a failed UN

[santosh tiwari]

Tharoor 'disappointed' with loss

India's candidate for the post of UN secretary general, Shashi Tharoor, says he is "disappointed" after coming second again in informal polling.
A career diplomat, Mr Tharoor pulled out of the race after South Korea's Ban Ki-Moon won the latest straw poll.

Mr Tharoor got 10 votes, one more than needed to stay in the race. But one of the three negative votes was from a permanent Security Council member.

A formal vote to choose the secretary general is due on 9 November.

Soon after the results were announced, Mr Tharoor, who is also the UN undersecretary general for public information, issued a statement: "It is a great honour and a huge responsibility to be secretary-general and I wish Mr Ban every success in that task."

Concedes victory

Mr Tharoor said he had "entered the race because of my devotion to the United Nations, and for the same reason I will strongly support him as the next secretary general. The UN, and the world, has a stake in his success."

Although he has conceded victory, Mr Tharoor is "disappointed" by the result.

In an interview to the BBC Hindi service, he said, "I have spent 28 years working for the UN. All the other candidates have worked for their governments. I was the only candidate who has devoted my entire professional life to the UN and worked for the international community."

Although it was not yet clear which permanent member used the negative vote against him, Mr Tharoor said he did not believe the veto was against him or India.

"This country wants Mr Ban to win and must have voted against all the other candidates too," he said.

Options open

Mr Tharoor thanked the Indian government for supporting his candidacy.

Asked if he would be joining the government in some form, he laughed and said: "No option is excluded for me. But I'm not a civil servant, nor a politician."

In reply to a question as to whether the Indian government would be nominating him to the Rajya Sabha - the Upper House of Parliament - Mr Tharoor said, "The government has done enough for me. I don't want to ask them for anything more."

Mr Tharoor has worked in the world body for nearly three decades since completing his PhD at Tufts University in the US.

"I have worked in the UN for 28 years... So I think I would bring a lot of experience and commitment to the task," Mr Tharoor told the BBC in an earlier interview when asked why he wanted the job.

"I believe passionately in the UN and see it as a force that can make a real difference in the world."

Some commentators say Mr Tharoor's experience with the UN may have gone against him.

Some say a senior insider may not be the person to deliver the radical reforms that they believe the organisation needs.

Mr Tharoor, an Indian national, has written several novels, including a political satire, The Great Indian Novel, that focuses on India's struggle for independence.

Overall there were six candidates in the race to replace the incumbent UN secretary general Kofi Annan who ends his second and final term in December.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5402010.stm

the way a veto was used against Mr Tharoor, it just proved that the UN is very old and is forced to follow world war-2 winners. this a matter of shame that five countries has got so much power that they keep threatening the rest of world by their veto powers which they got illegally and on the gun point of nuclear bombs. this is not hidden that world war two winners want to keep nuclear bombs and this veto power (which is also known as nick name of N bombs) and this way they want to rule on the rest of world illegally or by force. first they want other nations to follow UN and at the same time they dont hesitate to use veto (or N Bombs) in UN. they miss no chance to insult UN.

there is a need of making new UN with new rules. this is the time when rest of world, other than P-5s, would make a new UN where there is no threat of veto (or N bombs) in UN.

[santosh tiwari]

India attacks 'unrepresentative' UN Security Council

UNITED NATIONS: India has lambasted the 15-member Security Council for failing to meet its obligations of maintaining international peace and security, saying it is the result of its "unrepresentative" character and consequent lack of political will.

In a sharp criticism of the Council's inaction as the "tragic events" unfolded in Lebanon recently and the Mideast peace process was derailed, Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen likened the Council to Emperor Nero who was fiddling while Rome was burning.

"The main problem that beset peacekeeping are not lack of resources or even personnel, but an unrepresentative Security Council which lacks the political will to act and when it does, does so in a manner that is entirely inadequate," he told the United Nations General Assembly.

Asking the Council members to shore up their participation in the peacekeeping operations, Sen said it is a "distressing reflection" on their willingness to share the burden of maintaining international peace and security when overwhelming number of troops in the peacekeeping operations are contributed by the developing nations.

Stressing that reform of the United Nations, which the major power are demanding, would be incomplete without the expansion of the 15-member Council, he said it needs to be made more representative and effective if it is to satisfactorily perform the role mandated to it by the Charter.

It is imperative, Sen said, that any expansion and restructuring of the Council must include developing countries in both permanent and non permanent categories.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/2074682.cms

[Officer of Engineers]

Oh get off it, we all saw this coming a mile away. Anybody who thought otherwise is just a numbskull who lives in la-la land.

