The Ministry of External Affairs today named <b>Dr Shashi Tharoor</b> for the position of Secretary General of the United Nations. The term of Mr. Kofi Annan, the current incumbent, ends at the end of 2006.
Dr. Tharoor is currently the Under Secretary General of UN for Communications and Public Relations. He is also a critically acclaimed author of several fiction and non-fiction books.
Following is the full text of the MEA declaration and the Q&A on this topic.
Source: www.mea.gov.in
<b>Announcement of the candidature of Mr. Shashi Tharoor for UN Secretary General</b>, visit of Amir of Kuwait, Indo-Pak talks and response to questions on India-US talks on civil nuclear cooperation, and Sri Lanka
15/06/2006
Official Spokesperson: Good Evening. I have a number of issues from my side to talk about. First, an announcementâ¦
India strongly supports the principle of regional rotation under which the next Secretary General of the United Nations should be from Asia. The Asian Group within the UN had approached other Groups, seeking their support for this principle, and the African Group has already confirmed its support. We hope that other regional groups would also articulate support for the rotational principle.
India also believes that a prospective UN Secretary General should have impeccable credentials, be acceptable to the broadest possible membership of the UN and have a strong commitment to the reform of the UN and the interests of the developing countries.
<b>It is in this framework that India has decided to announce the candidature of <i>Mr. Shashi Tharoor</i>, Under Secretary General for Communications and Public Information at the United Nations. Mr. Tharoor, an Indian national, is a distinguished son of Asia, who has served the UN in diverse capacities since 1978. During his long innings at the UN, Mr. Tharoor has held a number of key positions in various areas including peacekeeping, UNHCR and UNâs communications strategy, with particular responsibility for ensuring the coherence and effectiveness of the United Nationsâ external message. Mr. Tharoor has been closely involved in the process of the reform of the United Nations. </b>
Mr. Tharoor is a well-known writer. He is the author of eight books, as well as numerous articles, op-eds and literary reviews in a wide range of publications. He is also the recipient of several journalism and literary awards, including a Commonwealth Writersâ Prize.
In January 1998, Mr. Tharoor, was named by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as a âGlobal Leader of Tomorrowâ. Mr. Tharoor is an elected Fellow of the New York Institute of the Humanities and a member of the Advisory Board of the Indo-American Arts Council.
Born in London in 1956. Mr. Tharoor was educated in India and the United States, completing a PhD in 1978 at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he also earned two Masterâs Degrees. He was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Letters in International Affairs by the University of Puget Sound, United States.
Mr. Shashi Tharoorâs internationally acclaimed stature and experience make him eminently suitable to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations.
India has informed, through diplomatic channels, other member states of the United Nations of its nomination of Mr. Shashi Tharoorâs candidature and requested their support.
Question: So does that mean that India is no longer interested in a seat in the UN Security Council?
Official Spokesperson: They are separate issues and it is incorrect to perceive Indiaâs support for one as dilution of our commitment to the other. India is a founder member of the United Nations and we have consistently and significantly contributed to all aspects of its functioning. India is strongly committed to comprehensive reforms of the United Nations and believes that the reform and expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories is central to the process of UN reforms. As far as that is concerned there is widespread and growing appreciation of Indiaâs impeccable credentials to become a permanent member of the Security Council. There has been a steady accretion of support in our favor since the candidature was announced in 1994. India remains committed, I may mention, to the G-4 Initiative and continues a policy of engagement of G-4 and other member states to achieve the objective of UN reform. Indiaâs nomination of Mr. Shashi Tharoor for the post of UN Secretary General is based on a commitment to rotational principle under which the next Secretary General should be from Asia and Mr. Tharoorâs internationally acclaimed stature, achievements and experience.
Question: Has there been any discussion with any member of the P-5 in advance of this?
Official Spokesperson: We have taken up this issue of seeking support for the candidature of Mr. Tharoor through diplomatic channels with all member countries of the United Nations.
