Essay by Eric Worrall
Apparently UN favoured candidates are not impressing Team Trump. But there is another potential candidate who might tick everyone’s box.
In a world of wars and climate crisis, a new leader could save the UN. But would Trump allow it?Steve Bloomfield
Sun 20 Sep 2026 23.38 AESTAs the organisation meets this week, it remains the best hope for restoring order. But it relies on goodwill from the US president – and that is lacking
If all goes to plan, at some stage in the coming weeks 15 diplomats will emerge from a small sound-proofed room deep in the bowels of the United Nations headquarters in New York and announce the organisation’s next secretary-general.
The person they choose will face a combination of challenges unlike any that their predecessors have had to deal with. Two of the security council’s permanent members, the US and Russia, are engaged in wars of choice that have no end in sight. A UN commission of inquiry has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, but the UN has effectively been reduced to the role of bystander, pushed out by Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. The climate crisis is creating a cascade of new humanitarian disasters, while every day now seems to bring a new security threat caused by the unregulated rise of AI.
All of this is happening in a world in which the very principles of the UN – multilateralism, a rules-based order and international law – are under threat.
…It is not easy to argue you are best placed to save the UN when the man you need to persuade would rather it fails.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/20/un-new-leader-wars-climate-crisis-donald-trump
…
Obviously a new kind of candidate is needed – someone who fulfils President Trump’s wishes for a less influential United Nations, yet who also fulfils the UN requirement for a dedicated globalist climate warrior.
I once again present former Australian PM and former Aussie ambassador to the USA, Kevin Rudd.
The following video is Kevin Rudd’s unique diplomatic talent on display. Shortly before his appointment as Australia’s ambassador to the USA, Rudd frantically deleted a whole bunch of disparaging public comments about President Trump, but to Rudd’s surprise, the President got to hear about his disparaging comments anyway.
Rudd in my opinion has a long track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In the words of former political colleague and Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett, from last time Kevin Rudd was in the running as UN Secretary General;
…
In an extract from the memoir, read out by interviewer Melissa Doyle, Garrett wrote supporting Kevin Rudd was “certainly the biggest” mistake he made in his political career.
He didn’t back down from that position in the interview.
“I’ve been particularly strong in this book about leadership and Rudd’s leadership and I think it needed to be said,” Garrett said.
“I’m critical of him, that’s true, very critical, but I think for good reason.”
Another of his criticisms is that Mr Rudd jeopardised the safety of Australia.
“It’s a big call, but I stand by it,” Garrett said. He added Mr Rudd treated people with “an enormous amount of contempt” and made “the business of the country almost ungovernable”.
When pushed on what danger he feared Mr Rudd posed, Garrett said the former PM was “unpredictable” and he didn’t know what he “could or would do”.
…
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-garrett-says-kevin-rudd-was-a-danger-to-australia-in-tv-interview-20151011-gk6i04.html
Other political figures are also scathing – though Rudd draws some surprising support;
…
Some conservative MPs and ministers are opposed to Mr Rudd being nominated.
“This guy did his best to ruin our country,” South Australian MP Tony Pasin said in April. “That we would think about imposing him on the rest of the world beggars belief.”
But he has received public endorsements from prominent figures including UK economist Lord Nicholas Stern and former East Timor president and Nobel prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta.
…
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-seeks-australian-government-support-for-un-secretary-general-candidacy-20160717-gq7sfw.html
Another endorsement, this time from the leftist Sydney Morning Herald;
You cannot be serious: Kevin Rudd would be a disaster as UN chief
Nicholas Stuart
July 22, 2016 — 5:02pmThere’s no need to explain why Kevin Rudd would be a disaster for the UN: that’s a given.
