Job Opening?

He has been on the job longer than anybody else, and he sounds tired and discouraged. Last week, eleven months before his second five-year term is to expire, United Nations Secretary-General U Thant announced: "I have no intentions whatsoever of serving beyond the present term." There was little doubt that Thant, who turned 62 last week, meant what he said. The question was, who could succeed him?

Few Candidates. The problem is not that Thant is so peerless an administrator, statesman or anything else--far from it. It is rather that there are few candidates who are not objectionable for one reason or another. Thant gallantly said that "regional considerations" should play no part in the choice of his successor, but they will. So will racial, religious, ideological and even emotional considerations. No one representing either of the superpowers or their closest allies has a chance. Yet a candidate must pass muster with both Washington and Moscow--the "Directorate," as Brazil's Ambassador Joao Augusto de Araujo Castro calls the superpowers.

Nations whose external problems might disrupt world peace are also probably disqualified--Israel and the Arab states, for example, or India and Pakistan. There is some feeling that a new chief U.N. executive should come from a country that is neutral, small and underdeveloped--which rules out Japan, among others. Since the first two men to hold the job, Norway's Trygve Lie and Sweden's Dag Hammarskjoeld, were white Europeans and Thant is from Burma, many African and Latin delegates believe that it is their turn. But neither Moscow nor Washington wholly trusts the Black Africans (too unpredictable on any issue but race and colonialization), and the Russians feel that everything south of the Rio Grande except Cuba and Chile is a Yankee playground. Finally, since Communist China is likely to become a U.N. member in the next few years, some countries want a new Secretary-General to come from a nation that recognizes Peking.

No one of stature meets quite all of these qualifications. Nonetheless, a number of men are being actively discussed: > U.N. Ambassador Max Jakobson of Finland. An able, easygoing diplomat, Jakobson, 47, has won high marks from most Arab delegates for his fairness on the Middle East conflict, but he is Jewish. Moreover, he would be the third Scandinavian--and white man--to be Secretary-General.

> Kurt Waldheim, 52, former Austrian Foreign Minister. Although he is well liked at the U.N., Waldheim's availability depends in large part on the results of Austria's presidential election in April, in which he is a candidate. It also depends on whether Moscow is convinced that Austria is genuinely neutral or is covertly seeking closer ties to the West.

> Lee Kuan Yew, 47, Prime Minister of Singapore. One of Asia's most articulate statesmen, Lee is usually dismissed--and rules himself out--on the grounds that he is too much a man of action for the U.N.'s brand of turtle-race diplomacy. In addition, Lee may be too anti-Communist for the job. Nevertheless, his name is often mentioned.

>Alfonso Garcia Robles, 59, Mexico's ambassador to the U.N. Though he is capable, Garcia might be considered by the Soviets too close to the U.S. thumb.

Other possibilities include Former Chilean President Eduardo Frei; Ceylon's U.N. Ambassador Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe; former U.N. Ambassador Endalkachew Makonnen of Ethiopia; and Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan of Iran, uncle of the Aga Khan and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. When the points are added up, however, it is hard to beat the score of a certain soft-spoken Asian who comes from a small, neutral, underdeveloped country that recognizes Peking, who has kept on reasonably good terms with both superpowers, and who reflects what one diplomat calls "a comfortable level of mediocrity." As a result, some believe that for the second straight time U Thant may find it impossible to resist a draft. . . . Thant's sense of futility about his job is not difficult to understand. Last week Egypt made headlines by revealing that it will not at present demand a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the Middle East. Israel and the U.S. greeted the decision with relief, and so did many other nations who are convinced that an emotional, theatrical debate in the U.N. would skewer any real chances for achieving a settlement.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.