I don't think residents of the Security Council nations are allowed to be Secretary-General. Even if they were, recommendations come from the Council, and there's no way China or Russia would allow an American or vice-versa. Actually, America probably would allow a Russian now.
The very first Secretary-General was actually from the UK but…
I don't think residents of the Security Council nations are allowed to be Secretary-General. Even if they were, recommendations come from the Council, and there's no way China or Russia would allow an American or vice-versa. Actually, America probably would allow a Russian now.
The very first Secretary-General was actually from the UK but only served in an Acting capacity until the first true Sec-Gen could be appointed.
Also, small- to middle-sized nations have generally been chosen, so it definitely seems there is an effort to avoid giving too much power to nations that already have a lot of power and influence globally (German, Japan, Italy, etc.). South Korea seems to be the largest economy to have had a Sec-Gen. States in near-perpetual conflict with other nations like Israel and India are probably not going to make it either.
Korea is a weird case. I think for most people it's an easy conflict to reduce to out of sight, out of mind.
It's a conflict that could escalate into a high intensity war, and would be an extremely terrible one were it to do so. Millions dead, lots of damage to the global economy, millions more displaced, geopolitical saber rattling between the world's two largest militaries, risks of nuclear weapon use... It could get very bad, very fast.
Despite all of that, for generations now it's been very low intensity. Makes it easy for people to brush it aside, mentally.
I don't think residents of the Security Council nations are allowed to be Secretary-General. Even if they were, recommendations come from the Council, and there's no way China or Russia would allow an American or vice-versa. Actually, America probably would allow a Russian now.
The very first Secretary-General was actually from the UK but only served in an Acting capacity until the first true Sec-Gen could be appointed.
Also, small- to middle-sized nations have generally been chosen, so it definitely seems there is an effort to avoid giving too much power to nations that already have a lot of power and influence globally (German, Japan, Italy, etc.). South Korea seems to be the largest economy to have had a Sec-Gen. States in near-perpetual conflict with other nations like Israel and India are probably not going to make it either.
Well, the two Koreas are at war, with only an armistice and occasional flareups.
Korea is a weird case. I think for most people it's an easy conflict to reduce to out of sight, out of mind.
It's a conflict that could escalate into a high intensity war, and would be an extremely terrible one were it to do so. Millions dead, lots of damage to the global economy, millions more displaced, geopolitical saber rattling between the world's two largest militaries, risks of nuclear weapon use... It could get very bad, very fast.
Despite all of that, for generations now it's been very low intensity. Makes it easy for people to brush it aside, mentally.