The functioning human being vanished long ago, consumed by hatred. Back then he worked, unrelentingly, to destroy Julia Gillard, even if it meant pulling Labor’s house down around him. When reinstalled in office he suffered one of the most precipitate declines in polling ever recorded by a PM. Then his disastrous re-election campaign ran off the road. It remained bogged, spinning out ever-wilder ideas in a desperate attempt to cut through. He promised he’d set things to rights, but that was always the critical failing of the Rudd project – it relied completely on him. There was never any room for anyone else. In those final days in office he was travelling around the country in a bubble of his own imagination, utterly detached from reality.
Today the fantasy continues. At first he genuinely thought he might have a role here as an elder statesman. His colleagues urged him to go and he shuffled off overseas. Amazingly, and by all accounts, he does appear to have reinvented himself. But that’s a long way from being a viable contender for Secretary General of the UN.
He hasn’t really managed to convince anybody other than himself that he’s actually got a chance at achieving the top job. It’s ludicrously wishful thinking. To believe he has any chance of heading the world body is stunningly, breathtakingly naive. The scenario he’s peddling has all the obvious contenders fighting one another to a standstill allowing Rudd to glide, untouched and seemingly unassailable, through the middle. It won’t happen.
…
Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/you-cannot-be-serious-kevin-rudd-would-be-a-disaster-as-un-chief-20160722-gqbbwx.html
Despite everything, Rudd ticks all the boxes for his globalist and climate beliefs. He apparently even speaks fluent Mandarin.
My only reservation about advocating Kevin Rudd is the remote possibility he might start World War Three. But the man’s ability to alienate his strongest supporters, to cause disunity where formerly there was harmony, to offend, to divide, to break the unbreakable, is a gift to the world. The damage such a person would do to the UN in my opinion would likely be irreparable.
If you know someone who has the ear of the President, please suggest Kevin Rudd. Rudd has repeatedly demonstrated an uncanny ability to win enough support to secure important diplomatic posts, yet has a near unbroken track record of making a complete mess of whatever post he wins, until he is finally ejected in a flurry of embarrassment and damage control.
“Two of the security council’s permanent members, the US and Russia, are engaged in wars of choice”
Mushroom clouds or war .
Hmmm…
Wars of choice.
You nailed it.
Mushroom clouds or war.
Russia?
Yes.
Ongoing since 2014.
I know the contra-factual arguments, so spare me the repetition.
USA?
No.
Unless you think chosing to let Iran keep its atomic bomb and develop a thermo-nuclear device to go with it.
The already have an intermediate delivery system capable of hitting London and it would not take much modifications to reach NYC.
The scary part is the maneuverable payload.
There is no use for uranium enriched to the levels reported by IAEA except for weapons.
I do not believe we stopped Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even with the destruction wreaked on them.
Taking out the heavy water production facility was key, but not permanent.
There is no question they have plutonium, but the question is how much.
Iran could launch a radiological (aka dirty bomb) today.
So, ok. A war of choice.
Mushroom clouds or war.
You nailed it.
More accurately, never-ending terrorism or ending the terrorist regime now (at the cost of a temporary increase in gas prices).
The Mad Mullahs and their fanatics were more likely to, like North Korea, hold the threat of using nuclear weapons (against Israel and their noncompliant neighbors) to prevent any effort to attack the regime and neutralize them. Using nukes immediately after building a few to annihilate Israel wasn’t as likely, though that is their ultimate stated goal. The West’s option was to handle it now or never be able to eradicate them, while watching helplessly as they continue to terrorize, destabilize, and destroy. Only two Western leaders were willing to step up and do it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu and President Donald Trump.
Been ongoing for what, 47 years now?
“the very principles of the UN – multilateralism, a rules-based order and international law”
But it can’t succeed if one nation on the security council decides to veto an action. That’s not a rules-based order.
Sure it is. There’s a rule. It is followed.
You may mean it’s not fair, or it’s not democracy. But even Hitler followed the rules, after he was legitimately put in office, and after the legislature legitimately passed the Enabling Act which legitimately said his edicts were as valid as legislation.
Just because you don’t like the rules doesn’t mean they aren’t rules.
It’s a stupid rule that has prevented the UN from accomplishing anything.
At the time it was put in place, it was for self-preservation.
3 of the UN Security Council members were from the Soviet Block.
Times change. The rules did not evolve on this point.
There is nothing automatically good about a rules-based order without the foundation of the rules coming from the perspective of a moral order.
Best to have things called international. Like international health care, international local environmental care, international species preservation, international scientific collaboration.
Abandon blocs. Disband the EU and US and the Russian Federation and return China to its separate states.
Oboy, a New World Order nutcase has arrived. How so very nice…
Actually, he is proposing the New World Disorder.
Actually, you’re right, but you know damned well he doesn’t see it that way. I can see why some people would think that a multitude of smaller states would be better, but those people have not read their histories of ANY era. Warlords, tin-pots, messiah types…hoo boy, and with nukes… just what the world needs. Nice turn of phrase there.
I had considered lengthening my post with those points.
Thanks for saving me the effort. 🙂
Great minds and all that, but you led the way. Thanks.
One world government, so that there is no longer a place to go to escape the socialists.
BTW, who gets to decide who’s morals we are going to use?
Is it moral to steal from those who work, so that those who don’t want to work can have more free stuff?
My experience was that plenty of thieving was done by those in work. But they get decorated not derided as parasites……
Quite a fantasy. The reality about humans is that they’re always going to fight at all levels. As to why, that would take many volumes to discuss. Everybody seems offended by somebody, or some organization, or some nation. Issues never get fully resolved, ad infinitum.
Great idea. Create the ultimate bureaucracy and concentrate power in even fewer hands. Government is the problem. Bigger government is just a bigger problem.
Do define your concept of “moral order”. Most totalitarian regimes use such a concept.
What is a moral order?
Is it akin to a moral code?
A shame so many religions with quality moral codes are being abandoned, eh?
Hmmmm-a moral code is, to my mind, a set of “good” morals to live by, like people hiding the Jews from the Nazis. The Nazis had a moral order (structure)-kill or enslave anybody not “pure” by their definition. A problem would be in defining “good”. Even there, there’s a problem. I’m going out to my garden now…my head hurts.
God? O just use the common/social language context derived definition.
Remember that is soooo baaad means it is good.
Oh good is equivalent to oh shit.
I usually say that just before something blows up in my face, like arguing with my wife. Then its Oh, F me!
I posted a typo. God should have been Good.
“Rudd frantically deleted a whole bunch of disparaging public comments about President Trump, but to Rudd’s surprise, the President got to hear about his disparaging comments anyway”
No problemo for Trump. Everyone that now works for him disparaged him when he first ran. He’s got a thick skin and is more interested in what they can do for him, than what they said about him in the past.
Thick skin, Trump? Sure, that’s why he sues so much, and why he tries to get the FCC to yank broadcasting licenses.
I’m for sure no fan of Trump but
taking so much heat for so many years – you need a very thick skin.
Even majority of sociopaths would have crumbled within the 1st week.
“that’s why he sues so much”
And often wins because the defamations have no basis in reality.
No, he often wins because defendants are detered by his litigious record. He uses it as a weapon even when not likely to win. It must be very expensive defending yourself against his suites with them possibly going all the way to the SCOTUS.
The folks he sues, mostly, deserve it for one good reason or another. Where I grew up, grudges were holy, absolutely holy-and you have to admit that he’s been seriously wronged in the past. That said, I just sit back and watch as he gets everybody-rightfully or wrongly-riled. Besides, it keeps folks on their toes watching their backsides…ok, so I bent a metaphor-sue me.
I will submit your comment to Trump and let him sue you. 😉
10 bucks says he’d agree with me.
I will refuse to take that bet. 🙂
You can have thick skin but that doesn’t mean you’ll let others walk all over you. Considering the countless attacks against him, I’d say his skin is far thicker than 99% of the population.
That is called leverage to keep the opposition off balance. He has always been pretty good at it.
You understand the Art of the Deal.
