I could go on and on with a list of countries. I suspect that a large number will respond for Europe, especially if I had put the UK as a seperate listing.

"The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council. The

Secretary-General's selection is therefore subject to the veto of any of the five permanent members of the Security

Council."

Meaning that the US, China, Russia, France and/or England can veto any candidate for the post.

And yes, Little Billy Clinton has expressed his interest in becoming the next SG (fat chance of that happening, but think what that would do for spreading the sexual revolution around the world !)

The previous (and current) Sec Gen's:

Kofi Annan (Ghana)

Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt)

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru)

Kurt Waldheim (Austria)

U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar)

Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden)

Trygve Lie (Norway)

Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom) (acting SG, 1945/46)

Anywhere but Thailand. If Taksin get control of the UN, too, well........

If you look at the histories of all the countries of the Earth and how likely it is that any representative from them could really promote world peace then I think that you will agree with me that we might do better to try Mars or beyond.

Thanks for the informative original post.

I saw Jimmy Carter being interviewed by Charlie Rose. When asked if he would like to be Sec-General of the UN, Carter smiled modestly (maybe even reluctantly) and replied, "Oh, they'd never pick an AMERICAN!"

Carter's well qualified, but too old now. Clinton hasn't a chance.

Notice that you probably never heard of most of the previous guys before they became SG (except maybe Kurt Waldheim).

I nominate Mary Robinson of Ireland. They say that when she went to visit the massacre site at Acteal (Chiapas, Mexico) she barred the press from taking pictures, and descended that muddy staircase in indigenous clothing. I believe at that time she served as UN High Commissioner for Extra-Judicial Executions.

Although not SE Asia (but it's the closest listing to vote for Asia), a Sri Lankan has very good potential to win it. The popular thought is if they go by turns, which is what the Thais are so fond of saying that their candidate will it, then it is indeed Asia's turn. He's a career diplomat on an international level and has already been a UN under secretary:

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=12431

And before Khun Surakiart gets to gung-ho about his chances, he might want to consider this:

UN post depends on ‘coming clean’ on rights

If the government wants the world on its side in its bid to get Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai the post of United Nations secretary-general, then it must come clean on its human-rights record, a senator said yesterday.

Senator Kraisak Chonhavan, a noted human-rights campaigner, said the government should be frank about the 26 issues raised by the Human Rights Committee of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

“The government always steers clear of the UN on questions about human rights and never has frank answers on the issue,” he said.

But the campaign to nominate Surakiart for the post of UN secretary-general was a good opportunity for the government to show it has faith in the UN system.

“But I am worried about the prime minister’s moody reaction. If we cannot give clear answers, it could hurt the country’s reputation and affect the chance of our candidate to get the UN’s top job,” Kraisak said.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had never shown respect for the UN, especially in regards to human-rights matters. His notorious statement: “The UN is not my father”, made when the UN rights body inquired into his deadly war on drugs in 2003 – was considered by the international community as being very anti-UN.

Kraisak urged the government to tell the truth about the disappearance of prominent Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit and the violence in the deep South.

The 26 topics picked by the UN rights body were divided into 11 categories and addressed certain aspects of the Thai legal system and its practices. It covers civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution – from protection against torture through to freedom of expression to child and minority rights.

The issues were prompted by perceived violations of human rights under the Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, which Thailand has pledged to respect unconditionally.

Asda Jayanama, a former Thai permanent representative to the UN, said it was important for the government to reply to the UN human-rights committee report in order to get international recognition and maintain its good record on human rights.

“If the government is wise, it should comply with international norms with honesty, transparency and sincerity,” he said.

The government had a worrisome human-rights record including the massive death toll in the war on drugs, the disappearance of the Muslim lawyer Somchai, bloodshed at historic Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai deaths in custody, Asda said.

The report submitted to the UN provides a complete background on the Kingdom’s political, economic and legal systems and judicial process, but leaves out some key developments, including the Krue Se and Tak Bai incidents.

Officials from the Foreign Ministry, Justice Ministry and Office of the Attorney General will be dispatched to defend the report in Geneva in July.

Pairob Polphet, a human-rights lawyer for the Union for Civil Liberty has seen the report. He said the government needed to go into detail on many specific cases in order to prove it was serious about protecting human rights in the Kingdom.

“It’s not an embarrassing situation to admit it and tell the world that there are human-rights violations in Thailand. The government would gain credit if it faced up to the reality and corrected the mistakes,” he said.