Submitted by Alex M. Torr, Jan 4, 2007 14:51

What is the half-life of political influence? For how long does one remain linked to a former post, boss, or mentor? Is a Clinton or Bush staffer considered as such forever? In that case, would Donald Rumsfeld (for example) be considered a Ford or a Bush guy? What about Dick Cheney, who before being W's vicepresident was secretary of defense with Bush senior? Who's team is he on now? And... are women more likely to be influenced by former superiors? A sensible mind would say a loud "NO" to the latter question, and would suggest the answer to all the former varies from case to case, depending on the particular people involved, the time spent on that position and the existing evidence for possible inlfuence. A sound journalistic approach would, ideally, inquire on these variables before stating a particualr person remains loyal or under the influence of a particular position, person or party. Unless, of course, there is a fixed half-life--similar to the number of years a particular event will remain on one's traffic or credit records. Or a bias. I have followed Alicia Barcena's career ever since she worked for the Mexican government in the 1980's. In her different capacities there, she worked under two presidents and 5 different government ministers. Since then, she has worked under 5 other bosses or supervisors, including two UN secretaries-general. During this time, she has demonstrated loyalty, but also independence. And even when maintaining contact But the Sun happens to focus on a particular man: Mr Maurice Strong, with whom Ms Barcena worked from 1991 to 1995 in the preparation, and further implementation, of the UN Conference on Environment and Development and its goals, through UNCED in Geneva and Rio de Janeiro and later at the Earth Council in Costa Rica. This peculiar focus on Mr Strong harks to a pet, long-standing obsession the Sun has with Mr Strong (which i have also followed throughout the years) for various reasons and accusations against him that are beyond discussion here, given that they relate to events (like his alleged or actual involvement in the Oil-for Food scandal) which occurred long after Mr Strong and Ms Barcena stopped working together. In his article, Mr Avni implies Ms Barcena has and agenda or view contrary to "fundamental change" at the UN, or that she shares a managerial view based on "dominance, disregard, and fear". He bases these claims on two arguments: a) that she's Mexican (on paragraph 1, by implication, perhaps as a corresponding objection similar to Mr Holmes' closeness to Tony Blair), and b) that she's a protegée of Maurice Strong, a member of 'his team', his proxy in the UN, and/or that he retains any degree of political influence in her decisions and actions after 1995. Other that their having worked together for 5 years, and her having worked in the Annan secretariat (where she was invited ONE year ago, precisely for her effective and democratic management skills while at ECLAC--ask the staff in Santiago and you'll hear nothing but praise), no other proof is given for such claims. I believe such harsh critique of a starting administration at the UN would need better, more robust evidence. Otherwise, the statements derived from such squalid premises are simply unsustainable, and tantamaount to libel, hearsay or gossip--of the type usually found in tabloid 'journalism'. So far, neither Mr Avni, nor the Sun (or anybody else, for that matter) have provided such proof. It seems Mr Avni suffers from a common case of Northern-Male chauvinism. Not only does he place the praiseful "strong-willed" and the dismissive "reserved" tags to Mr Burnham and Ms Barcena, respectively, but he repeatedly states an American would fare better in a number of senior positions, for no other given reason than their nationality. Where is the meritocracy he so strongly defends? And, again, where is the real evidence to support that either of Ban Ki-moon's nominations thus far are as equivocal as claimed?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

The New York Sun reply: