I have been reading with great interest your coverage (most recently "Inside Politics", Oct 13) of Surakiart Sathirathai's bid to become the next United Nations secretary-general. But in all the coverage, one salient fact seems to have been overlooked - invariably the secretary-general is a non-controversial figure.
Irrespective of questions regarding the funding of Khun Surakiart's campaign, and assuming an Asian candidate will be selected (and that is not a foregone conclusion), candidates for the position of UN secretary-general are recommended by the Security Council, for voting in the General Assembly.
A candidate needs the approval of nine of the 15 members of the Security Council and can be vetoed by any of the five permanent member states.
Of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US), only Russia and China have so far indicated that they would support an Asian candidate.
However, convention dictates the position should now rotate to Asia, so assuming it does, what choices are there apart from Khun Surakiart?
It would seem the only other contenders are Sri Lankan peace negotiator and UN veteran Jayantha Dhanapala, and possibly South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon (who is unlikely to be supported by either Russia or China).
EU members France and the UK will not support a Thai candidate while Thailand still supports - or at the very least tacitly condones - the Burmese junta.
Of the elected members of the Security Council, the two members of the EU, Denmark and Greece, will also not support a Thai candidate. Romania is about to join the EU and is unlikely to support a Thai candidate, either.
Quite how the other members will vote is unclear, but given the choices at present, it would seem that Mr Dhanapala would be the clear choice.
How ironic, after U Thant's successes at the UN, that the issue of Burma should preclude a Thai from becoming secretary-general.