candidacy.
• Undisclosed amount of money to Ghana. (here and here)
• Meeting with Congo-Brazzaville. Although we have been told that Congo refused money.
• Tanzania. (Now) Widely reported on. $18m in aid.
• Ban to Slovakia. He promised support. Recent news reports indicate that a Korean firm invested massively there.
• Uzbekistan.  $30m in ICT.

Other people have reported:

• A maritime agreement with Greece.
• A piano for Peru.

We have heard of others but have no documentation. We do not want to make suggestions about the integrity of heads of state without at least documentary evidence.

We have said that this is an extremely important issue and deserves a higher level of scrutiny. Now a mainstream newspaper has documented the charges. The basic framing is:

Mr Ban announced his bid in February and has since been criss-crossing the globe trying to win support. A month later South Korea announced that it would treble its aid budget to Africa to $100 million (£53 million) by 2008. Seoul then contributed tens of thousands of pounds to sponsor this year’s African Union summit in the Gambia in July, when Mr Ban declared 2006 to be “the Year of Africa” for South Korea.

Then the article discusses Tanzania. This is one of the clearest cases that we have discussed:

One fortunate recipient was Tanzania, which currently has a seat on the Security Council. When Mr Ban arrived in May he pledged $18 million for an educational programme and also promised to carry out a road and bridge project in western Tanzania. Between 1991 and 2003 South Korean grants to Tanzania totalled $4.7 million. Seoul’s generosity seems to have worked. Yesterday Elly Matango, the Tanzanian Ambassador to Tokyo and Seoul, said that his Government had decided to support Mr Ban

Next stop Greece:

This month President Roh and Mr Ban headed the most senior South Korean delegation since 1961 to visit Greece, another Security Council member. Overseen by hundreds of South Korean businessmen, the countries signed agreements on trade, tourism and maritime transport.

It is about time that the media gives this race proper scrutiny. We believe that more examples are out there and need to be properly discussed and identified. In many countries, this kind of behavior would disqualify a candidate for public office and open them to criminal prosecution. We have trouble seeing how a candidate that acts like this has any credibility leading the UN.

This is important because it provides the US and UK a reason to veto Ban while also undermining the credibility of the UN. Conservatives in the US especially will use this as another reason to distrust the UN.

• Ban did lose one encouragement to a “no opinion”. We assume that this is either the US or the UK, given their current statements.
• Shashi Tharoor lost two encouragements to “no opinion”. Who is softening.
• The Latvian did well. We can assume that her support is the 5 Europeans and the US. One more could include Japan. This is a strong performance but completely explicable. Indeed, the real question for her is how to increase her support. We do not believe it is possible without a fundamental restructuring of the race. In any case, what is she after?
• Zeid, Surakiart Sathirathai, and Dhanapala have failed as candidates. They should get out and stop wasting their countries’ time and money. Sathirathai or Dhanapala exits might open the possibility of other entrances.
• It is too early to tell about Ghani, but we have trouble imagining him go anywhere.

The real questions to be answered at this point are:

1. Can Ban be stopped? There are two scenarios where he would not be selected. Ultimately, they both probably must occur.
   • A better candidate emerges. A new ASEAN candidate could introduce this scenario.
   • A fault emerges that gives the US and UK (probably need both) to sustain the diplomatic pressure associated with vetoes. We believe that evidence of vote buying could, under some circumstances, be this issue.
2. What is Shashi Tharoor trying to get out of this? We have recently heard the theory that he is really running for Foreign Minister of India, where the UNSG race is a gambit to increase Indian leverage for a UNSC permanent seat. In essence, they would stop pushing Tharoor to in exchange for Chinese (and Russian?) commitments to support India’s seat.
3. What is the Latvian trying to get out of this? We do not have a theory for this yet.

We look forward to seeing how this evolves.

That warning of the dangers of answered prayers applies particularly to President Bush and his support for Ban Ki Moon, South Korea’s reliably stolid foreign minister, in the highly competitive race to succeed Kofi Annan at year’s end. Bush — pilloried by Third World radicals at last week’s General Assembly opening — may be picking up a lightning rod instead of a shield.

Hoagland reports that the US has committed, at some point, to withdraw its support for Shashi Tharoor:

A shift to voting only for Ban — a move that Bush indicated he would make to South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun at a White House meeting this month — would probably doom the hopes of Tharoor and the other candidates.

Hoagland also mentions our concerns about foreign aid:

South Korea’s generosity in foreign aid and investment decisions may work in Ban’s favor with some nations, it is said in diplomatic understatement in the corridors of the United Nations.

This article suggests that the deal is done. The UK could not sustain a veto unless there was a substantially better candidate.

Korea spent 0.06 per cent of its Gross National Income (GNI) in development assistance in 2004, which some say is too small for the size of its economy, the 12th largest in the world.

Although South Korea’s spending in development assistance rose to 0.09 percent of GNI last year, it is still far from the United Nations recommendation of 0.7 per cent of the economy.

After Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon announced his run for the UN secretary-general’s position, it was pointed out that Korea should raise its development spending to improve its voice in the global community.

So a country has advanced their foreign minister to be UNSG and yet they barely participate in one of the most important parts of the UN agenda, development. And then the year before running for UNSG, they increase their aid by about 50%.

