For those who missed it…

No, I'm not referring to the debates this week. I'm thinking of the story that was circulating in the NY Sun (here) and the International Herald Tribune (here). Now that the name Kwasniewski is familiar to 61 million Americans (Bush mentioned the Polish president twice in the course of the debate), I want to note here that Kwasniewski is one of the front-runners to replace Kofi Annan when Annan’s term is up in two years.

What, you think it’s too soon to be mentioning a replacement? Hey, if Jay Leno could announce the new host for the Tonight Show five years hence, we may certainly speculate who the new leader will be at the UN.

Of course, many are denying that Kwasniewski is a real contender. They have to. The conventional wisdom is that early-mentioned front-runners are just a smoke screen for the real candidates. In reality though, Poland has a real shot at it. Why? The cynical reason that has been offered is that the United States has to agree to the selected person. The same United States that is tired of having Kofi Annan publicly state to the General Assembly that the US has violated international law. The same United States that loves loves loves Kwasniewski’s unwavering loyalty to American foreign policy (no matter what the policy is, or who articulates it). The less cynical explanation is that Eastern Europe has never had a turn at heading the international organization. The closest Poland itself came to leading the UN was in the 1970s when a Pole was selected to serve as under-secretary general. Yes, well, I’ll let it go at that. There’s obviously a juicy story there, but not one for this post.

Another frontrunner now, btw, is the Iranian President, Khatani. Is this ludicrous? According to the NYSun, an American diplomat commented: "We had a Nazi, why not a representative of a terrorist state?" (The reference here is to the Austrian Kurt Waldheim, secretary general during the 1970s).