WASHINGTON - United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon has been under attack
in the Anglo-American press. This is perhaps why, despite a recent global poll
[1] showing him to be the second-most popular political figure in the world
after President Barack Obama, his ratings are not so glowing in the United
States and Britain.
In August, the leak of a negative assessment from Norwegian deputy ambassador
to the UN, Mona Juul, seemed to suggest that the criticism extended beyond the
Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal consensus, but its effect was rather countered by a
previous Norwegian invitation to the secretary general. Norway provided the
UN's first secretary general, Trygve Lie, and helped organize Ban
Ki-Moon's visit to the North Pole last week to see the effects of climate
change.
The Norwegian leak is puzzling. Unsourced, relying on gossip and clippings from
conservative press outlets, the "highly confidential" report [2] to the
Norwegian Foreign Ministry was relentlessly negative, calling Ban "spineless
and charmless".
However, for UN insiders, its effect was somewhat mitigated by the recent,
unsuccessful but active interest of its author, Juul, in an assistant secretary
general's job under the same direly assessed Ban. That her husband, Terje
Rod-Larsen's expectations of a UN position had also been allegedly frustrated
by Ban did not add to her credibility.
Half-way through Ban's first term there is indeed room for a critical
assessment of the former South Korean foreign minister, but the sources cited
by Juul in her report bear similar examination of their motivation. For many of
them, like Rupert Murdoch's London Times or the National Interest's Jacob
Heibrunn - who wrote a blistering assault on Ban in Foreign Policy magazine
(which in fact looked like the main reference for Juul's report) - the UN is
always wrong.
Indeed, their attacks could suggest that Ban has in fact outgrown the
do-nothing role that former US envoy to the UN John Bolton allegedly scripted
for him on his election. This has led to him joining the long line of UN
secretaries general to be excoriated by the conservative press for not
following orders.
There are many odious comparisons made with former secretary general Kofi
Annan, whose charisma is contrasted with Ban's. In fact, to some observers,
Annan was not "charismatic" in the real sense of the word. His soft-spoken
oratory style was not aimed at firing up the masses, despite the intensive
efforts from his team. Rather he was "numinous". A charismatic leader can
incite people to run over a cliff: Annan's demeanor reassured people that he
would never allow that to happen. He exuded trust. And while he stood by his
principles, he was no more forward in seeking out gratuitous enemies than Ban
is.
One may remember that Annan drew down furious conservative fire for suggesting,
under pressure from a BBC interviewer, that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was
illegal (as did, incidentally, the late senator Ted Kennedy). But he had not
exactly used the bully pulpit on which he stood to push that view.
Many analysts beleive Ban is most certainly not "charmless and spineless". He
is remarkably affable, charming and has shown strong attachment to principle -
which may be one reason for the neo-liberal disaffection. He went on the
hustings to campaign for the seat and while running explicitly avowed support
for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept - a new international doctrine
on the responsibility of sovereign states and the international community to
protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes - and the International Criminal
Court. Neither of these moves were calculated to win the affections of
president George W Bush or Bolton, who were in office at the time - nor indeed
of China. He has maintained those stands, and recently steered the R2P concept
away from the shipwreck planned for it by the Nicaraguan president of the
General Assembly.
Since taking office, he has made climate change his pet issue - once again not
music to the ears of his original Republican nominators, nor the Chinese, and
he has not eschewed berating the powers for not taking it seriously.
It was hardly spineless to chide the US for being a "deadbeat" over its UN dues
arrears, as he did this year, and even if there is no direct causal
relationship, he cannot be accused of sabotaging diplomatic efforts. The US is
now paying up. In London, he was one of the major players in the successful
incorporation of the needs of the developing world into the global stimulus
response.
And just as Annan excited obloquy for going to Baghdad to avert a war, Ban is
now under fire for going to Myanmar to persuade the junta to see sense. The
recent Western style of what passes for leadership is that politicians will not
take any steps until they are assured of success. Historically, this is not
very effective. Ban went to Myanmar with the support of the UN Security
Council, and returned to its applause. He had after all successfully pressed
the murderously myopic junta into accepting foreign assistance after Typhoon
Nargis in 2008. It is surely better to risk his reputation by trying than by
keeping out in case it failed.
Where he has shown the most rapid learning curve has been on the Middle East.
As South Korean foreign minister, surrounded by Japan, Russia, China and the
US, not to mention North Korea, it is understandable that the issue was not top
of his agenda. Under those circumstances, it is not totally remarkable that his
initial stands took the Israeli point of view. Ironically, he deepened and
consummated the purge of "Arabists" at UN headquarters who upheld UN
resolutions, which Rod-Larsen had attempted under Kofi Annan.
However, even without them, exposure to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and reality on the ground seems to have brought him a long way
towards the UN view on the issue. Although his burying of the recent report he
had commissioned on Israeli actions in Gaza is part of a long secretariat
tradition of protecting Israel and shows that he still has some way to go.
There are valid criticisms of Ban's administration, but in fact he has shown
other signs of learning from experience. Part of the problem is indeed
cultural. He suffers in the West from his "Confucian" background, which avoids
public, and thus newsworthy, confrontations. However, aides and others report
that in closed rooms with leaders he can be very forthright. One might think
that "kick and tell" was not a desirable trait in the world's arch-diplomat,
but the Western press differ. Despite his affability and accessibility to the
media, Ban's refusal to deliver controversy or sound bites appears like
evasiveness to the Western media.
Annan achieved great amplification by allowing his team to speak freely and
occasionally controversially on major issues. One only has to think of former
deputy secretary general Mark Malloch Brown's eminently reportable speeches and
comments or former under secretary general Shashi Tharoor's ubiquity in the
media. Disownable if they went too far, their media presence enhanced Annan's.
However, Ban's uncollegial administrative style and, in some cases inept
appointments, have muffled his genuine achievements. All secretary general's
have to be cliquish: their senior officials are foisted upon them by the
permanent five (P5) and by major donors and under the circumstances it is
remarkable how independent of their sponsors many of them are.
As a result, at the UN kitchen, cabinets are the name of the game. In Ban's
case, it is a very small, Korean kitchen. He has appointed some very able
senior officers who should really be encouraged to speak out more. He certainly
needs to reassure UN staff that "thought-crime" will not result in the
termination of the short-term contracts on which far too many of them are
working - and contrarily, like all previous incumbents he needs to show that
long-term contracts for incompetents can and will be terminated.
That a South Korean should be so popular in Japan and China indicates some
serious diplomatic talents, as does his public espousal of views that irritate
the permanent members on whom his second term depends.
Somehow, he has to combine the style that allows him to do that with the
presence that moves the hearts and minds of other publics. But if the
neo-liberals and unilateralists in the English language press attack him, it is
worth considering that he may well be moving in the right direction.
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