The FCC could revoke licenses. They’re not a protected right. They’re given with the understanding that broadcasters contribute to the public good. When they lie incessantly about Trump and Republicans and become propaganda mouthpieces for the Deranged Democrat Party (the DDP, similar to the CCP in China), they’re obviously not contributing to the public good.
But it’s not going to happen.
Instead, David Ellison and his Paramount Skydance will buy Warner Bros. and the broadcasters they own (CNN, M-SNOW-job, etc.) and clean out their
journalistsshrieking leftist propagandists and replace them with real journalists not devoted to the Holy Democrat Party. And don’t try “but he signed an agreement with Bonta and his cabal of state AGs” because it’s a worthless agreement and Ellison knows it. They have no legal standing to compel Paramount to comply with their coercion. Once the deal is done and Ellison tells them to suck it, they can’t do anything about it. And it’s saving him hundreds of millions in potential fines and legal costs. Can’t wait to watch oceans of leftist tears and hear wailing like the sound of a million wiener dogs all screeching at once.Based on your comments, one could speculate that the whole resistance to the merger (California anti-trust comes to mind) is that the D-team did not want to lose their mouthpiece.
I am sure the UN will come up with some woke based candidate probably a black woman from some country no one can pinpoint on the map. Alternatively they could get Ms Oreskes to step into the role, but only if they are looking for a complete loser…..again.
So you are saying “the oceans are boiling” Guterres is a complete loser?
Oh, right.
Trump will give them the same dose of angst as they have given the West. Until the UN starts sticking to their mission ….. preventing wars ….. they aren’t worth spit. They’ve grown into a massive quango with the sole goal of governing the world by their very admission.
The UN lost all legitimacy in my mind when they replaced China with the mainland PRC and refused to let Taiwan remain a member. They didn’t start out so well either, with the Ukraine and Belarus Soviet Socialist Republics as founding nations along with the USSR itself.
Their idiotic security council vetoes mean they can’t actually do much to prevent wars or keep peace.
I’d just as soon exit the UN, leave them to wallow in someone else’s money. Let them keep their building, but drop their diplomatic immunity and make them start paying parking tickets.
Isn’t One-State-China also official US policy?
I’m pretty sure your country does not have an embassy in Taiwan.
Neither do I, or you. So?
Yes and no. US has what it calls a “one-China” policy but it’s not China’s “one-China” policy. As a U.S. Department of State spokesperson stated on July 29, 2025, “The United States remains committed to our longstanding ‘one-China’ policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiqués, and the Six Assurances.” (notice the part about “guided by”?) most of those guiding documents date back to the 1970s and detail the US’s relations with China and with Taiwan (including our selling Taiwan defensive weapons and that while the US acknowledges China’s One China claims it does not endorse them). Basically, the US calls it a one-China policy to appease the PRC in order to facilitate relations with China, but the details of that policy show that it is nothing like China’s one-China policy.
The UN was a globalist wet dream for world domination from the beginning. The subjugation of nation states to their will was the goal Trump negated for America. The EU and Australia are compliant serfs.
The UN was a talking shop to prevent a repeat of WW II. The veto was granted to victorious WW II nuclear powers initially. A very illogical point of view these days.
Ship them lock, stock, and barrel to sub-Saharan Africa and have them employed as Rainmakers.
Woo-boy! You’re on a roll today!
Vetoing stupid stuff is really the only reason to stay in the
uselesscounter productive UN organization anyway.+20
The UN is UNhinged.
Keir Starmer is looking for a new job…
Keir Starmer would be a fantastic Secretary General.
Everyone would start to hate the UN within 3 month.
……. and 3 months is generous. How about 3 days?
Nuts. I already hate it!
You mean like Trump is a fantastic US President, what with the whole world now hating the US….?
Here’s a very American expression for you: Who gives a flying F? The rest of the world, pretty much, is going to Hell in a handcart, but when it hits rock bottom, who’s gonna get called? Trust me, it ain’t gonna be Ghostbusters.
Absolutely – that’s why I was always for Trump.
And that’s why I still am – pro Israel – Trump.
Trump generates a reaction.
Kamala can commit all his crimes with 90% resistance.
Monday mirth
Guardian offices infested with bedbugs
Outbreak poses challenge to the newspaper’s struggle with staff over working from home
… a fresh setback to the newspaper’s efforts to get journalists back into the newsroom…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/09/21/guardian-offices-infested-with-bedbugs/
So that’s what Guardian churnelists get up to instead of doing their jobs.
Maybe Bedbug is a good alternative name for a Guardian journalist.
Wait a doggone minute.
The Telegraph did not claim the bedbug infestation at the Guardian was caused by Climate Change?
HOW DARE THEY!
This reminds me of what you do when your daughter comes home with an utterly unsuitable young man. You welcome him and embrace him, and praise him like he is Santa Claus.
Isn’t this kind of strategy also being used to sell vaccines, renewables and certain groups of people with a negative impact on society ?
Let us treat trash as something special.And as long as it ain’t white trash no one is allowed to call it trash.
Isn’t that the true point of equality? That if a black person is a depraved wastrel, they get called out on it in public and no-one can say you are racist because it’s true? There’s no equality on this earth without equality of criticism, equality of responsibility and equality of treatment in every world talking shop…..
Of course it is.
Reverse racism is still racism.
It was never about equality – Its just that all the things racist did an Orwellian turn.
The reason why a certain group of people went so deep down is because of no criticism combined with worship of antisocial behavior via hip hop.
Well, like other authoritarians, Kevvie has written a number of books.
And like all authoritarians, most of Kevvie’s messaging is about what societies HAVE to do.
All according to Kevvie’s superior intellect and knowledge of how humanity ought to conduct itself under his infallible guidance in order to be saved of course.
Other such authoritarians who have written about what societies HAVE to do include Herr Hitler, Herr Marx and more recently – lauded
wanker banker Mark Carney.World governance aspirations seem to be the common theme . . .
You think Carney is an authoritarian the same as Hitler and Stalin? Your degree of dementia is amusing at best.
Carney’s ideology is rooted in “one world governance”, where (according to him in his book “Values”) all enterprise, commerce, business and industry have to be conducted according to “values” that place environmental protections and goodwill and high social standing of all people above the need for investment & profits.
Apparently, we are all citizens of the world, and as he recently stated –
“young people should be able to live, study and work wherever they like on both sides of the Atlantic”.
So much for Canada’s sovereignty & immigration controls, hey?
99% of SMEs would go bust if they couldn’t prioritise profits. After all, making payroll is often a challenge for even the most decent of SME owners.
It’s the TNCs with their vast wealth that need some form of societal responsibilities assigned to them. Why should they behave like rampaging fascist armies??
Carney is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined as he is a banker; even worse a central banker.
On the other hand Hitler created the mother of all central banks – the BiS.
So he may be he is only just as bad.
Btw – your skill for dementia diagnosis is incredible.
Especially for someone who still doesn’t know that Biden is demented, while this was obvious since at least 2019.
But in this case you only need a few lines of text to get to this conclusion?
Btw – don’t you think it is strange that the banker and superrich hating left voted for a totally unknown superrich banker – who on top won the election for a hated party.
Kind of 5-Sigma event replacing a 5-Sigma event – a prime ministers son becoming prime minister. (how likely is it to beat 1:10 mio odds twice in an unrigged system?)
Should the ellegible population of a person’s country, assuming a democracy, be the primary determinant of their odds to become president?
(eg parallel:
pure coincidence for Steph Curry or Bronny James? Name recognition?)
(further analysis of parallel:
What if NBA OR political career paths filter on people good at playing basketball or reading teleprompters?)
There is no doubt that megalomaniac Rudd would fit it wonderfully with the UN’s agenda, especially on climate change. BUT, as he is a China lackey, it would be a global disaster for the democratic world if he did get his hands on the reins, as everything he touches goes to shit. Come to think of it, Aussie PM Albanese is in the same mold, but even less credible.