Question: Any feedback from China?
Official Spokesperson: I do not have feedback from individual countries. Certainly, our Missions are actively seeking support of the member countries of the UN.
Question: There are a number of candidates from Asia.
Official Spokesperson: Yes there are.
Question: Will it not create problems because ASEAN also has its own candidate?
Official Spokesperson: All these considerations - pros and cons - have obviously been taken into consideration by the government in deciding to support Mr. Tharoorâs candidature.
<b>Question: What is in it for India?
Official Spokesperson: I think it is a matter of pride for a son of India, a son of Asia to be the UN Secretary General. </b>
Question: When are the elections supposed to be held?
Official Spokesperson: If I am not wrong, this matter usually comes up before the General Assembly in October and carries on but the process involves the Security Council also making a list of the candidates by, I think, mid July.
Question: Is it going to be one name or they have more names?
Official Spokesperson: Traditionally, the Security Council recommends one name.
Question: Isnât he perceived to be too close to Mr. Kofi Annanâ¦US supportâ¦
Official Spokesperson: These are perceptions you may have or somebody else may have. As far as we are concerned, we have based our support for his candidature on his impeccable credentials, on his very considerable achievements and on his tremendous experience within the United Nations.
Question: Has any Indian ever been nominated?
Official Spokesperson: No Indian has held that office.
Question: Nominatedâ¦
Official Spokesperson: I do not think so.
<!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo-->
India names Shashi Tharoor for UN secy-generalâs post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He faces strong competition from South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and Sri Lankan diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala. If elected, he will be the youngest secretary-general of the world body. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Past UN Sec Gen:
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), who held office from January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), who served from January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), who held office from January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962) to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), who served from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952
UN website
Don\\\'t be so excited by this news. This guy is a known hindu-baiter.
Source:
http://sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4417
Quote:
In between these reports there is an op-ed piece by Shashi Tharoor and an
editorial. Tharoor, on March 6, in an op-ed piece titled âIndia\\\'s Past
Becomes a Weapon,â says âThe Hindu zealots who chanted insultingly
triumphalist slogans helped incite the worst elements on the Muslim side,
who set fire to a railway carriage carrying temple campaigners; in turn, Hind mobs have torched Muslim homes and killed innocents.â If Tharoor\\\'s rationale is extended and applied elsewhere, we can then say that the VHP and BJP people can be incited to burn down the offices of newspapers andmagazines and the homes of activists who continuously caricature the Sanghand its leaders as fascists.
Tharoor is an ideological brother of Sen, Azmi, and their ilk. Here is an interesting article from Rajeev Shrinivasan.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/04rajeev.htm
Riot
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155970645...glance&n=283155
In this novel about an American murdered during hindu-muslim riot he throws in the his opinions on the Ayodhya conflict. As usual hindus get the biggest share of the blame.
By the way, he is even known to have said that \\\"Hindus needed to validate their lord Ram through the Ayodhya movement\\\", when the truth is that Ayodhya movement resonated because Lord Ram is held in high respect by Hindus.
The Great Indian novel
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155970194...5Fencoding=UTF8
Here he juxtaposes Mahabharata with the Indian independence struggle. This is a hit piece that degrades hinduism with parallels that exist only in his delusional mind. In this contrived clap trap Karna = Jinnah, Bhishma = Gandhi (with a penchant for enemas). Such is the disgraceful record of this imbecile.
He uses his writings and position as a platform for his anti-hindu venom. His opinions are not backed by any rational arguments, but the reader is asked to accept them just because of his authority. Can you imagine what this guy will do as a Seceratary General. First request to India : Ban the \\\"fascist\\\" RSS. Second Request: Decalre all hindu activits criminals. Third: Give the Kashmir to Pakistan. I would rather see a Gadafi or Chirac become the Seceratary General that the likes of Tharoor.
