From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Sat Aug 22 2009 - 09:08:06 EDT
Still Going Nowhere Man
A brutally frank memo from a high-ranking Norwegian diplomat to the United
Nations leaked this week, ripping Ban Ki-moon's performance to shreds. The
evidence against the U.N.'s feckless leader is mounting.
BY JACOB HEILBRUNN |
AUGUST 22, 2009
A scathing confidential memo by a senior Norwegian diplomat leaked to the
press yesterday has taken public what up until now has been the quiet and
increasingly despairing concern at the United Nations about
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Indeed, Ban might now be facing what must
have seemed unthinkable only a few months ago: a single term as the head of
the United Nations.
In her
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/21/the_mona_juul_memo>
damning memo, Deputy U.N. Ambassador Mona Juul called Ban -- the South
Korean foreign minister elected secretary-general in 2007 -- "spineless,"
"charmless," and, most importantly, "incapable" of setting an agenda. Her
critique echoed a series of pieces in the international press -- in The
Economist, The Times of London, and by
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/19/nowhere_man> yours truly
in Foreign Policy -- that in recent months have called Ban out for his
miserable performance, citing his lack of vision, leadership, or policy
prowess. Of course, Ban and his staff have aggressively tried to combat this
emerging image. My own article drew an outraged letter from Ban's chief of
staff, who claimed my criticisms were part of some unnamed "political
agenda." I doubt he can say the same of Juul's.
At the United Nations, she represents Norway, which traditionally wields
great influence in the organization (and is a disproportionate funder). Her
criticisms were, to say the least, cutting. "Ban's voice on behalf of the
G-172 and the poor is barely being registered," she wrote. He has been
"absent on the issue of disarmament and non-proliferation." He has a
burdensome "lack of charisma" and an "omni-present chef de cabinet" who
obfuscates the policy process.
To her credit, Juul spoke out loud what many of her colleagues have been
saying privately: Ban hasn't been a bad secretary-general. He has been a
horrendous one, as feckless as he is inept. At a moment when global change
is more imperative than ever, Ban has been AWOL. Indeed, in recent months,
Ban's feverish attempts to disprove his numerous detractors have simply
highlighted that ineptitude. In trying to refurbish his battered image, he
has only further injured it.
When Ban visited Sri Lanka, for example, he failed to secure any relief for
the Tamil refugees who the government had herded into camps by waging an
indiscriminate bombing campaign. In Burma, Ban essentially offered the
ruling military junta political cover by meeting with it, while failing to
win any concessions on human rights generally or in the case of Aung San Suu
Kyi in particular. Quite the contrary. The junta has recently extended her
illegal confinement. Ban's tenure, in short, has been a prolonged exercise
in ignominious failure.
Ban's first response to his critics has been that he is practicing quiet
diplomacy. But there is a distinction between quiet diplomacy and
quiescence. Ban has become a connoisseur of the latter, an accomplice to
dictators, which is why Juul wrote that "Ban and the UN are conspicuous by
their absence" when it comes to dealing with global crises. This, in fact,
is the true paradox of Ban: His very attempts to turn himself into a cipher
as head of the United Nations have been what has attracted him international
attention and scorn.
The second line of defense is that the powers of the U.N. secretary-general
are limited and that Ban should not be drubbed for failing to adopt a more
vigorous line toward the world's bad guys. The first point is true, but it
does not mean that the latter point follows the former. In the past,
secretaries-general, such as Kofi Annan, managed to stake out a position by
exercising the moral authority of their position. Ban has managed to
accomplish the very opposite. He has squandered what little influence he
ever had. Even on management issues -- one of the things that absolutely do
fall directly under the purview of the secretary-general -- Ban has
continued the old tradition of cronyism and nepotism.
Now that Juul has amplified the complaints about Ban's performance, he and
his claque will surely protest that they're being singled out unfairly and
that he should be given more time to demonstrate real accomplishments. No,
he shouldn't. The problem with Ban isn't simply that he should be denied a
second term, but that he should never have been appointed in the first
place. Perhaps the forthright Juul can even launch a movement to accomplish
the unprecedented and remove this unnatural catastrophe from office
immediately before he can do any further damage.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/sites/all/themes/fpmain/images/pag_arrow_left.g
ifRelated
_____
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/19/nowhere_man> Nowhere Man
The Jacob Heilbrunn argument that started it all.
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/21/the_mona_juul_memo> The
Mona Juul Memo
The Norwegian diplomat's leaked report on the "Nowhere Man."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/BanKiMoon.jpg