Is this the oligarchy of which Bernie Sanders warned us? The leader of the UN selected by a mere handful of powerful plutocrats. What a farce!
Sounds like a bunch of cardinals all going into conclave to select a new Pope!
But with less transparency. 😁
And more mirrors to go with the smoke
The next General Assembly
I struggle with issues like this. I have no respect for the UN, even their best programs seem to be run miserably and loaded with irregularities. They are uneven in their treatment of troublemakers. They are a money pit returning little good for the billions lavished on them. They bring bad people into our country and shield them with diplomatic immunity. They take up valuable real estate that would likely function better as open space. They consume vast quantities of fossil fuel and other power if that is a concern for you. I just struggle to see the benefit of the UN especially considering how much they cost. I think the US gives up too much to host the UN, if I’m wrong please enlighten me. I don’t see that they have prevented war and killing or anything else. No it is very hard to to excited about who the next UN leader may be, it is so screwed up I’m not sure any leader could make it a working respectable outfit.
If only your comment here could be delivered as a speech to the UN Assembly by a respected nation, Bob.
(fat chance unfortunately)
We should evict the UN from NYC then turn the building into a homeless shelter.
Only partially /s.
‘deep in the bowels of the United Nations headquarters’ – Well, we know what bowels are needed for…
Choose Kevin Rudd, the UN will cease to exist in 6 months to the great benefit of the world.
Your estimate is to generous.
Nah, you’re underestimating Bureaucratic inertia. But 6 months or sooner, it’s all to the good.
“Never trust those Chinese ratfuckers” or something very similar is Rudd getting caught on camera with an open mike.
Yes, at the 2009 Copenhagen CoP if I remember correctly.
IF the UN abandons climate chane THEN what would they do?
Learn how to spell genocide? /s
Find something else to milk
Can’t. They want to ban cows.
It’s a safe bet that the UN will pick some climate crisis clown as its next leader. After all, who would continue its sky-is-falling narrative in the hope of extracting money to fight a non-problem? And where has that sort of money gone in the past, and how effective has it been? It would just be another wealth transfer gimmick paid for by the West if the wealthier countries fall for it,.
Anything that ruins the UN permanently is fine with me.
The League of Nations failed. Alas, the UN has lasted longer than the League
There is NO unity amongst the nations of the world now, nor is there likely to be in several lifetimes.
Rudd is toxic but a power hungry ruthless individual and I would never wish him on the whole world.
Don’t worry the world wouldn’t tolerate him for long. But they might need to tear down the United Nations to get rid of him.
Question: where on God’s green earth did you get this idea.
Whatever you do, don’t click your heels and say there’s no man like Rudd three times.
It just might happen and then what?
This despicable creature has a proven track record of destroying everything he touches. And worse a track record of taking everybody down with him on his way.
Nice idea of imploding the UN. But the collateral damage Rudd would cause would negate any and all benefits.
Oh. And it will take days for that ugly image to fade from memory.
The entertainment value would make any collateral damage worth it 🙂
He sounds like the perfect choice to me. If he destroys the UN maybe it will go away.
The US represents 5% of the world but demands to rule the UN.
Just as sensible a proposition as this one is to close the UN down, form a new global body and exclude the US and Israel from membership…..host city somewhere like Dar Es Salaam, Manila, Astana, Lima or Kandy…..
The US would benefit greatly being out of the UN. The globalist will not allow it.
Excellent idea! Then the US could quit paying billions to support it, and the UN building could be used for VA stuff, or some other noble use…unlike its present use for a den of thieves, crackpots, tin-horn grifters and so on.
Ok. Exclude the US and Israel, but then there are several other countries that warrant that kind of attention.
Let us just jump to the future and nominate an AI to the post.
What if Trump vetoes all of the candidates?
Maybe we should hope so.
Beer and popcorn ready.
Bring the beer, I grow popcorn of various types, and join me on the front porch and we can watch-or listen-to the ensuing uproar. Could be fun.
Sounds like a plan. 🙂