I don\\\'t think that there is any danger of this Tharoor guy becoming UN SG because America pays 25% of UN\\\\\\\'s bills and I doubt they will put a known leftist in that post especially with GWOT. But then again they put Ghali in there before pulling the plug on him. This raises an intersting question for the \\\"Matter of Pride\\\" people, why would they be proud if a bigot gets nominated or elected to some international post? Knee-jerk national reflex?
My post in BRF without knowing bhushan's post above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While I am happy that an Indian is being nominated for the UNSG post it means a few things to me:
1) The quest of UNSC reforms initiated by Kofi Anan is dead. Finis. No more. In that case is India being offered a sop to compensate for that?
The point is that it is not traditional for the UNSG to be from a permanent member as it would be conflict of interest and concentration of power. So atleast for the term of Mr Tharoor, India can kiss the UNSC reforms goodbye.
Also there was trial balloon of offering Manmohan Singh the same UNSG position. What happened?
2)Have the mandrins in MEA considered the consequences in case Mr Tharoor does not realize the position? Not only the image will be diminished but he will have to quit his current #2 spot which would be a loss. The MEA since JLN had built up its personnel in the UN secretariat. Is it worth losing that spot?
To date very few initiatives that India has started have been realized in the UN. Most of the NAM desert Indian positions. It is with utmost reluctance these folks have supported India for the UNSC seat. Will have to start with square one.
Also is this another morgantic arrangement like the J18 deal? Seek a lesser temporary postion at UN instead of teh UNSC seat?
Then coming to Mr Tharoor, he has often spoken at SAJA and other johlawala gatherings. Is he truly representing all India or just the internationalist fringe in India? Again from his resume he has been very much an outsider for most of his formative years - education, living etc., The only thing Indian about him is his passport. What are his antecedents? We know atleast Fareed bhai's.
Again why did the MEA spring this out of its cap/hat without preparing opinion at least in India? Is there a vacuum at the MEA? A whole bunch of adhoc policy measures have been implemented since the death of JN Dixit.
All in all good luck to him and may the force be with him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>TALES ABOUT PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ARE HIGHLIGHTS OF ANALYSIS OF INDIA</b>
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, WA); 8/20/1997
India is 50 years old as an independent nation, and, of course, it has for thousands of years been one of the great expressions of human civilization. But India is unlike any other country. It is a place made and unmade by British imperialism and populated by every racial type on the globe, people who speak 17 major languages and 22,000 dialects and engage in some of the most ferocious sectarian fighting - Hindus against Muslims, Sikhs against both - in the world these days.
Shashi Tharoor, a novelist who is also a senior official at the United Nations and living in New York, uses the half-centennial to question what is India, what makes it a country? In ``India: From Midnight to the Millennium,'' Tharoor is a thoughtful and well-informed observer.
Tharoor, <b>who was born in London but grew up in Bombay and Calcutta</b>, writes essays focusing India's terrible poverty and the rise of sectarian feeling powerful enough to threaten the common sense of nationhood. But he also writes at times too much as a politician himself. His ``India'' goes rather more deeply into local politics and politicians than most Americans would want.
Still, Tharoor makes no apologies for India's shortcomings, including those that stem from the mistakes the Indians made themselves. ``For most of the five decades since independence, India has pursued an economic policy of subsidizing unproductivity, regulating stagnation and distributing poverty,'' Tharoor writes. ``We called this socialism.''
