The United Nations will choose a new secretary general before the end of 2016. The process for selecting someone for this post begins with a recommendation arising from the Security Council. Its choice has to win approval of the five veto-possessing members of the Security Council (Russia, China, the United States, France, and Great Britain). Communist China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia will have their say, and that means no one who advocates liberty need apply. Once the Security Council makes its choice, majority approval by the General Assembly (now numbering 193 nations) is needed for a new secretary general to be named.
America’s Alger Hiss served as the acting secretary general of the UN’s founding conference in the spring of 1945. As the co-author of the UN Charter (with Soviet communist Andrei Vyshinsky), Hiss possessed great power. He was later shown to be a secret communist and went to prison for lying about his communist connections. As America’s chief contributor to the UN’s creation, he appointed scores of like-minded communist sympathizers and world government advocates to UN posts.
After the UN held its inaugural meeting in October 1945, the post of secretary general became more of a ceremonial or public relations perch. The Security Council has always been where the UN’s real power resides. But knowing who has been secretary general, and some background and attitudes of such individuals, tells much about the UN itself.
Norwegian Trygve Lie served in the post from 1946 to 1952. He held a high position in Norway’s Social Democratic Labor Party, an undisguised offshoot of the Communist International. He owed his appointment to strong backing by the Soviet Union.
From 1953 to 1961, Sweden’s Dag Hammarskjöld served as secretary general. He actually claimed that his political hero was Communist China’s mass murderer Chou En-lai. Hammarskjöld led the UN when the world government’s forces attacked Katanga, the freedom-seeking province of the former Belgian Congo.
Burma’s U Thant followed from 1961 to 1971. Openly advocating world government, Thant praised the murderous Soviet tyrant Vladimir Lenin, even approving Lenin’s goals because, he revealingly stated, they were “in line with the aims of the UN Charter.”
From 1972 until 1981, Austria’s Kurt Waldheim held the post. A favorite of the USSR, his past service as an officer in the Nazi army during World War II was conveniently overlooked. Another admirer of Chou En-lai, Waldheim cheered the successful campaign to oust Nationalist China from the UN in favor of the Communist Chinese regime.
Next came Peru’s Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (1982-1991). A Marxist, he championed redistribution of the world’s wealth.
From 1992-1996, Egypt’s Boutros Boutros-Ghali held the post for only one five-year term and was refused reappointment. While in office, he bluntly called for an end to “absolute and exclusive sovereignty.”
The next secretary general was Kofi Annan of Ghana, who held the post from 1997 to 2006. Known for his consistent attacks on the very concept of national sovereignty, he was accused of complicity in the massacres occurring in Europe’s Bosnia and Africa’s Rwanda.
South Korea’s Ban Ki-moon succeeded Annan and must step aside before December 31, 2016. A believer of the claims of climate change enthusiasts, Ban has also pushed for the goals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
No one is certain who will be the next secretary general. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has been busily campaigning to become the first female in the post. She has served at the UN since 2009 as the leader of its Development Program, the third-highest position at the UN. But because it seems to be Eastern Europe’s turn to send someone to be the next secretary general, Ms. Clark may have to wait. She also may be too pro-Western for some of UN’s heavyweights. Any convinced socialist or outright communist would fit more comfortably in the post.
There is no chance whatsoever that the next UN secretary general will do anything to slow the steady growth of power possessed by the world body. Nations wishing to be independent, certainly including the United States, should have nothing to do with the UN.