Take offense, Kim Jong-il. Jacob Heilbrunn of Foreign Policy recently declared that Ban Ki-Moon is in fact the world’s most dangerous Korean. Undoubtedly, this is a bold statement to make. Then again, the United Nations has been so often overlooked and overshadowed, especially during the Bush years. What do we really know about a man who, by virtue of his title, is one of the most powerful and influential diplomats in the world? The answer is not much, and I can include myself in that group, but that’s part of the problem. Before we rush to judgement, I think it’s about time that we take a step back and have a fair look at Ban Ki-Moon to see if he really is as bad as the recent glut of press has made him out to be. Ultimately I found that, no, he’s not so great, though there actually are a few things I quite like about him and our worldview probably prevents us from giving him the credit he deserves.
Mr. Heilbrunn and I do see eye-to-eye completely on at least one matter: the bar was set pretty low for Ban Ki-Moon. Kurd Waldheim was rather useless and his efforts were often overshadowed by Henry Kissinger. It was also revealed in the 1980’s that he was a Nazi war criminal. Oops. On Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s watch the UN missed out on a million people being massacred in Rwanda despite the UN mission there, and the following year tens of thousands of Bosniaks being ethnically cleansed within UN safe zones. Kofi Annan’s otherwise relatively successful tenure has been marred by the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Enter Ban Ki-Moon who took over on January 1, 2007. He entered with a stunning resume, growing up as a star pupil in South Korea and gaining a mastery of English. While at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, he studied under Joseph Nye who remarked that he had “a rare combination of analytic clarity, humility and perseverance.” As a diplomat within Korea’s Foreign Ministry, however, he gained a couple of nicknames that were not so flattering despite his impeccable work ethic: “the bureaucrat,” a reference to his administrative skill and attention to detail, but also his lack of charisma and subservience to superiors, and “the slippery eel” for his impressive ability to dodge questions. Nevertheless, he eventually rose to its top job, allowing him to gain the international reputation that allowed him to win election as Secretary General.
Before I get into the current mess, I want to note that Ban Ki-Moon has sought to make climate change his signature issue just as peacekeeping and the Millennium Development Goals are associated with Kofi Annan and he should be applauded for this. “For my generation, coming of age at the height of the Cold War, fear of nuclear winter seemed the leading existential threat on the horizon. But the danger posed by war to all humanity—and to our planet—is at least matched by climate change,” he has stated. I am excited to see what role he plays in the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen this December. That one event will likely define his legacy, for better or for worse. As that goes without mentioning his commendable leadership in Burma and Darfur.
Here’s where the trouble starts: Mona Juul of Norway, second in command at the UN for her nation, wrote a damning confidential internal memo on Ban Ki-Moon. Of course, it leaked (full text) about ten days ago and became a big deal because Norway is a major funder of the United Nations. “At a time when solutions by the UN and multilateral agencies are more necessary than ever to resolve global conflicts, Ban and the UN are conspicuous in their absence,” concluded the report according to the Norwegian Press.
No matter how talented and well-intentioned he may be behind the scenes, Mr. Heilbrunn’s June article that started the trashing of Mr. Ban is right by saying he is the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to witness its crash. If you don’t hear him, does he really exist? In essence there is a strong argument to made that he has lived up to his prior reputation. His silence might be more troubling than a failed but visible attempt to throw his weight around on any of the overwhelming number of important issues around the world that the UN should be involved in. It should come as no surprise then that Ms. Juul called him both “spineless and charmless.”
It should also come as no surprise that George Bush, through Condoleeza Rice, pushed extremely hard to see that Ban Ki-Moon was successful in his campaign to become Secretary General. He likely needed this external support, as his speeches reportedly “lulled to sleep” those listening.
Yesterday the Washington Post entered the fray, criticizing his “quiet” outreach to autocrats. His inability to hold these leaders accountable undercuts the United Nations’ moral authority, which is reality is the UN’s most powerful tool for affecting world affairs.
What happens to Mr. Ban when his five year term, for which he has just-reached the half-way point, is over is anyone’s guess. Many have regarded him as a one-term Secretary General. It is believed that Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice view him quite negatively. The key, however, is China which holds a great deal of power as it is still Asia’s turn in the informal rotation of the position. Ironically enough (or maybe not so ironically considering their own take on foreign affairs) China likes Ban Ki-Moon a lot as do many nations on the Asian continent. An opinion piece from Sunday’s Korea Times offers a vigorous defense of Mr. Ban and alleges racism as the subtle motivation of his critics. Maybe in face we in the West have something to learn from him as Asia rises to prominence this century. Maybe, just maybe the way we have been going about international affairs is all wrong.
Further reading:
