At
UN,
Pillay's 2d
Term
Questioned by
Western
Diplomats, of
Precedent
&
Ban
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 26 -- In
the aftermath
of last week's
Human Rights
Council
meeting in
Geneva,
questioning of
a second term
as High
Commissioner
for Navi
Pillay has
picked up
steam, not
(only) among
the countries
angry about
the votes but
among major
Western
countries.
Inner
City Press
heard from
non-government
organizations
that in Geneva
a Western
country's
ambassador let
known his
country has
"reservations
about any
High
Commissioner
having a
second term or
being able to
point to a
second term
for Pillay
as the
precedent that
confirms that
every High
Commissioner
is
entitled to
two terms."
Resolution
48/141
says that a
High
Commissioner
is entitled to
serve two
terms, but to
date no High
Commissioner
has served a
second term.
Pillay
has
seemingly been
aware of big
or
veto-wielding
countries'
interests,
notably by
failing to
attend a Nobel
Peace Prize
winner's
ceremony
and more
recently by
still not
releasing any
casualty count
from the
ethnic strife
in Pibor,
South Sudan,
due not only
to UN's
alleged
negligence in
responding too
slowing,
including
remaining
without
military
helicopters
from November
until the
events, but
also due to
major power --
Host Country
-- support for
the government
in Juba.
Click here
for another
Pibor story
from earlier
today.
At
the UN in New
York on March
26, Inner City
Press followed
up and while
hitting some
resistance to
go on the
record, a
Western
diplomat told
Inner City
Press, "in all
the senior
jobs we think
there should
be a
special
process. I
think we need
to look if
there are
other
candidates who
might want to
apply for that
job. I don't
know if she
[Pillay] wants
to run again,
or if the S-G
wants her to
run again."
One
might wonder
why such a
process wasn't
applied to Ban
Ki-moon's
getting a
second
term. Perhaps
it's because
for the UN
Secretary
General that
HAS
emerged an
unfortunate
precedent for
two terms, at
least to a
regional
group, so that
when the Bill
Clinton
administration
vetoed
Boutros
Boutros Ghali
for a second
term, Kofi
Annan also
from the
African Group
was the
successor,
then for ten
years, given
the
African Group
15 years.
If Ban had
been removed
this time, the
Asia
Group would
have put up
another S-G,
probably for
10 years.
Ban
supported a
second term at
Supachai
Panitchpakdi
at UNCTAD,
some said to
fortify
his own claim
for a second
term. Now that
he has that in
the bag,
what will he
and Western
powers do
about Pillay?
Watch this
site.
, 