[santosh tiwari]

a sold UN

WASHINGTON: India's and Shashi Tharoor's bid for the UN Secretary-General post, which was flickering to an end, might come alive following an unexpected report that the South Korean front-runner has used monetary clout to pull in support.

Tharoor’s run for the prestigious office, backed formally by New Delhi, failed to make headway in the third and final straw polls, where he again came runner-up to South Korea’s foreign minister Ban Ki-moon, who had also won the first two polls.

In fact, Tharoor surprisingly lost ground in the third round, getting eight encouragements on Thursday, with three negatives and two no opinions from among the 15 Security Council members.

A candidate needs at least nine encouragements in the final cut. Ban too slipped a bit, getting 13 encouragements (down from 14 in the second poll), one discourage and one no opinion. But he was well ahead of six other contenders, including late entrant Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the only non-Asian and woman in the race, who came third with 7-6-2.

But Ban’s bid could be headed for last-minute trouble, with The Times of London reporting that South Korea had spent large sums of money to win support for its foreign minister.

The Times said a month after announcing his candidature, South Korea said it would treble its aid budget to Africa to $100 million by 2008. Seoul then contributed tens of thousands of pounds to sponsor the African Union summit in the Gambia.

Ban declared 2006 to be the Year of Africa for South Korea. He also pledged $18 million for an educational programme in Tanzania, a country which has a UNSC seat.

It has since backed Ban. Though the race is technically not over, Tharoor had indicated that it might be hard to challenge Ban if he did not improve his showing in the third straw poll. Now that he has dropped to eight encouragements, he is now one short of the magic number.

"Not yet (over). We'll know only on Monday," Tharoor said in a e-mail to ToI, sent before The Times expose hit the wires.

A more decisive poll is set for Monday, when the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council will use different coloured ballots than the other 10 rotating SC members to indicate their preference. A veto from one of the five — Britain, China, France, Russia or the United States — will doom a candidate’s campaign.

That’s when candidates will decide if they should just drop out of the race. Those who remain then go for a formal vote in the UNSC next month, where a candidate will again need at least nine votes and no veto among the Permanent Five. The winner is then confirmed by the 192-member UN General Assembly.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/2047806.cms

[santosh tiwari]

Oh get off it, we all saw this coming a mile away. Anybody who thought otherwise is just a numbskull who lives in la-la land.

here the question is not of any win or loss. the question is of using veto which they got illegally. i dont think they have right to use veto against any country. that was an illegal move by a Nuclear power, NPT signed country, who is one of those P-5, WW2 winner, who got veto because they can threaten rest of world by their nuclear power. these P-5s have taken license of Nuclear powers and Veto power and they dont hesitate to use it against any country. there must be a resistance against their illegal moves by this veto power against any country.

[Officer of Engineers]

here the question is not of any win or loss. the question is of using veto which they got illegally.

That is pure hogwash. They got their veto VERY legally.

i dont think they have right to use veto against any country.

Of course they do. It's right in the UN Charter. You don't like it? You can leave the UN. That is within every country's rights. Don't want to leave? Then, shut up and play by the rules.

that was an illegal move by a Nuclear power, NPT signed country, who is one of those P-5, WW2 winner, who got veto because they can threaten rest of world by their nuclear power.

Now, you're just a cry baby.

these P-5s have taken license of Nuclear powers and Veto power and they dont hesitate to use it against any country. there must be a resistance against their illegal moves by this veto power against any country.

Wake up! They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules. They can do what they like. You don't have to be part of the UN. Hell, you can even ignore the UN and India did just that.

Having a UNGS from your country means didly squat. The UNGS is powerless. Hell, even if he's from your own country, your own government will ignore him.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

[Srirangan]

The U.N. was a 'miserable failure' even before Mr. Tharoor withdrew. Who cares? :-\

[Srirangan]

They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules.

Hmm.. not quite. USA and Japan fund the U.N. Why isn't Japan in the P5? Also, Communist China wasn't in the orginal P5, was it?

[santosh tiwari]

That is pure hogwash. They got their veto VERY legally.

first of all i would like to clear your concept of Legal and Illegal. something which follows laws is said to be legal and which doesnt follow the laws is said to be illegal. and the most importnat thing is, "Laws are not made on gun point or by force." this is not a incident that only world war two winners have nuclear bombs and Veto powers. "they won these power by force".

Of course they do. It's right in the UN Charter. You don't like it? You can leave the UN. That is within every country's rights. Don't want to leave? Then, shut up and play by the rules.

there is nothing like following or not following UN. untill rest of world will find it is beneficial to be with UN, they will and the time they will find it is of no use, they will not. the problem with these P-5s is that rest of world is not that weak as it was at the time of WW2. for example right now UK is the type of country who cant talk properly to even Mr Mushrraf who just abused UK few days before in its home while UK was superpower during WW2. those who will have power will make rules, not by those who had power. and time is changing, this is something which is written on the wall.

