Dear Sir,
The global search is on for a new secretary general of the UN to succeed Ban Ki-moon. The importance of this office in an era of bloody brutal conflicts cannot be overestimated.
The world requires a civil servant who can seek the balance of justice through diplomacy.
Today’s negotiating problems are vastly complex, some centuries old, rife with racial and religious prejudices and overlaid with combustible economic and political frictions.
The UN urgently needs a leader who can melt the frigid and moribund atmosphere of global negotiations that are currently underway.
The UN has to gain trust and respect for its actions not only from opposing parties but from all of the international community. The dominant position of the major powers is both a potential asset and a liability for trust in its political integrity.
The UN is becoming out of step with the realities of the world. The victors of World War Two must not be allowed to control the agenda of the body permanently. The all-powerful Security Council must be enlarged to include India, Japan, Germany and Brazil.
The reckless use of the notorious veto by all the major powers for over 65 years has led to the death of over 50mn innocent people. It should not be used as an instrument and element in international global diplomacy. Its political abuse signifies the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the Security Council.
The next secretary general will face a daunting task in trying to reform an archaic system of global governance.
There are now six official candidates to succeed Ban and become the ninth secretary-general of the UN.
There are no clear favourites yet to succeed Ban and the list of candidates is sure to increase but it is highly likely that the next secretary general will come from eastern Europe – there is no requirement as such but it is the only region not to have had a secretary-general and there is wide agreement in the general membership that it is eastern Europe’s turn – and that the UN may well elect its first female secretary-general.
Farouk Araie, [email protected]
Democracy is a two-way street!
Dear Sir,
MR’s response, “Change mentality” (Gulf Times, May 3), to H K Madhu’s letter “A PM who is in touch” (Gulf Times, May 2) misses the point altogether, I think.
The first letter was not meant as a political assessment of the leader concerned nor an analytical essay on his accomplishments and failures. It was about his keenness to keep in touch with people who interacted the web portal of the Prime Minister’s Office.
I see the first letter, which seemed to have irked MR, as a personal impression. Is it a good idea to bring politics into all our dealings?
One may not agree with everything a political leader stands for and does, but in a democracy one has to accept and respect different views and ideas.
Democracy is about defending one’s rights while protecting others’ rights to express themselves freely. Some people seem to think democracy is a one-way street! How can that be, please?
RT, (Full name and e-mail address suppplied)
Please send us your letters By e-mail: [email protected]
