It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 1. Mrjenka vs. Zenlover28: Conventional Secretary

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:17 AM
The topic for this debate is "The Next Secretary-General of the United Nations should be chosen from Asia, as per convention".

Mrjenka will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Zenlover28 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.

Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only one image and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:37 PM
Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you Nygdan. And the best of luck to my opponent Zenlover28.

As I am sure we are all aware that Asia represents 56.4 % of the world’s population, roughly 3,667,774,066 people as of 2006(estimate). With such an overwhelming population it is necessary for all of Asia’s people to have proper and adequate representation on a world forum. With an Asian Secretary-General Asia would make leaps with there economical stability as the better part of Asia at present time is struggling. Political unrest and poverty runs rampant in many parts of Asia and with the proper representation on a world forum these issue could be addressed. Furthermore, with an Asian Secretary-General the ever growing worries of a nuclear war with Asia would subside and a line of communication would be open for all countries involved. A better understanding of the cultures and the people of Asia would be reached, with not only Asia but the world benefiting from an open line of communication, where we as people could learn and teach one another and work and strive to build a better world for all generations to come. Many people in this world do not recognize the Asian population and there contributions to the world, without a public figure we can go on many more years without adequate presentation and many Asian people would suffer due to this. With a public figure Asia would receive much help that it needs which in turn would benefit the world. If 56.4% of the population could live in a balanced and healthy economy than the whole world would strive as well. Asia is an intrigue part of our daily lives and life as we know it would be very hard without Asians. With a new Asian secretary-general the whole world would prosper and grow. Both in the economical field as well as in the more personal, culture learning, friendship building, category as well.

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:58 PM
Thank you Nygdan and staff for allowing me the pleasure to participate in this debate. I also want to wish you the best of luck as well mrjenka. I hope we can keep this light hearted and informative.

Opening Statement:

The most vital resolution the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Security Council, will make in 2006 will undoubtedly be the appointment of the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations. One can take many different stances to argue against why “The Next Secretary-General of the United Nations should be chosen from Asia, as per convention”. Since 1946 the U.N. has appointed seven (7) Secretary-Generals from the following regions: Western Europe-6 terms, Africa-3 terms, Asia-2 terms, Latin America-2 terms, Eastern Europe-0 terms.

My opponent has stated that Asia deserves this appointment because the Asians represent over half of the world’s population and they “need proper and adequate representation” in the world. However, the United Nations is not about a voice for one particular population nor was it organized to represent the majority and to help them make economic strides. Per the United Nations website, “The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems”.

Naturally, Asia would want an Asian to become the next Secretary-General since the Asians have not filled this post since U Thant from 1961 to 1971. However, that does not mean that Asia necessarily has a candidate with the best credentials to fill this leadership role. The Asians claim they are entitled to this post due to their standing in regards to regional rotation. However, my argument will clearly state and define why their claims of entitlement are based upon interpretation of a loosely worded resolution that the General Assembly endorsed on rotation in August of 1997. My argument will be based on this loosely worded resolution and the history or lack there of a clear pattern of regional rotation within the appointment of the Secretary-General in the past. I will argue why this resolution does not clearly define why “The Next Secretary-General of the United Nations should be chosen from Asia, as per convention.”

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:28 PM
Mrjenka has missed the response deadline and will forfeit his response. Zenlover28, please prepare a second response and post when you are ready. Mrjenka will then have 24 hours in which to respond.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:35 AM
The UN Charter, in article 97, provides no direction concerning rotation of the post of Secretary-General. As the Asians insist that it is their turn to hold the post there are many different arguments questioning whether or not it actually is their turn or not. The first time the issue of regional rotation has ever been mentioned in a resolution regarding the election process of the Secretary-General was on August 22, 1997, when the General Assembly approved its conclusions on rotation in resolution 51/241:

"In the course of the identification and appointment of the best candidate for the post of Secretary-General, due regard shall continue to be given to regional rotation and shall also be given to gender equality". (External Source, 1)

Now, there are three points in this resolution to discuss:

•Identification and appointment of the best candidate
•Regional Rotation
•Gender Equality

There are several questions one can ask regarding the interpretation of this resolution. The resolution does not make it clear which factor holds more weight than the other. If "regional rotation" is to be a determining factor then Eastern Europe, who is still recognized as a region by the United Nations, has never held this post. Also, if gender equality is to be considered then a woman should certainly be considered for the appointment as well. However, that does not mean that any of the women in the background that have been mentioned are the “best candidate”. So, in this loosely worded resolution that can be interpreted a number of different ways there really is no credibility whatsoever to Asia’s claims that it is their turn to hold the position. If anything it would give more credibility to the Eastern Europeans claims that perhaps it is their turn.

Many would argue that Eastern Europe only exists as a separate geographical group at the United Nations and therefore does not deserve a turn. However, the Eastern Europeans will in turn argue that they emerged as a separate entity during the Cold War and to deny them a turn would be like saying “well, yes we recognize you as a group, but not really”. And, to add even more fuel to the fire it is being argued that Eastern Europe clearly has the “best candidate” for the position out of any of the candidates that have been mentioned so far from Asia. Aleksander Kwasniewski, the former president of Poland, stands above any of the other candidates that have been mentioned. He is a former communist who defeated Lech Walesa to be elected Poland’s leader and he has completely redefined Poland’s role and helped elevate the economy. (External Source, 2).

And then we have history. On the surface history may look like it has supported the regional rotation theory. However, if you dig more deeply you will find that was not always necessarily the case. The practice up until 1996 right before resolution 51/241 was created suggests three different positions held by at least three different groups of member states:

External Source 1:
•Those who assert that a principle of rotation exists and should be followed strictly.
•Those who believe that no principle of rotation binds the Security Council, but who in practice are prepared to vote on an ad hoc basis in a manner that supports wider diversity.
•Those who reject any principle of rotation and support the freedom to champion the best candidate from whatever region.

For example, history reveals that in the past there have been numerous occasions where candidates from other regions were presented and seriously considered suggesting that both the candidates and the governments endorsing these candidates did not accept the existence of regional rotation. (External Source, 1) The pattern which follows shows the various geographical regions that campaigned for Secretary-General in the past:

External Source 1:
• 1946-Norway
• 1953-Poland, Philippines, Canada, India, Sweden
• 1961/62-Burma
• 1966-Burma
• 1971-Finland, Austria, Argentina
• 1981-Tanzania, Austria, Iran, Peru
• 1991-Zimbabwe, Egypt, Netherlands, Iran, Canada, Norway
• 1996-African candidates only
• 2001-African candidates only

This pattern clearly suggests that not everyone within the United Nations is in agreement upon the regional rotation theory. And it can also be argued as to whether or not the former Secretary-Generals were appointed based on the regional rotation theory or not.

So, if Asia believes that it is their turn to hold the Secretary-General post they must clearly provide a better candidate. It makes more sense for the better candidate from Eastern Europe to be chosen because this nominee clearly upholds two of the factors presented in resolution 51/241. He is as of now the “best candidate for the post” and if “due regard” is to be given to “regional rotation” then Eastern Europe has yet to hold the post.

Source 1:
Source 2:
Source 3:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:04 PM
mrjenka has missed the deadline for a response. Zenlover28, please prepare and post your next response.

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:50 AM
To be honest Nygdan I don't know how to respond without someone giving me some material to respond to. Do I need to withdraw?

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:46 AM
Mrjenka has missed the deadline and forfeits the debate. Zenlover28 advances to Round 2, where she will face some stiff competition!

new topics

top topics


log in