Annan Out, Ban Ki-Moon In As Next UN Leader
	found on CNN written by mischief, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 16 Oct 6:37am
		Meet Ban Ki-moon, successor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan starting January 1, 2007. The first South Korean to run for Secretary-General, Ban won all four straw polls conducted by the UN Security Council and was the only candidate not to receive a "no" vote. On October 13, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution appointing Ban to Secretary-General, and later that day, Kofi Annan formally declared Ban to the position. Ban's victory is not without its detractors. His rivals allege that to generate support, Ban leveraged his position as the minister of foreign affairs and trade for South Korea, the world's eleventh largest economy. Further, during the week previous Secretary-General Annan appointed Kyung-wha Kang, a South Korean woman and Ban's campaign manager, to the position of deputy high commissioner for human rights with the rank of assistant secretary-general. Apparently, the back-scratching at the UN continues. Anyway: Ban Ki-moon was born in 1944 to a rural family in South Korea. He is married with three children. A Christian, he is member of a "group without Church", a serious organisation that emerged in Japan at the beginning of last century. Its members, mostly intellectuals, make the Gospel a source of inspiration for their private and public life. Ban is not a politician, but a diplomat by vocation and career. He graduated with top marks from the prestigious universities of Seoul and Harvard (USA). He joined the foreign affairs ministry in 1970 and climbed the ranks until he was appointed foreign affairs minister in 2004. He speaks English and French fluently, he knows Japanese and even some German. Despite critics' allegations that Ban is uninspiring and lacks charisma, the future Secretary-General has a distinguished history as "a consummate mediator and a world-class administrator": awarded the Order of Service Merit by the Republic of Korea twice, the Grand Decoration of Honor from the Republic of Austria, the Grand Cross of Rio Branco from Brazil, and the Van Fleet Award for contributions to the friendship between the United States and South Korea.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 14 commentsbest: 0 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Wooot!   by David Flores       at Mon 16 Oct 10:52am score of 1     Whoooo, whoooo.... way to go Ki-moon! Honestly, I don't know what else to say about this sub.... Ok, maybe one thing: with the whole North Korea business looking like it's going to boil over, hopefully having a South Korean U.N. secretary will help us navigate through the impending crisis without a catastrophic outcome. OTOH, perhaps having a U.N. secretary who's so close to the epicenter of the impending shitstorm will actually cripple the U.N. and hurt its credibility at a time of crisis. Thoughts anyone? GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: Wooot!   by nmiguy       at Mon 16 Oct 12:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     David, I think that the UN voting for Ki-Moon is a clear signal that they want leadership in the UN to be focused on North Korea as a threat to world safety. They choose a South Korean Secretary General as a way to say to Kim Jong Il that the UN is united against his nefarious plans. It seems like a clear motivation. Even if this man is the most qualified person in the world, the fact he didn't get a single no vote is a message, I'd say. Congratualtions for him, and if my suspicion is correct, a South Korean diplomat as the new Secretary Gneral of the UN means the UN is going to take on North Korea and face up to nuclear proliferation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Wooot!   by paul_holloway       at Tue 17 Oct 4:17am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 2     David, I think that the UN voting for Ki-Moon is a clear signal that they want leadership in the UN to be focused on North Korea as a threat to world safety. Sorry to disappoint you but no, it isn't. He would probably have got the job in any case, even if NK was a shining beacon of democracy. He has been campaigning well and, as the links in the write up should show, (ab)used his position as South Korean trade minister to put money toward a few African states, states that helped get him the nod — but that is all a coincidence, though, honest. The fact is that his election is more to do with internal UN politics than anything else. He is perceived as weak — so an ideal candidate as far as the major powers are concerned — who is more concerned with the minutia of process rather than big picture global change: he has been described as suiting more of the "Secretary" than the "General" part of the job title. The big job for the UN in the coming five years (as far as they are concerned) is not nuclear proliferation or North Korea, but the reorganisation of the UN itself. The major powers are hoping that the SG doesn't get all grand and sweeping, but just tinkers around the edges (or, even better, doesn't actually manage to implement anything). "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Wooot!   by gparizot       at Tue 17 Oct 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     if my suspicion is correct, a South Korean diplomat as the new Secretary Gneral of the UN means the UN is going to take on North Korea... Nah, it was just Asia's turn. Ban just happened to play all of his cards right. I seriously doubt the UN will do anything of substance about North Korea. I really don't think there IS anything to do short of all-out war. And South Korea and China would suffer horribly. So don't hold your breath. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   4.  Re: Wooot!   by Tashtego       at Mon 16 Oct 1:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     ...will actually cripple the U.N. and hurt its credibility... You know, don't you, that this sentence is like an engraved invitation for some of our resident UN-haters to crack wise. Sorry... Liberals apparently make huge sweeping generalizations without one iota of evidence to back them up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Ban on a Run   by gparizot       at Tue 17 Oct 10:10am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     Whoooo, whoooo.... way to go Ki-moon! Just for the record, we all know his last name is Ban, not Ki-moon, right? It's not so clear that some of the posts below understand this. So what's there to say about this? I guess it's that playing politics will get you everywhere. Ban has been involved in Korean government under several diametrically opposite administrations, and yet has always managed to keep employed. His nickname in Korea, "Slippery Eel", tells you how. You'll be hard-pressed to determine his opinion on any matter. He's an expert in talking without saying anything. Perfect for an organization that generally does a lot of talking without doing anything. And Korea's not a third-world country, to answer another post below. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  What's In a Name?   by Phaedrus       at Wed 18 Oct 12:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     I don't think you should be too hard on those who are unfamiliar with the conventions of Asian name systems. After all, on the various news shows, most of the commentators say his name as though it were "Banky Moon." If we can just get Chris Rock to replace John Bolten, we could look forward to the following exchange at the UN (paraphrasing Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back): Banky: Uh, Chaka? Hi, I'm Banky Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We met a few weeks back. Chaka: Oh, you're Secretary-General. Well, why don't you Secretary-General me a latte — De-Crackinate it. Okay, Fucky? Banky: Actually, it's Banky. Chaka: No, it is Fucky. Let's see if we can start everyone calling him Banky from now on. Come on, it'll be funny! "And what is good, Phaedrus,And what is not good-Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?""   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: What's In a Name?   by gparizot       at Wed 18 Oct 2:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     We've had some previous discussions here where I pointed out how to parse Asian names. I remember one where I pointed out wordplays on Kim Jung-il's name really weren't so clever, such as saying "License to il". And then the other night, I saw the same joke on "The Daily Show". Oh well. It's not like he deserves our respect anyway. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Good   by rdwwww       at Mon 16 Oct 12:32pm score of 1.5 funny     "he is member of a "group without Church", a serious organisation..." Good. I'd hate to have someone who belongs to a hilarious organization running the UN (the two could easily be confused).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Good   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 16 Oct 9:15pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 3     Good. I'd hate to have someone who belongs to a hilarious organization running the US (the two could easily be confused). There, fixed that for ya.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  That is, like, da BOMB!   by SpammitySpam       at Mon 16 Oct 4:28pm score of 0.5 irrelevant     Totally. What are we supposed to talk about here, anyway? Man who says It cannot be done Should not interrupt Man who is doing it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Don't you see?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 16 Oct 5:15pm score of 0.5 astute   in reply to comment 6     The titular leadership of the world's largest ineffective public body just passed from one Third World nondescript to another. It is so thoroughly indiscussable.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Don't you see?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 17 Oct 11:37am score of 0.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     South Korea is hardly a third world country   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: That is, like, da BOMB!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 16 Oct 6:22pm score of 1 scholarly   in reply to comment 6     So this is the new Plastic! A bunch of dumb fucks who need leading questions to guide their discussion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: That is, like, da BOMB!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Mon 16 Oct 8:06pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 8     It's the new Plastic! A bunch of people sitting around waiting for something worth discussing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Maybe this will help...   by geekybob       at Tue 17 Oct 6:48am score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 6     What are we supposed to talk about here, anyway? Topics too deep for Fark.com. /so where are they? /slashies!!!1!1!! I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]