Well, I agree in part with that; but I’d say that the other side of that coin is that western corporation’s desire for cheap labor is one of the developing world’s best tools.
Many NGOs are staffed with the sort of folks that would prevent Nike from opening a plant in Haiti because the workers will only get $5 an day … and instead will leave them working the fields for $5 a week.
There is an inherent tension between the corporation’s interests and those of the workers, but there is not an inherent conflict.
I’d say the realistic chances of any American citizen, much less a former President, being named as UN Secretary-General are all but non-existent. The US is already the most powerful nation on Earth; other nations are not going to accept an American being named as their leader, however symbolic the actual title is.
Yes, and to hell with the poor of the developing world. There was a time when the left was all about empowering the third world, supporting the international brotherhood of workers, etc. I’m sorry to see it gone. It seems to me that both parties are determined to steal the most unpleasant ideas from each other.
No way guys. You are all missing the most important factor. If GWB wins reelection, its almost in the bag for clinton. They will be more than willing to have any kind of effect on American foreign policy and will put Bill in there in no time. Clinton could make a few speeches telling how he would try to act as a counter to GWB, etc. It would give the UN much needed American support. I see it as a win/win situation.
Aye, but there’s the rub. As noted in the article, the Bush admin must nominate him. And if he were to flat-out say he’s going to go against admin policy, that would cut deep into his political support in the US. It’s a tricky political rope; but he can do it.
A former prime minister of Canada , Brian Mulrooney was being touted by the Americans ,as the SecGen before kofi got the nod. One of the reasons was that he was bilingual in French , so was acceptable to paris.
