Would someone ask the French to please stop surrendering?

[KrazyHorse]

And who was S-G before Annan?

This was against the backdrop of an American veto on the reelection of BBG.

Which was what my first post said.

[Tattila the Hun]

I get my American side of world politics and economy from CNBC europe...

Aww, who am I kidding. I only watch CNBC because of Maria Bartiromo.

[Drake Tungsten]

And who was S-G before Annan?

This was against the backdrop of an American veto on the reelection of BBG.

Which was what my first post said.

France always guarantees a veto for candidates who don't speak French. This wasn't a one time deal. The opposition to Annan was out of spite towards America. The opposition to Salim, OTOH, was a result of France's long time insistence that all UN Secretary Generals speak French. Apples and oranges...

[KrazyHorse]

When did France say it guarantees a veto on all non-french speaking candidates?

And how many of the UN S-Gs have spoken English?

It's obviously going to be a consideration for any of the veto powers when it comes up. The only exception is China (since almost no candidates will likely speak chinese).

The Russians want Russian-speakers, the UK+US want English speakers and the French want French speakers. But I doubt the French have guaranteed a veto on any non-francophone, and if the right candidate for them came along I doubt their language would be a problem.

The French just plain were pissed off at the BBG thing, and felt like giving everybody a headache.

[Drake Tungsten]

When did France say it guarantees a veto on all non-french speaking candidates?

Since the UN started...

I guess you need more proof, so here you go. Seems the French were opposed to Annan partially because he didn't speak enough French.

 France was the primary supporter of Essy, based on the fact that he spoke fluent French (but only halting English), had earned his law degree from Poitiers University in France, and came from a former French colony. Essy was, however, hampered by recent charges that France plays a too dominant role in its former dependencies. The French threatened initially to veto Annan, who speaks little French, but the American and British indicated they would veto Essy. In the end, with Annan clearly ahead in the straw votes, and given that he speaks at least some French, France gave way. After several votes, the Security Council nominated Annan to be the seventh UN secretary-general, and on December 17, 1996, the General Assembly formally voted Annan into office.

http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/wpold/ch7/infp8.mhtml

[KrazyHorse]

And still, immediately after BBG was vetoed by the US.

Guess why Annan was okay by the US. Here's a hint: he went to school there...

[Drake Tungsten]

You're avoiding the point. France vetoes or threatens to veto secretary-general candidates based solely on whether they speak French or not. No other state in the Security Council does this. I'm right, you're wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Which other country has vetoed the reelection of a Sec-Gen?

AFAIK, BBG was the only one.

The French were annoyed and acted like *******s on one vote, immediately after the fact.

[Drake Tungsten]

If France doesn't have a known policy of vetoing non-French speaking candidates, then why did South Africa refuse to nominate Salim? Salim wasn't the favored candidate of the US, so he wouldn't have been subject to French retaliation. South Africa didn't nominate him because they knew the French would veto him; it's known that France requires all Secretary-Generals to speak French.

Why don't you just admit you're wrong on this so we can move on?

[KrazyHorse]

Why should I admit I'm wrong when the facts you've presented are exactly the ones I alluded to in my original post?

You've made a characterization based around 1 election in unusual circumstances.

[Drake Tungsten]

(sigh)

Maroun Labaki commented in independent Le Soir (12/13),
France solemnly demands that the secretary general speak French. This is already somewhat particular.... French is a marvelous language and we should all be proud of it. But is it reasonable to dig such trenches and to conjure up such defensive lines around our language?

http://www.fas.org/news/france/mr961219.htm

From a French paper no less. You still going to stick to your false claim that the French don't require Secretary-Generals to speak French?

[KrazyHorse]

And from 1996 again.

You're beginning to act like a one-trick pony.

[Drake Tungsten]

And from 1996 again.

Of course it's from 1996. That's when the last Secretary-General was elected and all the sites I'm finding on Google involve that election process. Are you expecting Google to find information from when Waldheim was elected?

I expected better from you, I really did. I thought you might have the decency to admit that you were wrong. Another one of my hopes dashed, it seems...

[KrazyHorse]

I tell you that the one time the French got all prissy about language was 1996 due to the fact that they were in a pissed off mood, and all you do is keep providing examples from 1996 in order to refute me?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why do you totally ignore the Salim example, the first damn thing I posted? That had nothing to do with US-French tension and everything to do with France's stated policy of not accepting non-French speaking Secretary-Generals. You're the one who brought Annan into the debate, not I, so to show that France's opposition to Annan was not based solely on language (which it wasn't) does nothing to refute my argument. You're beating on a strawman.

You can play dumb all you want, but I'm done with it. You're not worth my time...