Now in March, South Korea announced that they were increasing aid to Africa by $100m:

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun announced during his trip to Nigeria in March that his country will triple its Official Development Assistance budget for Africa to approximately US$100 million by 2008.

So what countries will receive this money? We know some. $18m was promised to Tanzania, a UNSC member. We know that more was promised to Ghana, another UNSC member. We have heard that substantial aid has been offered to other countries, but we have not been able to document this.

Note that this is not unheard of. A recent study out of Harvard University found that, “on average, a non-permanent member of the council enjoys a 59- per-cent increase in total aid from the United States and an 8-per- cent increase in total development aid from the United Nations.”

It would be interesting to know the country-by-country breakdown of recent increases in South Korean development assistance.

Update: The Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for National Security have been arrested. There is an excellent blog with details here.

Ashraf Ghani, the former Afghan finance minister, is expected to make a late entry into the race to succeed Kofi Annan as secretary-general of the United Nations, taking the number of formally declared candidates to seven.

Mr Ghani, 57, will declare his candidacy this afternoon in a meeting with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, who is visiting the US.

“I hope to win, through ideas,” Mr Ghani told the Financial Times in New York. “In the public debate so far, I have yet to see a clear articulation of vision, an analysis of the central issues and a programme for change.”

We have heard Ghani speak. He has the ideas. He is all management expertise and ideas and little politics. Indeed, FT quotes one of his acquaintences on this point:

“Ashraf wants to reform the whole international aid system and has some fantastic ideas,” said an acquaintance. “But given that he blows up at even his closest friends, I can’t see him as the world’s leading peace-maker.”

As Karzai’s Finance Minister, he did a number of tremendous things, but we wonder if his record is too “neo-liberal”. Indeed, FT quotes Hernando de Soto, a favorite economist of the right:

“The UN would be very lucky indeed to get him,” said Hernando de Soto, economist and founder of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Lima.

“There is not a consensus Asian candidate right now and I don’t see signs of one emerging, honestly, right now. There are five Asian candidates and they all enjoy some support, so we don’t expect a consensus.

But if there’s an Asian candidate who’s the strongest candidate and meets our criteria, then we are obviously prepared to support that person.”

Silverberg is responsible for vetting UNSG candidates. She also rejected the rotation as necessary. She continued:

The UN isn’t a talk-shop anymore. It’s not just a political organisation in New York. It’s an organisation that has more than 70,000 peacekeepers deployed. It has development and humanitarian programmes all over the world.

So we want somebody who’s going to be a good manager and committed to continued reform of the United Nations. We also want somebody who’s going to share our values – the importance of promoting democracy around the world and a commitment to human rights.

Obviously, this can be seen as boosting the candidacy of Vīķe-Freiberga. However given the Chinese insistence — and the widespread support — of the rotation, this may be instead threatening a veto of Ban. And, again, inviting more candidates into the race.

We would like to make some observations:

1. Ban Ki-moon clearly advanced. Unless his “discourage” is from a P5 member, he is the next Secretary General.
2. Shashi Tharoor has made no progress since the last straw poll. He has moved one member state from “undecided” to “discourage”.
3. Sathirathai has made real progress, however, he has not caught up with either of the frontrunners.
4. Dhanapala has lost ground.

The President of the Security Council has made the consequences clear:

For the Sri Lankan it’s not worth it to continue and the others have too many discouragements in order to go ahead. I believe that whoever is coming in now, it’s too late.

He thinks it is over. And he probably thinks that Ban is the winner.

It is time for the candidates to listen to the straw poll. Shashi Tharoor and Sathirathai have a legitimate claim to stay in, although it seems clear from the Greek’s statement that they will not win. But Dhanapala needs to take the advice of the President of the Security Council and remove himself from this competition.

One of the things that has been striking to us throughout this race is the level of national pride and identity associated with the candidates in this race. The South Korean, Indian, and Sri Lankan press, especially, has fallen in love with the candidates. And, to a substantial extent, their publics have also. The low esteem that the Thai government is in with both its public and its media explains Sathirathai’s support.

Unfortunately, this close identification with candidates has resulted in publics’ mood following the fortunes of the candidates. For Dhanapala and the Sri Lankans, this is quite serious. The country is at a very serious point, with the peace process — Dhanapala’s peace process — collapsing. The mood of Sri Lankans that we encounter has been deeply impacted by this.

Furthermore, it is important for the publics to realize that this is not an indictment of their countries. If Shashi Tharoor loses, as it seems he will, this is not an indictment of India. Indeed, the question of whether Singh’s nomination of Tharoor is a blunder will likely be revisited. For the Sri Lankans, they need to understand that Dhanapala’s failings are not their own. They nominated an old man who did not impress people. This is not a statement about Sri Lanka.

It is announced today, 6th September 2006, that Niranjan Deva-Aditya has become an official candidate to succeed Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of the United Nations when he retires at the end of this year. Ambassador Deva-Aditya was nominated by the Republic of Fiji.

It includes excerpts from the letter itself:

I am writing to request you to add the name of Niranjan Deva-Aditya, Ambassador-at-Large of Sri Lanka to your list of Candidates. Ambassador Deva is a unique Candidate – a Sri Lankan citizen with family, roots, and businesses in Sri Lanka – he has become a global personality, making a significant contribution to global politics, aid and development at the multilateral level.“

Regarding Dhanapala, a fellow Sri Lankan, Deva says:

Although I am an Asian and a Sri Lankan citizen, I do not seek to be a Sri Lankan nominee, as Sri Lanka fielded an excellent candidate as long ago as December 4th 2004.

Note that Deva claims to have more support and he has recently been to China.

Who else is out there? Annan has been talking about a female successor again.

Immediate consequences:

Dhanapala’s candidacy is even more impossible. To do this, Deva has to have evidence that there has been a collapse of Dhanapala’s support. He already has some support inside his own country.

Three South Asian Candidates. Why? And why have two more candidates entered? What do they know about Ban Ki-moon’s support and Shashi Tharoor’s support that others do not know?

“We believe there is considerable scope to be given by the Security Council and the General Assembly to a Muslim candidate who is familiar with the UN but not of the UN,” Zeid told The Associated Press.

He said considering a Muslim candidate was especially important in light of recent events, which include the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict, an upsurge in Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, and Iran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

Note, not much word of “North versus South” here. We still don’t have the announcement and there is nothing on the Foreign Ministry’s website.
What are the implications? Surely the US has expressed dissatisfaction with the field of candidates and support for Zeid in particular. But can a candidate openly supported by the US and royalty go far?

More details soon.

Two key African countries Uganda and Kenya have expressed their support to India’s claim for permanent membership of UN Security Council and Shashi Tharoor’s candidature for the post of UN Secretary General.

The support was conveyed to Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs Vayalar Ravi during his visit to these countries which concluded yesterday.

Recently, Ravi has committed India’s support for Uganda’s hydro-electrical sector. It appears that he has also asked both of these countries to help get support from other African Union countries.

Note that last week, there was quite a lot of activity involving Ghana.

My attention has been drawn to this comment. I’d like to clarify to anyone who shares these concerns that my attempts to promote my candidacy are on my own time, using my earned leave accumulated over many years, and including no use whatsoever of the UN’s time or resources. I would have much preferred not to have to campaign, but the campaigns of other contenders left me no choice.

I trust my response reaffirms my commitment to transparency.

“We concluded that, realistically, it would be difficult to win two of the most important elections in the United Nations at the same time,” said a foreign ministry official.

“We informed the UN member states of the decision on Aug. 29,” said the official, adding that South Korea will resume its campaign for membership of the council “as early as possible.”

A sign of confidence in Ban Ki-moon’s candidacy?

A special envoy of the President of South Korea was in Ghana today to deliver a message about the UNSG race:

According to a Ghanaian news agency the content of the message was not disclosed but was believed to be bordering around South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Ban Ki- Moon’s campaign bid to head the United Nations.

At the same time, Sathirathai was meeting with the VP of Ghana in Bangkok:

He used his one-and-half-hour meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Surakiart Sathirathai in Bangkok to explain why the two developing countries should share expertise in cassava and fish production with emphasis on tuna in Ghana for the economic advantage of the two countries.

What is all the excitement about? Does Ghana want their money?

Mittal plans to use his goodwill among policymakers of at least 17 countries across Africa and Europe, particularly eastern Europe, to drum up support for Tharoor. He also wants to be Tharoor’s bridge to 10, Downing Street, and through it, hopefully, the White House.

This also suggests that Shashi is still having trouble with 2 P5 members.

Apparently Mittal has helped the Indian government in Central Asia to get some oil contracts. The article also says that Shashi has been traveling in Latin America:

Last week, the writer-diplomat called up Deora from South America. Deora, in turn, reiterated Mittal’s support for him.

1. Making Democracy a Priority. This includes Human Rights, democracy, and good governance.
2. Bolster the Ranks. That is to say, increase the “operational capacity” with more money and more staff.
3. Prioritize and Streamline. This is simply focus on its competitive advantages.
4. Heal wounds. Don’t let the East-West divide be replaced by a North-South one.

We are struck that “reform” and similar issues are viewed as cross-cutting categories, a refreshing change from other presentations. He says this nicely, repeating one of his campaign slogans:

We need reform not because the United Nations has failed, but because it has succeeded enough over the years to be worth investing in. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” The United Nations, where I have worked for the last 28 years, is no exception. If we want to change the world, we must change too.

He concludes with a similar point, also quoting one of his stump slogans:

As our great second secretary-general, Dag Hammarskjold, put it, the United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell. That it has, so far, but not all the time and not everywhere. We can do better. Indeed, at this time of turbulence and transformation, we must.

We are struck by the degree to which this is not pandering to US or other interests. It sounds like it merely wants to make the UN a more functional version of what it is. This more modest goal strikes us as more realistic.

To make a comment about the race, we believe that this is the kind of discussion that the UN needs right now and that the campaigns need to be engaging in. This clearly distinguishes Surakiart Sathirathai’s human rights problems and Jayantha Dhanapala’s struggle to assert a basis for his own candidacy by demanding that he is the only Sri Lankan candidate (can he say anything else other than “I’m not dropping out?”, but we suppose that is necessary when parties in your own government are undermining your campaign)

Argentina understands Thailand’s position on human rights and has no problem with Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai becoming UN secretary-general, said an aide for Mr Surakiart. Sorajak Kasemsuwan said yesterday that Mr Surakiart had met with Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana, who, he said, had expressed understanding for the human rights situation in Thailand.

We wonder if the Argentinian Foreign Ministry has a statement?