In 1986, he points out by way of example, the Steel Authority of India ``paid 247,000 people to produce some 6 million tons of finished steel, whereas 10,000 South Korean workers employed by the Pohan Steel Co. produced 14 million tons that same year.'' He is correspondingly supportive of the economic reforms begun in the early 1990s by former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Among <b>Tharoor's most compelling passages are those that deal with India's descent, after centuries of relative harmony, into sectarian violence. He repudiates the fundamentalist Hinduism </b>that brought about the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in 1992, which in turn led to the most horrific religious bloodletting in many years. <b>In explaining the rise of sectarianism, Tharoor does not hesitate to place the blame on Hindu fanaticism</b>, even if that fanaticism has been provoked by what he calls ``other chauvinisms,'' Muslim and Sikh. ``The rage of the Hindu mobs is the rage of those who feel themselves supplanted in this competition of identities, who think that they are taking their country back from usurpers of long ago.'' In this sense, Tharoor writes, ``the battle for India's soul'' will be waged between ``two Hinduisms, the secularist Indianism of the nationalist movement and the particularist fanaticism of the Ayodhya mob.'' He offers no cause for optimism that his brand of Hinduism will prevail.
His best story has to do with a man named Charlis from the author's ancestral homeland, Kerala. Charlis as a boy was repudiated by Tharoor's family because he belonged to an untouchable caste. With each visit that Tharoor makes to
Kerala, the situation changes incrementally, until Charlis has become an important local official and an honored guest in the household.
Tharoor's book would have been more rewarding had he dwelt more on people like Charlis. When the author deals with the more abstract, highly serious questions, his book has a familiar feel. When he gets down to India as a concrete personal experience, everything seems new and fresh.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>The move by the Governement of India to field its own candidate for the post of UN Secretary General is a positive development. Even if the Indian candidate is unsuccessful, it would give our policy makers a clear assesment of how much support and respect India commands in real terms.We have been spending considerable amount of money for the economic and human resource development of many countries in Africa and Asia with the hope that they will one day support India in the International forums.In addition, there are many other countires in the developed world who are quite eager to be seen in the good books of India for a variety of reasons.We will come to know to what extent these countires are really serious in fostering close relationship with India.</b>
Pakis have thrown their topi in the ring, seems like the best they can come up with are girl-friend beater Akram or that plaigarist Lodhi
Shashi Tharoor, is full of "Nehruvism mindset", a typical colonial "Elite" who still believes in "Raj era".
There is nothing wrong to be having Nehruvism mindset or be a elite, as these are not any disqualification for holding the post of UN Secretary General.In fact, to succeed in getting elected there will be an uphill task. His candidature will need the support of considerable number of regional groups plus the support of the permanent members.The Pakistan factor is only one of the many problems that he will have to face.
Ofcourse there is nothing wrong, one can even appoint anyone including Sonia Gandhi's mother to represent India.
India is still worried about Pakistan; One plus billion people are scared of 162 millions, that is current status of India. Who is behind? Ofcourse Nehruvian mindset and Elites who are still in love with Raj era. People who can bend to any level to please Raj masters. Having an Indian name should not be criteria. Criteria should be a person who believes in Indic ethos
There are various factors which will decide upon the outcome.
USA will be a key factor in deciding who will ultimately win the post.
Chances are that Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai might win who seems to be having the support of China and USA.
Frankly speaking, appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador to the U.N. shows how serious or <easy> it considers the U.N.
After Kofi Annan and his son Kojo's alleged involvement in the kick backs from the U.N. food for oil contracts and tacit US support for him by not pushing for his resignation give rise to many questions on the transparency and effectiveness of the U.N. systems. The U.N. is appearing more and more like GOI with its knee jerk reactions to many of the world's problems.
Is U.N. moving towards the same fate of the League of Nations with the coming Iran war !!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is UN moving towards the fate of League of Nations with the coming Iran war !! <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are on dot.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai might win <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think, we may see weak surprise link.
US administration don't like Indian babus, they consider them difficult people. Shashi is not a babu but elite that may be a problem. If you watch West Wing, in one episode they had made very good characterization of Indian Elites. During Indo-Pak crisis, White house invites British ambassador and ask him how you guys used to tame Indians. His answer was, just bribe rulers/Raja and they will do job for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Frankly speaking, appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador to the U.N. shows how serious or <easy> it considers the U.N. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why UN was formed or main objective?
UN is a body which was used and abused by powers that were behind formation.
