This entry was posted on October 2, 2006 at 9:56 pm and is filed under Ban. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Is it acceptable that one can buy the top post this way?? I read an article in http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2380336,00.html and it seems quite visible that Ban is a corrupt candidate. I would.. ban him from the top UN post.
All these reports of Ban “buying” the top post badly misses the point.
It is the five permanent security council members (US, China, Russia, France, UK) who ultimately decide who gets the UNSG position. A veto from any one of the P5 members effectively kills the nomination on the spot. So if Ban wanted to buy votes, he would have had to approach the P5 members. And frankly, I don’t find it credible or believeable that the P5 members would be influenced by South Korea’s offer of financial assistance.
The most likely reason Ban was chosen for UNSG was that he was deemed the most acceptable candidate to both the US and China, i.e., he was perceived as the least threatening and most accommodating to US and Chinese interests. No matter how much money SKorea offered to developping African countries on the SC, it wouldn’t make any difference if he had no support from the P5 members. All these reports about Ban “bribing” votes in the SC is just hot air.
Guess what? Your blog is amazing! I can’t remember when was the last time i’ve overcome such a good blog that almost all articles/posts were interesting and wouldn’t regret spending my time reading it. I hope you will keep up the great work you are doing here and i can enjoy my everyday read at your blog.