Though i like Clinton, and unlike most presidents of America he thinks like a world citizen, I would not want him to be the UN secretary general because:
1. He is an an American and American have often misused and overruled the UN and its decisions
2. He has been the Head of State of a country, it would therefore be disadvantageous for the other countries.
3. UN Secretary general should always be from a developing country - mankind should progress at large not only certain groups.
4. Clinton is better as a fund raiser and an UN ambassador.
2006-08-07 22:33:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rabindra 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
He is an excellent speaker and very likeable. If Hillary runs for President, would he be able to be the "First Man" and the UN Secretary General Post? Or would he have to resign this post to be the "First Man?"
Also, as stated by the Washington Post, "the top job does not go to someone from a country with permanent status on the U.N. Security Council."
I think he would be a long shot. The UN Secretary General Post is considered "President of the World," so I don't know if Anti-American sentiment would prevent him from assuming this position.
2006-08-07 22:12:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Though I don't Like President Clinton, I think he would be a much more effective choice as the next secretary General. Plus if he is nominated the chance that his wife would win the presidency is cut in half. The American people would never allow so much power in the hands of a husband and wife.
Bill Clinton is a moderate and would be a positive force in the UN. I am certain he could accomplish more than Kofi Annon, who has done nothing except disgrace himself and the office he holds.
2006-08-07 22:15:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jon H 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He may....
Remember, most leaders have some sort of skeleton(s) in their closet. Even FDR had a girlfriend while he was president. Come to think of it, so did his wife... she had a girlfriend too.
He did broker the Camp David Accord, between Arafat and Israel. It was an attempt to bring peace to the region.
The current Secretarial General is embroiled in a scandal of his own, between he and his son for the Oil For Food Program. No one is without sin in that business. Also, as an organiztion, the U.N. is not any better than its predecessor, the League of Nations prior to WW II.
Also, at one point, Clinton was asked if he wanted to get a French citizenship, so that he could run for President over there. True story.
Being from Arkansas, I can tell you that he couldn't keep his pants on here either. And there are a great many people who still believe that Vince Foster, his late White House counsel, didn't kill himself. Lots of conspiracy there as well..
It's up to Bush to nominate him for the U.N. post. Time will tell.
2006-08-07 22:21:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by John B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mr. Clinton wuold be optimal candidature for UN Secreatary General Post
2006-08-07 22:13:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by www.freewebs.com/belles-lettres 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think Bill Clinton would be an excellent choice for UN Secretary General or US Supreme Court Chief Justice
2006-08-08 01:46:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think any former leader from a Nation should be a UN Secreatary General. Too much power, plus it will seem un-fair and bias.
2006-08-07 22:09:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by quest 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Former President Clinton is a good choice for retirement. If anything he should go to Hollywood, he would fit right in there.
2006-08-07 23:39:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by rosi l 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Based on his actions as President, is this really the kind of man you want to act on the moral obligations of the world?
2006-08-07 22:12:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by TOPKICK 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton does not have either time or energy to head any post.
See, he is a spent guy, could not manage even his own 'affair'
leave aside world affairs.
2006-08-07 22:14:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by stoneman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