In response to this news story, AHRC issued a statement. Excerpts:

The reason is that like Thailand, Argentina has had a long and terrible history of forced disappearances, killing, torture and other gross abuses of human rights, of which the foreign minister was himself a victim. But unlike Thailand, Argentina has passed through the period of worst abuses and is now working to give redress to the victims and belatedly prosecute alleged perpetrators. While there is still much for the country to do, when compared to anywhere in Asia it is far advanced in addressing and accounting for human rights violations.

…

Human rights begin at home. Anybody holding a high government office that has done nothing to address rampant injustices and abuses in his own country cannot seriously be expected to do the same for anyone else. Anybody holding a high government office who responds to legitimate and studied criticism with evasion and denial cannot seriously be expected to consider and address the causes for that criticism. The Asian Human Rights Commission is sad to say that the deputy prime minister of Thailand has still done nothing to answer the question, “What are your qualifications to be UN secretary general?”

Q.: Moving onto a different matter, you may be knowing that Niranjan Deva-Aditya who is a member of the European Parliament is presenting himself as a contender for the UN Secretary General post after the failure of Jayantha Dhanapala to secure the necessary support of the Security Council. It is learnt that the JHU had earlier presented Deva-Aditya honours. Would you like the government to nominate him now?

A: The thing is Jayantha Dhanapala had come last in the Security Council vote. Also his age is against him as well. Niranjan Deva-Aditya has a better chance of going through. Niranjan Deva-Aditya is a good patriot and if the necessity arises the government should support him.

Like Sathirathai, the domestic press has totally lost support for Dhanapala. And now a leading coalition party is pushing Deva. Note Deva is a Catholic, not a Buddhist. Fireworks!

In Shashi’s SAJA Forum Skypecast (covered by UNSG here), he predicted that candidates (plural almost certainly meaning Dhanapala and Sathirathai) would drop out after the September straw polls. He predicted that other candidates wouldn’t have the support to enter. However, Deva has claimed to have the support of other countries.

1. The public criteria for nomination.
2. The open (and notorious?) campaigning across the world. (We have highlighted the trips and actions of Surakiart Sathirathai and Ban Ki-moon in particular. Details here)
3. Discussion in public fora and private conversations.
4. An informal, but perhaps solid, timetable.

As the world considers over the next several months how this will continue, we encourage NGOs and the academic community, especially in NYC, to consider these questions.

• UNSG and Steve Hirsch have recently expressed dismay at press coverage of this momentus event.
• The Blog of the World Federation of UN Associations has expressed dismay at the level of transparency.
• Many others have expressed similar thoughts.

We agree. Fortunately three NGOs have stood up to demand more information. Recently the attacks on Surakiart Sathirathai for his human rights record by the Asian Human Rights Commission (we covered it here, here, here, and here).

Similarly, the Security Council Report has used their insider information to provide analyses of UNSC actions.

But today, a new level has been reached. The Asian Tribune reports that Jayantha Dhanapala and Shashi Tharoor have answered a questionnaire by an NGO, UNSGSelection.org. We urge them to continue their coverage of the race and, indeed, oversite of the UNSC’s process. We look forward to more, much more, of this.

The Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) called on the Argentine Foreign Minister, Jorge Taiana, to raise the issue following the South American nation’s jailing this month of police officers for forced disappearances there.

In an open letter to Taiana, AHRC urged the Argentine government to seek commitments from Surakiart – who is visiting the country to seek support for his bid to become United Nations secretary-general – that Thailand would end abductions and killings by police and soldiers, particularly in the restive southern border provinces.

In addition to the campaign aspect of this, we do believe that this is the first time that an NGO has openly campaigned against a candidate for UNSG. This marks an important change in UN politics. As a sidenote, we wonder if other NGOs and NGO groups (like UNSGSelection.org) will take such a high profile on other issues.

received Asian, Pacific, Caribbean and European assistance to nominate him as the UN Secretary General post.

Speaking to media Mr.Deva Adithya declined to disclose countries, which backed to him, but assured to disclose all details in an International press conference, which is to be held shortly in UK or EU‘s …
“However I have not forwarded my nomination papers in yet. I have direct links with 103 countries, which come under the UN flag. On a daily basis I deal with them.”

Deva also reported, “I have special connection with the Chinese government.” This is probably a reference to his recent trip to China.

Note that this was done in Sri Lanka. It is clear that his entrance is dependent on Dhanapala’s backing out, and it may be that his public statements hurt Dhanapala. As we have pointed out, this is also Goh’s strategy to a viable candidacy.

Just last week, Deputy PM Surakiart Sathirathai, the Thai candidate for UN secretary-general, was telling the world how he would push for Suu Kyi’s release and political reforms in that oppressed nation were he elected. If it served no other purpose, Thaksin’s visit at least put the final nail in Surakiart’s coffin as far as his bid for the UN’s top job is concerned.

We have written on the Myanmar situation here and here. Ever since the straw poll, the English-language Thai press has been very harsh on Thaksin.

So, Sathirathai has announced that he will push for democracy in Myanmar if elected.  

“We know it is important that democracy must take place in Myanmar (Burma) as soon as possible and Aung San Suu Kyi should be released as soon as possible,” he added.