UN was hijacked or in process by Middle East. Powers which were close with initial agenda of UN formation were recently bought by Middle East or started towing their lines. Presence of John Bolton will stop tilt and will try to bring back to original shape, which will promote âFounder Powerâ agenda.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Tharoor's UN bid has Delhi puzzled </b>
Seema Guha - DNA
Sunday, June 18, 2006 00:50 IST
NEW DELHI: The external affairs ministry was not involved in the decision to nominate Shashi Tharoor for the post of United Nations secretary general. In fact, the decision was taken at the Prime Minister's office with Parliament's support.
Analysts and officials are as puzzled as ordinary citizens. One theory as to why Tharoor received the Prime Minister's backing is that he is being rewarded for helping attain details regarding the Volcker report. The information Tharoor acquired helped to nail former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh.
Some analysts are concerned that Tharoor may not attain the post.<b> "It is one thing for small nations to contest a UN post and lose. It is another thing for a country aiming for a place in the Security Council to lose out. There is the question of a nation's prestige,'' </b>says K Subrahmanyam, a strategic analyst.
Opposition to Tharoor has also come from an unexpected quarter. Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, has objected to Tharoor's nomination on grounds that Tharoor had defended Satya Sai Baba and his "miracles'' in the past.Â
<b>"Tharoor, despite his carefully nurtured image as an intellectual, is a hardcore obscurantist. </b>
He does not miss a single opportunity to raise his voice in the para-normal claims of godmen and miracle mongers,'' the association said in a statement. However, several others are confident that the country only stands to gain from the outcome of Tharoor's bid.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1036034
<b>Pak moves, unmoved US spoil Tharoor race </b> <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Toy land </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But that is Tharoorâs outlook, what opinion he holds of himself. Why did we plump for him, especially after taking his candidature non-seriously all this while? What is our justification? What do we see in Tharoor that makes him so fit to be secretary general? The governmentâs squeamish, unconvincing response is he has played it long in the UN. But as what? <b>Has he been an exceptionally successful peacemaker, a highly respected weaponsâ inspector, an arms control wizard? In the cutting edge of international diplomacy, what is his contribution?</b>
<b>Zilch. Tharoor has been a highly successful UN bureaucrat, he has played it right with Annan. But there is nothing to suggest he is fit to be UN secretary general. To our mind, he is exceptionally unfit, he is a joke candidate, someone we wonât even make our permanent representative at the UN. In backing such a joke, we have somewhat lowered our standing. It will be very surprising if Tharoor the upstart gets anywhere in the race, and it was a sad day when we supported him.</b>
But why? Why did we back such an obvious non-candidate? If you dismiss the conspiracy theories, Volcker and so forth, our choice becomes even more preposterous. <b>Tharoor, a great self-publicist, sort of pushed himself into the frame, but at bottom, if you look, we have nobody else to back, nobody, so empty is our cupboard of great diplomatists</b>. When you think of a great Indian diplomat, someone who wrenched things in our favour, brought us victory from the jaws of defeat, as they say, does any name surface? Think harder. Blank.
............
We, though, have given the game away even before it has begun. By backing a weak, non-candidate, whose only qualification is he is an Indian, we have shown ourselves for the unthinking, shallow state we are. And it is all a tamasha, fit for nine âoâ clock news, a photogenic Shashi Tharoor making his power rounds in New Delhi, hoping that wings will fly him to the very top of the UN. What a waste.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>China mum on Tharoor's bid for Secretary General's post </b>
link
Beijing, June. 20 (PTI): China today kept mum on India's candidate, Shashi Tharoor's bid for the post of UN Secretary General but said relevant parties should have "full deliberations" on the selection issue. It also favoured that the next Secretary General should be an Asian.
"The next UN Secretary General is a major event of the United Nations. We believe that relevant parties should have full deliberations on this," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu told reporters here at a briefing. Jiang did not comment on Tharoor's bid when asked specifically about his candidacy for the top UN post.
