How the UN is Faring Under Ban Ki Moon

Days after Sri Lanka's government defeated its long-time foe, the Tamil Tigers, in May, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon flew into the country's capital, Colombo, for a 24-hour visit to urge its president to open up its refugee camps to international aid groups. This was another urgent trip by Ban to a war-torn capital, as part of his regular duties as the UN's chief representative, seeking to uphold peace and restore global comity.

But who really knew much about this latest foray into a troubled region by the UN chief? Not many. Ban, who has just marked the half-way point in his five-year term in office, has so far been unable to attract a large worldwide audience for his activities. This is due, in part, to a stylistic reasons, but also to the vagaries of UN diplomacy.

Still in his quiet way, Ban is spending more than a third of his time on the road, and has accomplished much over the past 30 months. In Darfur, he managed to get African Union peacekeepers into Sudan's killing zone in his first year in office through intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Though the political process has since stalled, he has pushed for more peacekeepers and helicopters.

In Kosovo, Ban was able to lower the temperature on the boiling issue of the province's independence. He persuaded the European Union and the United States to allow continued UN oversight in Kosovo while gradually permitting self-governance - all without triggering dangerous confrontations with the two states which oppose its breakaway, Serbia and its close ally, Russia.

In Myanmar, despite bitter resistance from the military regime, Ban pressured the authorities to let in humanitarian aid after Cyclone Nargis devastated the country last year. His public and private entreaties, including dozens of phone calls and meetings, saved perhaps a half-million lives. Today, he continues his call for the release of the democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

In Haiti, which still suffers from underdevelopment, political turmoil, and the effects of destructive hurricanes, Ban appointed former US President Bill Clinton as his Special Representative to help deal with the country's plight. This followed two visits he made to Haiti over the past 18 months and a donor's conference he sponsored in April that sought to raise $300 million in aid and investment.

More recently, Ban took an active role in the Gaza crisis. He has regularly defended the Palestinians' rights to a state, but he also condemned Hamas's rocket attacks on southern Israel. During the fighting in Gaza, he publicly demanded a halt to the warfare and requested that Israel open Gaza's borders to relief aid. He also visited the UN compound in the center of Gaza to express the UN's grave concern over its bombing.

Ban has taken a leadership position on the problem of global warming. He tackled the issue at the Bali Conference of 2007, made it one of his central concerns at the UN, and will attempt to forge a new agreement among all global states at the UN Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

And he has moved forward in the health field. He accelerated efforts to eliminate the world's most dangerous ancient scourge, malaria, by naming a special adviser on the disease, and by forging innovative partnerships within the UN system that have brought together private industry, foundations, and non-governmental organizations. His campaign has already helped to reduce the incidence of malaria.

The problem for Ban is his diffident manner, which stands in stark contrast with that of his predecessor, Kofi Annan, a larger than life secretary-general who dominated the scene through his flair, eloquence, and star power. Ban, by contrast, is neither charismatic nor an inspirational speaker - indeed, his English is not as good as Annan's. In his own way, though, he is an engaging, polite man, hip to contemporary cultural icons, and even given to singing at public occasions with wry lyrics and verses.

Nonetheless Ban is sometimes criticized for not doing more, not listening enough, or deferring too much to the Big Five countries on the Security Council. One of the main complaints is that communicating with him can be difficult. Ban invariably nods his head in polite agreement without giving clear guidance. Others say he has yet to prove he is a good manager and must push harder for internal management reforms at the UN. Ban, in turn, has openly chastised member states for not giving him sufficient resources. But, wherever the truth may lie, few critics take into account that he, like all former UN chief executives, has to deal with the reality that he possesses only moral power, not economic, military, or political power.

Still throughout his tenure, Ban has consistently displayed progressive instincts on issues, despite the fact that his candidacy was originally championed by an authoritarian Chinese government and a right-wing, UN-bashing American envoy to the organization, John Bolton. In the end he should be measured by what he has accomplished rather than by personal foibles or flatness of style.

Comments

[mjc]

Loss of respect of the United Nations amongst American presidents and American Congress-persons has been common since at least Ronald Reagan, perhaps longer. Presidents who actually attempted to rely on the UN for help....., well, you probably count them on the fingers of one hand, perhaps Jimmy Carter being the last. And since this country has nothing but contempt for third world leaders, diplomats, etcetera, the Secretary General has little clout, this one and certainly the one before. Ban Ki Moon is doing the best he can but probably not enough certainly for Americans and Europeans.