Of course, this comes in the context of concrete attacks by AHRC — who had previously attacked Sathirathai for his record on human rights inside Thailand –, this time on Myanmar:

Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Friday said Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand’s candidate to be the next United Nations secretary general, could not be expected to do anything towards democracy or human rights in Burma.

In a statement issued Friday, the regional rights group said that Surakiart “had done nothing to advance political and social change in Burma, either as deputy prime minister or foreign minister”.

It described the Thai government’s relations with Burma as  “negligent” and business-oriented, the AHRC said that although Surakiart had had five years in which influence Burma’s military regime, he had “never taken advantage” of his position.

Indeed, in a trip to Myanmar last week, Thai PM Thaksin reported that he asked for her release. Of course, the purpose of his trip has been disputed. Thaksin said he went on ASEAN’s behalf. Stratfor says it was about illegal immigration. A number of Thai sources think that Thaksin went for his own personal business reasons (here, here, and here)

I am an ASEAN candidate, I am not a candidate of Thailand. Leaders of ASEAN have endorsed my candidature in December 2004 and the reason that ASEAN countries decided to put up a candidature early is because we believe in global good governance and transparency. As ASEAN candidate the politics of only one country in ASEAN has no bearing to the candidature as such.

This line seems like a response, contrast, and invocation of Shashi’s line about being an “Indian Secretary General” not “India’s Secretary General”. It is also reminiscent of Ban’s statement about his own candidacy, which we also found deeply disappointing.

It would also seem that he would have to be accountable for the problems of ASEAN. Indeed, the Malaysian press has argued that Sathirathai has suffered over his country’s relationship with Myanmar and ASEAN’s silence.

Sathirathai also discussed his position on reform:

The UN cannot do everything. UN can do something. Whatever the UN is going to do, the function of the UN has to be effective, accountable and transparent. The UN has to be the paragon of good governance so that it can be the place that people have faith in. In order to be that, the UN has to go through a serious management reform so that the work of the UN can be transparent and accountable.

As the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of a deeply, deeply corrupt government, how can he do this? He cannot possibly have any credibility on this issue. Silence from the interviewer.

In addition, the interview did not address recent Human Rights and competency criticisms (here and here) that have been layed at Sathirathai.

Channel News Asia reports that they will interview Dhanapala this week. We are looking forward to that.

During his two-day visit to Peru from Aug. 9, Ban will co-host a policy planning meeting with the country’s newly appointed Foreign Minister Garcia Belaunde to discuss trade, resources and other issues, ministry officials said. He will also meet new Peruvian President Alan Garcia.

Following Peru, Ban, who is running for the position of United Nations secretary-general, will visit Argentina, where he will meet with Vice President Daniel Scioli and Vice Foreign Minister Garcia Moritan to discuss diplomatic ties and promote his bid for the U.N. post, the officials said.

Peru, of course, has a new President. Alan Garcia was sworn in on the 28th, after the most recent straw poll. Therefore Peru’s support may be shifting. There is speculation that one country abstained from expressing any opinion. If it were Peru — and Dhanapala thinks that they abstained for him – then this would be an important vote for Ban to nail down.

Ban will also stop in on Japan, one of the two leading options for Ban’s “discouraging” vote. His trip to Japan will be to go to the Emperor’s funeral. It will be in the context of the continued disagreement over Dokdo Islets, which seems to emerge every time Ban’s campaign kicks into gear.

They said the five encouragements for Dr. Dhanapala were from China, Congo, Ghana, Qatar and Tanzania while those who gave a vote of discouragement were Argentina, Denmark, France, Greece, Slovakia and the UK — with Japan, Peru, Russia and US remaining neutral.

At the same time, there is speculation that the US voted “discouraging” against everyone.

Several other Sri Lankan articles have appeared that challenge the basis for his candidacy. Sri Lanka World reports that the straw poll was a “setback” and reported that:

Analysts said they believed Mr. Dhanapala`s age, a ripe 67 was two years past the UN retirement age and that probably was a reason for the disappointing result.

A South African paper has reported that:

Finally, Dhanapala’s chances were undermined by the fact that Sri Lanka’s new government is not enthusiastic about him.

Dhanapala says that the campaign will go on. We have trouble understanding this decision (along with the decision to republish an article indicating his vetoes). He got two vetoes. His government doesn’t like him. And even his domestic press seem to be turning on him.

His attempts to reach out to the US have been unsuccessful. His attempts at NAM appear to be unsuccessful. What does he want out of this at this point?

Cuba has indicated its support to the candidature of Shashi Tharoor, India’s candidate for the post of UN Secretary General, and affirmed backing to New Delhi’s bid for membership of the expanded Security Council.

With the clear support of Belarus and Cuba, Shashi is not running for the Human Rights vote….

This is also important because Cuba is the next President of NAM. But, especially if Bone is right that the US vetoed everyone in the first round, this could increase the difficulty for US support. And Belarus for European support.

On the human rights issue, our leading candidates seem like pigs in the mud…

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has since 2004 studied your candidacy to become the next Secretary-General of the United Nations with interest. To be honest, we are a bit perplexed. Try as we might, we have failed to identify the qualifications upon which you could be elected to the job.

As a Harvard law postgraduate we would have thought that you would understand how important it is to maintain principles for the rule of law and human rights in Thailand, and how these are supported by the international system, specifically the United Nations. However, looking at the record of your government since you served as Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2001 to 2005 and after that as Deputy Prime Minister (with special responsibility for foreign affairs), it is hard to find any evidence of this.