However, she pointed out that since Asia has not had any UN Secretary General for 34 years, China thinks that the next UN Secretary General should come from an Asian country. The spokeswoman also noted that there was consensus within Asia and Africa that the next UN Secretary General should be an Asian, which is accepted by the international community.
<b>There is a strong feeling among the diplomatic circles here that China, the only Asian country with veto rights in the UNSC, favours Thai Deputy Prime Minister, Surakiat Sathirathai, who is the leading candidate from Asia for the coveted UN post.</b>
Tharoor, currently U.N. Under Secretary-General for Communication and Public Information, was formally nominated for the post last week
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Why should India back Shashi Tharoor</b>? -T V R Shenoy
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A rational Indian foreign policy would have had Delhi sit back and wait for each of these parties to approach it.</b> The post is a meaningless bauble but one may as well reap a little goodwill by promising to support one or the other. This, of course, is precisely what the Chinese are doing!
Instead, by rushing to back Shashi Tharoor, India has pitted itself against several smaller nations. Pakistan is mulling over the candidacy of Maleeha Lodhi, a cheeky thumbing of the nose by entering someone who is not just an Asian but also a woman. (As noted above, no woman has ever been secretary general.) <b>The Arabs will probably rally around the Jordanian prince </b>if one should enter the fray, and it could also be a way of expressing American gratitude for Jordan's help in hunting al-Zarqawi.
<b>The ASEAN nations will probably back a Singaporean nominee. SAARC will be split between India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka</b>. (And I wouldn't put it past General Musharraf to stir trouble by the grand gesture of withdrawing his nominee in favour of Sri Lanka!) Everyone will approach Beijing for support, and Delhi's foreign policy shall, once again, be shown up.
The most optimistic estimate I have heard of <b>Shashi Tharoor's candidacy is that he has a 30 per cent chance of winning.</b> But that is missing the point; I abhor this Indian obsession with the United Nations itself. I have had nothing but contempt for the body since December 7, 1971 -- the day when the General Assembly voted 104 to 11 against the Indian position during the Bangladesh War. (When the secretary general was the South Asian U Thant!)
<b>Indira Gandhi ignored it, choosing to pursue Indian national interests. How I wish we had someone who possessed her cold-blooded analytical skills in Delhi today!</b>
..................
Indian interests won't be advanced if Shashi Tharoor wins the election; they will, however, falter should he lose. I come back to my original question: Who sponsored his nomination, and what was the rationale offered?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has this guy been nominated as India's choice for the bureuacratic
post, because of his help in re-docketing the Volcker scandal papers?
Ok. It will soon be official. Sashi has no chance in hell now to get US approval after his "bring democracy" agenda!!! <!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tharoor's four-point agenda for UN reformÂ
Agencies | Washington
Suggesting a four-point plan to revamp the UN, India's nominee for the post of Secretary General Shashi Tharoor has said the greatest problem for the world body is that it does not have one big issue to deal with but a host of them clamouring for attention.
An international institution like the United Nations with "impressive achievements" and "haunting failures" has changed but needs to change further, he said in an article in the forthcoming issue of Newsweek International.
His reform proposal focusses on four priority areas:
(1)Making democracy a priority
(2)Bolster the ranks
(3)Prioritise and streamline
(4)Heal wounds.
He categorically mentioned, "there is no single greatest problem, rather, there are a dozen different ones each day clamouring for attention,".
"Some, like the crisis in Lebanon, the Palestinian situation and the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, are obvious and trying," he said, going on to talk about "problems without passports" -- issues like climate change, drug trafficking, human rights, terrorism, epidemic diseases, and refugee movements.
Tharoor, who is now a leading candidate to succeed Kofi Annan whose term expires at the end of the year, said finding solutions to these issues were beyond the ability of one nation or a group of countries and the key was "strengthening the capacities of both the United Nations and its members".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
|