Now, you're just a cry baby.

they were also crying when india did N test and they could do nothing except crying.

Wake up! They formed the UN. They put up the money. They wrote the rules. They can do what they like. You don't have to be part of the UN. Hell, you can even ignore the UN and India did just that.

if they formed the UN because they had money and power, then this old UN will fall when P-5 will not have enough power and money as compare to others.

[Srirangan]

Santosh, relax. Tharoor wasn't never the top candidate. He did pretty well actually in running a close second for this long. And, Tharoor's defeat has little or no impact on India.

Many in South Block and MEA were lukewarm to Tharoor's candidature in the first place. Do read the NewsInsight commentary regarding this.

[astralis]

srirangan,

Hmm.. not quite. USA and Japan fund the U.N. Why isn't Japan in the P5? Also, Communist China wasn't in the orginal P5, was it?

japan is not in the P5 because she wasn't in it originally, and none of the P5 want to dilute their power.

china was in the P5, but politics have obviously changed (didn't help the ROC's case that its ambassador walked out, either). and system of gov't doesn't matter to the UN, or else the likes of the USSR wouldn't have been on, too.

[santosh tiwari]

Santosh, relax. Tharoor wasn't never the top candidate. He did pretty well actually in running a close second for this long. And, Tharoor's defeat has little or no impact on India.

Many in South Block and MEA were lukewarm to Tharoor's candidature in the first place. Do read the NewsInsight commentary regarding this.

srirangan i repeat., the question is not about who won and who lost. here a veto was used against Mr tharoor. he lost this election not because he got less vote than south korean. that could be a different thing. a veto was used against him as he belong to the country which is not liked by a country who has veto and here this concept of Veto is "Illegal".

[joey2]

I wonder who used this Veto....
Russia - IMHO NO.
UK - I dont think so...
France - nah, they have nothing to gain or loss.
China - Possible, but they said to strengthen ties with india they wont put veto..
USA - dunno , their politics is too critical to understand.

whatever happened isnt any problem .. but i personally admire this sashi guy ,his biography is interesting too.

[santosh tiwari]

I wonder who used this Veto....
Russia - IMHO NO.
UK - I dont think so...
France - nah, they have nothing to gain or loss.
China - Possible, but they said to strengthen ties with india they wont put veto..
USA - dunno , their politics is too critical to understand.

whatever happened isnt any problem .. but i personally admire this sashi guy ,his biography is interesting too.

no UK, France or Russia will use Veto who have already supported india for even permanent seat. and there is no question to doubt on US. US will not use any veto against india. and about this .......

this is only country what it says and what it really wanna do, no one knows. this country doesn’t deserve for any nuclear or veto power. there must be a resistance on it otherwise whole world will pay for that one day.

Shaishi Tharoor got support by second highest numbers by 15 members of UN council. there is no doubt that Mr Ban was getting highest number of votes but he was shashi tharoor who got positive votes by 10 members out of 15. this guy must be known to them about his excellent record in UN. he could make the competition interesting if no veto could be used against him.

[Edgeplay_cgo]

"they won these power by force".

Is there any other way to win power? The UN per se has no power, nor any legitimacy to create power. Only its sovereign members have power. The veto power of the P5 was crucial to its formation. Without that power, none would have joined.

The whole United Nations is based of a fallacious concept, and was therefore doomed from its inception. That fallacious concept is that nations have any kind of equality with each other, and even that national status gives a group some kind of legitimacy. What legitimacy does a so-called country ruled by a kleptocrat and a thug (pick your own example) have in the worldwide arena? Who the hell cares what they think or say, so long as they don't make too much trouble?

And if they do make too much trouble, the UN is powerless to intervene. Only the Great Powers have the capability and the interest to intervene halfway across the world. Conflicting political agendae of the various powers has crippled the UN since its foundation, and thankfully so. We don't need a super national entity overshadowing the sovereignty of real nations and imposing some sort of thief’s law by consensus of the various petty dictatorships and kleptocracies.

We'd be better off burning down the UN, and saving the airfare of all the delegates. Issues will be settled the way they always have been, and still are today - by bilateral and multilateral negotiations between the real players.

if they formed the UN because they had money and power, then this old UN will fall when P-5 will not have enough power and money as compare to others.

It already has failed.

So cheer up. India, a real and growing player on the World Stage, lost a race to nowhere. At your level of play, a UNSGship would be a step down.