…

1. FAILED to ratify a key UN treaty against torture: The AHRC has been among other concerned groups and individuals who for some years have been saying that if Thailand’s human rights record is to improve it must join the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In fact, the ministry that you headed has the primary responsibility for this. But still, inexplicably, Thailand has not signed.

This point is particularly delicious in light of the Human Rights Committee’s report on the US. But we digress.

2. FAILED to implement any recommendations of a key UN body: The AHRC is not aware of any attempt to implement any of the key recommendations that the UN Human Rights Committee made to you in 2005 after your representatives in Geneva tried unsuccessfully to keep all kinds of gross abuses under the carpet.

…

3. FAILED to cooperate with UN special procedures: We are not aware of a single case of alleged torture, forced disappearance, extrajudicial killing or other gross abuse in Thailand before the UN working groups or special rapporteurs that your government has properly addressed. Furthermore, Thailand has deliberately snubbed the repeated requests of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions to visit the country, and has also failed to extend standing invitations to UN experts interested to do the same, for no known reason.

…

In short, we cannot understand how you can contemplate becoming UN Secretary General from a position as Deputy Prime Minister in a government that refuses to join key UN international treaties, fails to consider or implement the sound recommendations of UN international treaty bodies and keeps UN experts at a distance.

We also cannot understand how you can contemplate becoming UN Secretary General from a position as Deputy Prime Minister in a government that pursues a policy of extrajudicial killings and disappearances against parts of its own population, tacitly endorses the use of torture by its police, has been recognised globally as an enemy of free speech, fails to protect even its own officially-appointed human rights commissioners–let alone the thousands of environmentalists, community leaders, journalists and others with lives at risk in Thailand–and has caused untold damage to the rule of law.

“When the whole world is up in arms about the deaths of four UN observers in Khiyam, Lebanon, how can Thailand, an aspirant for UN leadership, be so conspicuously silent?” said Surin.

…

Surin said: “The entire world is up in arms about the issue, strikฌing at the heart of the UN’s peaceฌkeeping role, and we are keeping mum on the case. How could we, in good conscience, claim that we have the interests of the internaฌtional community at heart?”

…

“The Thaksin government is still at a loss … not for words, but of a sense of international responsibility.

Note that this is not the first time that Sathirathai (or his government or party) has been attacked by his former colleagues. They are suing a former Thai ambassador to the UN for calling Sathirathai unqualified. And recently, there was a criticism of Sathirathai, in particular, for his human rights record.

Other expert observers suggested that Council members may have been generous with Ban Ki Moon because he is a sitting Foreign Minister as well as with Shashi Tharoor because he is a senior UN official. This perhaps contributed to harsher treatment of the other two candidates. Diplomatic politeness and sense of protocol would not carry high-level candidates past veto votes, however

We have argued that both Ban and Shashi are deeply flawed candidates, and further discussions may yet reveal this. UNSGSelection also said:

The most recent note from the President of the Security Council, Ambassador de la Sablière of France, implied that multiple straw polls could take place (as happened in December 1996). A South Korean official yesterday indicated that the Council would meet again about SG selection only after the sixty-first session of the General Assembly begins in September.

They also mention that no one is obligated to drop out, however, Dhanapala is a bit of a special case. He got 6 “discouraging” votes. He could have, at most, 6 “no” votes. Why would his 4 “no opinion” votes be inclined to flow towards him? And that is assuming that none of the 6 are P5 members. His candidacy is  dead and he needs to stop wasting the time of the Sri Lankan government. Perhaps he can go back to the Peace Secretariat and start fixing the problems that he left in his own country to run for UNSG.

Is the race over? Ban Ki-moon got 12 “encouraging” votes and one discouraging. We don’t know if that one was from Japan (highly likely) or from a P5 country. If Japan, the game is essentially over. It is unlikely that we will find a candidate with more support.

Will candidates drop out and more enter? There is a distinct possibility, which Bolton raised in his press briefing:

the various candidates consider what the votes were compared with what
they received there may now be decisions either for additional
candidates to enter the race or for one or more candidates in the race
to drop out.

But who? Sathirathai and ASEAN have been quite vocal that he will stay in the race. There has been little activity from Dhanapala. Either one of them dropping out raises the possibility of new candidates emerging. Indeed, one Australian article has characterized this as “Goh’s chance”, if only Sathirathai were to leave the race. Later, a Thai paper, reporting from the ASEAN Ministerial, reported that “The Singaporean government had informed the five permanent members of the Security Council that former prime minister Goh Chok Tong would not run for the post”. And Dhanapala’s leaving might just result in a Deva candidacy. Not to mention the other array of candidates.

What happens next? Dhanapala will regroup or drop out. Sathirathai will “campaign harder”. Ban and Shashi really have their work cut out for them. Because of Ban’s success on the first ballot, Shashi will need to resolve any of his structural problems. It is certainly possible to have a 13-2 versus 13-2 deadlock or somesuch, requiring other candidates to emerge. Finally, new information could emerge. We still have strong concerns about Ban, which may yet come to the fore.

The Thai government is “immoral and dishonest” for promoting Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai as the next UN secretary-general while continuing to enforce emergency rule across the Muslim South, a leading human rights group said.

…

Surakiart’s bid “should be rejected by all countries with a genuine concern for human rights,” AHRC said in a statement.

Bill Fernandez, AHRC’s executive director, said it was “offensive” to promote a man who held key positions during a time when his government “consistently flouted international law and snubbed the best efforts of UN officials to improve human rights in its country.”

This is not the first time that Sathirathai has been attacked within his own country. His government is currently suing a former Ambassador to the UN for calling Sathirathai unqualified. There have been similar accusations about both Ban Ki-moon and the countries that support him. Our summary is here.

However, the good news for Sathirathai is that he has Pakistan’s endorsement!

The interesting questions are, of course:

First, will Deva get nominated? The press release posted on UNSG seems to suggest that they think it is a real possibility. There was also a recent article in the gossip section of a British magazine lists specific countries who support him. What to make of this? Of course, without a formal nomination, from Sri Lanka or another country, it is impossible for him to be a candidate.

Second, Mr. Fleming, over at UNSG argues that there is a “long shot” way for Deva to emerge as a candidate:

“Deva does have one (long) shot. If the straw polls to be taken this month reveal low support for Dhanapala, …”

This is, of course, also the Goh strategy vis-a-vis ASEAN. It goes like this:

1. The first straw poll happens. Sathirathai’s support is vanishingly small. (as our sources in New York indicate is the case)
2. ASEAN tries to push Sathirathai out and submits Goh’s name. If that fails, supporters in other countries do this anyways.
3. At this point, the debate is reconfigured and real compromise can take place.

For this to work for Deva, Dhanapala will have to fail on the first straw poll, which we fully expect. If Dhanapala is taken seriously a week from now, then Deva would have little basis for continuing.

The lesson here in these strategies is that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It is our analysis that the Goh-Deva strategy is viable and that none of the 4 currently nominated candidates will have job on Secretary General on January 1st. But we could be proven wrong next week when the first straw poll happens.

“We’re really looking in the Far East right now to be the Secretary-General,” Bush said, noting that tradition holds that secretaries general rotate by region.

He also indicated that the current candidates may not be sufficient: 

At another point, however, he said the United States “will work closely with friends and allies to come up with the best candidate.“

He also indicated that he would support a Muslim:

Bush said he would not oppose a candidate for secretary-general who is Muslim.

He was replying to a question about the possible candidacy of Jordan’s Prince Zeid al-Hussein, who is Muslim and his country’s U.N. ambasssador.

TODAY’S MOST significant global challenges, whether humanitarian or military, are being addressed by diverse ad hoc coalitions

…

As different coalitions address Iran’s nuclear program, ongoing violence in Afghanistan or Darfur, negotiations with North Korea, and the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, multilateralism has been reawakened and redefined.

This echos the “UN is more relevant than ever” that Shashi has been saying. However, he recasts it:

Kofi Annan’s successor will need the vision, experience, and flexibility to resist outdated models of diplomacy centered in New York or Geneva. It will take a courageous leader to recast the UN’s role as one that supports, rather than competes, with this new brand of multilateralism.

This is a clear attack at his other two announced opponents, who are both graduates of the UN system. It also appears to be an attempt to reach out to the US, whose “Coalitions of the Willing” have been much maligned. (it was a Clinton term, we might add)

A strong secretary general with this vision could ease the emergence of patchwork coalitions, helping NATO, the European Union, the African Union, various states, and nongovernmental actors find coordinated roles in a crisis like Darfur. Under such leadership, the UN could become a clearinghouse for influential ideas, instructive experiences, and diverse or even conflicting best practices.

These are new ideas. We assume that Sathirathai will tout his experience in a a multilateral institution — ASEAN! — as proof that he can do this. His experience is grounded in this fragmented world order. It is also clear how this is consistent with China’s positions, especially in an increasingly strengthened SCO.

We have long argued that Sathirathai has no chance (here, here, and here). And we still believe that insiders are not viable. That leaves other candidates. With Ban Ki-moon not in nomination, it is already clear that other candidates must emerge. Dervis, Deva, Goh? Lodhi doesn’t want it. Ramos-Horta just accepted a new job…

Very interesting.

First, the Council seems to have decided to proceed cautiously. Rather than setting out a fully defined set of guidelines, it seems to be leaving open the possibility of successive refinements of the process, as events unfold.

Secondly, the Council has established a clear requirement for nomination of candidates. Candidates will only be considered for inclusion in the “straw ballot” if the name of the candidate has been presented to the President of the Security Council by a Member State. (It is understood that at time of writing three of the four announced candidates have been so nominated)

Fourthly, at this stage the straw ballots will not differentiate between permanent members and elected members. Accordingly, the impact of the veto will remain veiled.

Fifthly, there is nothing in the note from the President of the Security Council which suggests that the field will be limited to the candidates whose names are in the first straw poll.  It seems that it will be possible for additional candidates to be nominated.  This is another matter which seems to be deliberately left open.

Several thoughts occur to us in response to this analysis. They are proceeding cautiously. This is not surprising because there is no guarantee that the current list of formally announced candidates contains someone who will garner the support of the UNSC.

We find it interesting that vetos will be hidden this time. Surely this is an attempt to emphasize equity in the process, at least initially? And surely the P5 are talking? The interesting question is what they do when they get 8 or 10 votes, which would be enough if there is no veto. When do they convert to a process that uses vetos?

Lastly, there are two things in the report that pick out particular candidates. First, Shashi, Dhanapala, and Sathirathai have all been officially nominated. Ban Ki-moon has not. Is he not running any more? If not, what happens to Egyptian support? Egypt is important in both the Arabic world and in Africa.

Second, this makes Deva’s nominations, so far, invalid. What will he do about that?

Ambassador Niranjan Deva-Aditya has been nominated by the former Prime Ministers of France and Poland as a candidate for UN Secretary-General.Michel Rocard and Jerzy Buzek have both written to the President of the UN Security Council requesting that Deva?s name be added to the list of candidates.

Formally, only member states are eligible to nominate candidates. Surely Deva knows this and is up to something innovative. Indeed, the creativity of his candidacy appears as a theme in the letters submitted by the two former PMs:

His life and achievements truly span East and West; North and South. The challenges faced by a globalised world require the next Secretary-General to be a 21st century personality, one who is a global citizen and well versed in multi-lateral relations, and who is above any particular national interest.

In this regard Mr. Deva-Aditya is unique, he is above all else a consensus builder as his life achievements show. As an Asian impacting upon the multi-lateral political environment worldwide, he is ideally placed to be the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

As we have indicated, this only makes sense if some country puts forth his name. Either a member state can submit a name formally, or a Security Council member can submit his name informally. Who will it be?

In recent months, Thai officials have said Mr. Surakiart had directed a foreign ministry official to approach Sri Lanka about withdrawing its candidate, Jayantha Dhanapala, from the race, and said Mr. Surakiart had offered Mr. Dhanapala any other job within the organization if he would step aside. 

Mr. Surakiart, who says he has the support of more than 100 nations, has vigorously denied the claims.

One is left to wonder who exactly is giving this to the Times. Both Dhanapala and Ban Ki-moon have tried to cozy up to US conservatives (Bolton?) by working with the Times. Surely it does not help Dhanapala to have rumors flying around about him dropping out.

Anwar said foreign ministers and leaders had asked him in the past three months whether he would vie for the hotly contested post, which is expected to go to an Asian diplomat.

A Malaysian candidacy would indicate the end of Sathirathai. Over the last several years, Malaysia has tried to position itself as a symbol of tolerate, moderate Islam and as a gateway to is the Islamic world for the United States. At the same time, Malaysia has been less close to China than Thailand, so a Malaysian might represent an attempt to have a more balanced approach from ASEAN.

We don’t know how to evaluate the seriousness of this. We suspect that it is not very high. However, it is clear that Shashi’s entrance has blown this race completely open. If Shashi weakens Sathirathai’s candidacy fatally, then ASEAN may be fishing for an alternative, the rationale for a Goh candidacy also.

We also note timing. Shashi is going to Gambia next week for the AU meeting. And Dhanapala was in Canada to meet with government officials there.

The article asks a series of interesting questions about the problems of an Indian candidacy, for example:

Further the Hindu – Muslims riots which have become an everyday feature in India in recent times will also not lend to Islamic countries supporting the Indian nominee. Then there is the unresolved Kashmir issue; a UN Observer Mission is stationed in Kashmir; what would Tharoor’s position be if a fifth war broke out between Pakistan and India over Kashmir?

But then the real viciousness begins. First that Sri Lanka’s pride was challenged by India’s non-endorsement:

When India did not declare its support for our candidate it was perceived here as another unfriendly act; I was under the impression that we not only shared history but also have common norms, shared values and interests and considering her frequent statements regarding the close relations that exist between our two countries, (”our two countries are inseparable, your territorial integrity and ours are one” etc) to have enthusiastically supported our eminent candidate as if he was their own candidate but now we realize that India had her own agenda and the close friendship they profess to is confined to mere words.

Then he goes on to suggest that Shashi should drop out and India should back Dhanapala:

If India wishes us and the world to accept her as an emerging super power and as the regional power then she should act like one

I do hope that India would test the waters and then gracefully withdraw her candidate if there is even the smallest possibility that he would not make it. She should save herself the embarrassment of rejection by the international community.India should then support Dhanapala as a consensus South Asian candidate or is this too much to expect?

Our sense is still that Dhanapala is a failed candidate, for reasons which we have described here. But interesting nonetheless. This campaign is really entering a new stage.

“While the expenditure cap is going to come off this week one way or another, it would not be right to conclude from that that we made substantial progress or any progress at all on management reform,” Bolton told reporters.

…

But “the question is whether Congress shares that perspective,” Bolton said. “The measure we think for Congress will be the extent of real reform. As of this point there is not much reform to talk about.”

The US House of Representatives will consider the bill in which UN funding is provided today and tomorrow. Today’s NY Sun reports similar statements:

“If asked, as I was before the Senate subcommittee last week, how much reform has taken place, I will answer honestly: not much,” Mr. Bolton said. He also discussed a hearing conducted under Mr. Coburn’s leadership about America’s share of the funds needed to refurbish the U.N. headquarters.

…

“Now there is pressure building again in Congress to withhold contributions,” Mr. Bolton said.

…

“While the expenditure cap is going to come off this week one way or the other,” Mr. Bolton said, “it will not be right to conclude from that, necessarily, that we made any progress” on reform. But he said, “The struggle will continue.”