[praxitas]

while i cant speak to his allegations of corruption on the secretarys part, i second much of papamenon's view

[Robcitations]

Ban Ki Moon has been very quiet or there are lack on info on his action. What i think also is that the UN needs massive reforms. It's not doing well, and all Secretaries are rather with shackled hands than with the freedom to really change things. Many related issues can be found at www.asiachroniclenews.com

[HowSwedeItIs]

Might I ask the UN naysayers just what else should be done? If the UN becomes a "World Police," how do you think reclusive nations are going to treat it? Do you think they are going to voluntarily let inspectors or peace keepers in? And if we force our way in, just how many leaders of Governments do you think are willing to sacrifice their soldiers just for human rights? In many nations this would be political suicide.

Also, I would like to point out that major US news outlets never even mention the highlights and success of the UN. Now, are there things about the UN that could benefit from changes? Most definitely.

The UN did not fail in Rwanda. Member nations did. The UN did not fail in Bosnia. Member nations did. The UN is not failing in Somalia, Sudan, or Myanmar. Member nations are. Taking all of your frustration out on the UN is pointless, and achieves nothing. If you really want to make a difference, ask your own representatives in Government why they are allowing for such things to happen. Attend rallies, and write emails or letters. Donate and be vocal about your opposition to human rights abuses. But often that requires too much effort, and it is all too easy to just blame the UN.

-HSII

[Robzview]

He has accomplished NOTHING words are useless without action,it is clear the UN needs reform from top to bottom;the first thing to go should be the Security Council veto.

[martinfrosa]

His success with North Korea is nothing less than astounding!

[truenorth8]

UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-moon appointed his Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiyar as special envoy to Sri Lanka during the escalated onslaught by Sri Lankan Armed Forces on Tamils under the guise of ‘war on terror’. This was a highly fraudulent and incompetent move as Vijay Nambiyar’s brother Sathish Nambiyar is a paid consultant for the Sri Lankan government.

How could some one expect the UN to uphold its charter and humanitarian norms, when there is such a conflict on interest?

UN remained silent and still remains so, after the humanitarian crisis there warned by many to risk high casualties.

Today the UN under Ban-Ki-moon is 'funding' the ethnic cleansing of Tamils in Sri Lanka by remaining silent on the operation of internment camps. It is allowing build up of new housing and enforced colonization in occupied Tamil lands by the mono ethnic Sinhalese Army of Sri Lanka.

The UN is not asking any question even about the arrest of local UN staff by Sri Lankan govt.

[MPN]

I fail to see how any of the above qualifies as something beyond the Secretary General simply doing his job - and not necessarily solving any problems.

As for the Sri Lanka example, it was a massive case of too-little­-too-late.

The Sri Lankan government let the UNSG in only after WEEKS of ignoring the UN's demands to negotiate a ceasefire to the offensive by the government against the Tamil Tigers that would permit for the safe passage of refugees caught by the fighting. It never happened. Leaked documents obtained by The Times of London suggest 20 thousand people were killed - just in the final weeks of the war.

That's about two thirds the number of people killed in the previous two decades of civil conflict - killed in the space of a few weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6383449.ece

The Sri Lankan government let the UNSG pop in for a visit after they had finished their offensive and claimed victory in the war. Honestly, how useful was that? If anything, the Sri Lankan government used him for a photo-op.

While I'm sure Ban Ki Moon is a genuine man who wants to do his best, the UN needs massive reform. Til then, all the examples you've cited are exactly what you, or I, or anyone else with the private jet would be doing in that job. It's nothing spectacular whatsoever.

[Hammerofthor]

Yeah, Ban Ki Moon the hard-charger; fearless, uncompromising. What an inspiration and role model.

[papamenon]

I appreciate your desire to present the UN in the best possible light, but you are not doing anyone any favors by ignoring the fact that Ban Ki-moon is a disaster as Secretary-General. As a former UN correspondent I follow events there pretty closely. Ban got the job by making deals with a number of Security Council members, handing out Korean aid or UN jobs. In office, he has coninued the practice of selling UN jobs to the highest bidder (the payoff being influence, aid to UN programs, or just increased access for Ban). He is essentially a low key, unimaginative foreign ministry hack who is completely out of his depth. No matter how kind the presentation, you cannot hide the fact that he has succeeded in nothing at the UN,

[RasAlula]

And in Somalia, Ban Ki-Moon has decided to let millions suffer and die. He has decided not to help the transitional government. He has decided that the African Union should go it alone. thanks Ban!

[LMPE]

If nothing else, Ban Ki-Moon isn't an ignoramus.