SPEAKING
FREELY Ban's
silence is too diplomatic By Brett
Daniel Shehadey
Speaking Freely is
an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
There has never been
a time in the history of the United Nations when
its leader could be more useful in taking an
active role in curing the world's ills. African
terrorists, warlords, revolutions,
authoritarianism and a million other plights
threaten to destroy international peace and
stability.
In all of this, where is the
secretary-general?
UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon remains quiet in a world
falling apart at the
seams. He was elected for a second term of office
last year in June 2011. Did anyone notice?
Ban's "quiet diplomacy" has been silenced
even more by bombs and growing censorship in
countries the UN once carefully monitored. Of
course, Ban has spoken out against these terrible
things and in favor of liberal democratic values.
He has especially been helpful in fighting poverty
with the Millennium Development Goals, climate
change and enhancing women's rights.
Ban
originally pledged to "breathe new life and inject
renewed confidence into the sometimes weary
Secretariat". It appears that he may be doing this
in his own style and that he really believes his
"quiet diplomacy" will achieve this result in the
long run.
The largest failure is in not
following his own self-prescribed recommendations.
He once remarked that: "[UN] member states need a
dynamic and courageous Secretariat, not one that
is passive and risk-averse."
Ban sees
himself as this very model of bravery and
risk-taking. He sees himself as active, even if
others see him as passive. By now he must be
finally realizing the difficulty of pursuing an
Asian-style of diplomacy in a largely non-Asian
and non-Eastern world.
When Ban claims to
promote dynamism in a "weary" Secretariat, the
West thinks of the great statesmen who charge
charismatically ahead with forceful gestures and a
loud presentation, pounding the podium and
engaging the audience with passion and
determinism. To much global disappointment, he has
not been that man.
In fact, when Ban
speaks of not being "passive" or "risk averse",
the secretary-general is not saying he will be as
aggressive or more active than his predecessors.
For an Asian diplomat, Ban Ki-moon has indeed been
all of the things he has said he would be.
There is a general misunderstanding
between the Asian and Western diplomatic worlds at
work in the background that few people have
remarked upon. Soft in the West typically means
weak. The opposite is true in traditional Asian
societies.
To exacerbate the tension, Ban
has gone on the defensive instead of compromising
with his growing critics. His inability to respect
the large global cultural divide and his
persistence with a singular use of "quiet
diplomacy" over traditional Western diplomacy have
destroyed his capacity to attract the global
public or push dictators into taking him
seriously.
Inside the silent
diplomacy Ban prefers to promote human
rights in general terms and speaks out based on
genuine conviction. However, he does not speak out
against most specific abuses. When he does condemn
particular violations in human rights, he becomes
risk-averse, and being too worried about
addressing the issues "appropriately," he can at
times ignore them completely. If he chooses to
address them, it appears as an insignificant few
lines against violence. He is never strongly
fighting individual atrocities.
One
especially harsh criticism came from the Human
Rights Watch World Report of 2011. Although it
credited him with several positive roles in
peace-making, there were two telling
sub-categories where his name appears: "A Timid
Response to Repression" and "Weak Leadership".
The World Report even said that Ban
"sometimes went out of his way to portray
oppressive governments in a positive light". This
is far from saying that Ban sponsors those actors
or any human rights abuses. Not at all. The
secretary-general simply desires to build harmony
among nations so strongly that he is worried about
severing relationships. This causes him to try and
nurse those governments, speaking of the good
things, rather than condemn their more harmful
actions.
But Ban's attentions are on
bigger issues than any particular violent
outburst. In his estimate, he should be focusing
on long-term relationships and networks behind
closed doors. He seeks gradual change and is not
willing to face each problem directly. His
convictions are based more on a liberal
institutional platform than on charismatically
condemning any act, nation or people directly.
One unfortunate feature of Ban's
particular diplomatic style is that he is
unwilling to bypass UN membership and target the
people of troubled member states directly for
their crimes or misdeeds. In particular, he has
shown great reluctance to speak out against the
biggest players, no matter how outrageous their
behavior. In order to repair and reform the UN and
to achieve his goals, Ban believes that he must
work more closely with member states and
organizations than the global public at large.
A contrast in diplomacy Former
secretary-general Kofi Annan was more of a general
and less of a secretary when it came to public
diplomacy and social engagement. Ban is more of a
secretary and less of a general. They both pushed
for the same values but have completely opposite
styles. The most effective may not be easy to
determine. The long-term effects of each man's
tenure will not be known until sometime in the
future. In the meantime, we are witnessing the
many shortcomings of Ban's diplomatic methods.
Strong rhetoric or condemnation tends to
have a short-term, immediate, impact on a crisis.
It creates vocal opponents, draws firm boundaries,
and generates hostility. This approach, which Kofi
Annan favored, is more clearly Western. The idea
is to respond directly to specific actions that
violate the UN Charter and the Declaration of
Rights.
Annan was well known for his
engagement with the public. When he angered a
leader or government, he would turn to the global
community for support. It has been said by some
that Annan made the role of secretary-general into
a sort of "secular pope." He condemned everything
that violated the UN general principles and his
own convictions, and he asserted the moral
authority of his office.
Annan's
perception of the UN was that it was a governing
body and that all states should abide by the
international norms, laws and treaties formed
there. Ban takes a longer view, arguing that
international law and treaties are of great
importance, but the institution is more a place
for cooperation and consensus made up of the
various states. Thus, where Annan pushed the UN
into a hierarchical organization, Ban seems bent
on making it a horizontal one. Naturally, it
followed that Ban would defer to the security
council much of his "symbolic" authority and take
a stricter administrative role.
Annan's
style was to speak in a soft voice with great
emotion. His command of English was far superior
to Ban's. He used the tools of oration - tone,
tempo, breaks, volume - much more effectively. His
main goal in public statements and appearances
often seemed to be to generate greater sympathy
for a liberal cause over time and in appearance,
less working with or for the states.
Annan's distinguished accent also played
in his favor. Ban's accent is choppy and terse,
and he struggles with English words. He lacks a
fluent command of English, and he does not convey
a position of strength throughout much of the
world.
Because Ban's Asian-style diplomacy
is aimed at building relationships and networks
over time, he talks less than he mingles behind
the scenes and administrates. He delegates. He
travels and speaks with some frequency, but
remains less visible to the public eye.
Condemnation is spared only for the most heinous
criminal behavior. No campaigns are led, and no
popular liberal movements are paraded, as they
were during Annan's term. Truly, both styles
of diplomacy have their costs and benefits, and
each is better for a particular audience. Ban may
be doing more for the UN's reputation in the long
run than would a Western approach. He has chosen
certain policy areas for the UN where he can move
forward and others to neglect because of friction.
This is seen in his focus on the Millenium
Development Goals and other general humanitarian
projects at the cost of condemning individual
human rights abuses of the nations.
A big
question remains: is the UN about humanitarian aid
or about "uniting the nations" together for
stability and peace? Both of the
secretaries-general have had to wrestle with these
different priorities of focus.
For the
role of UN secretary-general, image and perception
are more critical than Ban realizes. Moral
legitimacy goes a long way in preventing and
mitigating armed conflict - as does one's ability
to lead with strength. Without an army, Ban has
little to bargain with behind closed doors.
Annan's style seems more adept, and his style was
more in tune with the way the world perceives the
job.
Unfortunately, strong leaders and
states may continue to ignore Ban's soft broken
voice.
Brett Daniel Shehadey is
a writer, commentator and holds an MA in Strategic
Intelligence from AMU and a BS in Political
Science from UCLA
(Copyright 2012
Brett Daniel Shehadey)
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular
contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
