In Foreign Policy, National Interest senior editor Jacob Heilbrunn gives it to UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon… with both barrels:
Even in this unimpressive company, though, Ban Ki-moon appears to have set the standard for failure. It’s not that Ban has committed any particularly egregious mistakes in his 2½ years on the job. But at a time when global leadership is urgently needed, when climate change and international terrorism and the biggest financial crisis in 60 years might seem to require some—any!—response, the former South Korean foreign minister has instead been trotting the globe collecting honorary degrees, issuing utterly forgettable statements, and generally frittering away any influence he might command. He has become a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage.
Don’t hold back, Mr. Heilbrunn! Tell us what you really think!
Ban’s flaws were obvious dating back to his decades toiling in the South Korean foreign ministry, where he earned a telling nickname, “The Bureaucrat.” Luckily for Ban, if not for the rest of the world, The Bureaucrat was exactly what the Bush administration was looking for after years of tussling with the assertively anti-American Annan. When it became Asia’s turn to nominate a secretary-general, Bush’s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, made Ban’s election her pet project. But Ban failed to charm outside observers. In his book The Best Intentions, James Traub recounts a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations during Ban’s campaign to become secretary: “[B]etween his anodyne oratory, and his unsteady grasp of English, I found that I had been lulled to sleep.”
As secretary-general, Ban’s soporific effect has never left him. One U.N. watcher told me that Ban is like 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? Aside from his role as a subsidiary of South Korea, Inc.—lining his office walls with Samsung televisions and hiring his South Korean buddies as senior advisors—his imprint has been negligible. Even Ban seems aware of what a nonentity he is: Last August, speaking to senior U.N. officials in Turin, he described his management style as elevating teamwork over intellectual attainment. But he went on to bemoan his difficulty overcoming bureaucratic inertia, ending with a gnomic admission of general defeat: “I tried to lead by example. Nobody followed.”
But really, can anyone blame the Banster for being a tad complacent? Have a heart, for Christ’s sake — before getting the UN gig, the man had to spend nearly three years explaining away President Roh Moo-hyun’s ludicrous foreign policy pronouncements.
Personally, I think Ban’s just fine. He’s everything I want in a UN General-Secretary… which is to say, he basically stands quietly in a corner and doesn’t make too much of a nuisance of himself. Sure, he’s done basically fuck all about — just to use Heilbrunn’s examples — nuclear proliferation, the reconstruction of Afghanistan or Malta’s penchant for sending illegal African immigrants packing off to Italy. But anyone who was expecting the UN to play a constructive role in nuclear proliferation or the reconstruction of Afghanistan, or even wanting it to comment on (let alone intervene in!) Maltese immigration policy, probably needs to get his head examined.
To add insult to insult, the online version of the Japanese edition of Newsweek apparently translated the FP piece and ran it as their main story yesterday. Ouch.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
When it comes to the UN, no achievement is good achievement.
I agree with the author on this one. I have consistantly maintained that Ban was likely to be put in place as Sec Gen because he would he highly ineffective and underwhelming. He has lived down to my expectations remarkably well. The man is a waste of air.
One of my biggest gripes with the left and their fellow travellers is their uncritical. slavish devotion to the idea that the UN actually works. In this case the ‘right” is correct. The UN is wasted space and I am getting to feel the same way about NATO.
I recognize that as one of those platitudinous fallacious hasty generalizations of the left. Along the lines of “the govt. can’t do anything right” which is patent nonsence, since the govt. does a great many things right, both in the US and abroad.
By the same token, it is unclear what you mean when you generalize that the UN does not “work.” If by “works” you mean achieve results, its numerous achievements belie that statement.
Whooo, dang, that was harsh. Probably deserved, but brutally honest. Sure hope the Korean press doesn’t get ahold of this article, it IS protest season, after all…..
Certainly the UN has done some good things, but as far as effectiveness, Mr. Moon’s effectiveness is reminiscent of teats on a bull. And when he talks he inspires zero confidence and seems to spew bureaucratese in buckets.
Mizar::::: sure, I’ll give you a few examples where the UN doesn’t work. Like the DRC where there are 23000 troops with a mandate to act robustly in stopping murder and rape by rebels.
The carnage continues. After a nasty war in which 3 million Africans perished.
Rwanda ring a bell? Bosnia? Darfur, Haiti????. As well as more than a few sex scandals involving UN troops, which were ignored for years.
Ya think 800,000 dead Rwandans think the UN has done a good job? THAT is what I mean by the word “works’ ….. saving lives.
Oh, and it was Madeline Albright, CLINTONS Sec of State, that said to the UN that there was no genocide in Rwanda.
You can read Samantha Powers book to confirm what I said or just search for it on google.
Years ago my friend worked for USAID on the border of Thailand and Cambodia. His job was to interview refugees for possible relocation to the states. In the same compound was the UN agency tasked with helping said refugees. The Cambodians, according to him (and he is a devout Buddhist and a person of extreme integrity) said they detested the UN. They did nothing to help the displaced. USAID ended up taking up the slack because the UN was so ineffective.
By the way, you should do some research on the UN’s actions or inactions on Darfur. There, the death toll is only 300,000, ….well, I guess since the death toll is ONLY 300.000 maybe that is a suceess by UN standards. But I can see why you would think they have ‘numerous achievements”
Yes, it if fun to bash the US. But there is a world of difference between “The UN doesn’t work” and “The UN has problems it needs to fix to be more effective.” Yes, the UN has had a lot of failures with peace and security issues (although one could argue that is more the fault of its members than of the UN itself).
But when it comes to international law, development, health and other issues, the UN is incredibly valuable.
Is your argument that selected examples of mixed results justifies throwing the baby out with the bathwater? That in these dangerous times, is it wiser to leave diplomacy to chance than to encourage mutual diplomacy and cooperation? That mixed results are not preferable to none at all?
A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases. The Human Security Report in 2005 documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence (albeit circumstantial) that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.
The pursuit of human rights by the UN aids countries in transition to democracy. Such support for countries in transition to democracy includes technical assistance in providing free and fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties have contributed to democratization worldwide. The UN has helped run elections in countries with little or no democratic history, including recently in Afghanistan and East Timor. The rights of some 370 million indigenous peoples around the world is another focus for the UN.
The UN works with other organizations such as the Red Cross to provide food, drinking water, shelter and other humanitarian services to populaces suffering from famine, displaced by war, or afflicted by other disasters. The World Food Programme (which helps feed more than 100 million people a year in 80 countries. The office of the High Commissioner for Refugees has projects in over 116 countries, and peacekeeping projects in over 24 countries.
For development projects, the UN is the largest multilateral source of grant technical assistance in the world. WHO, UNAIDS, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are leading institutions in the battle against diseases around the world, and the UN Population Fund is a major provider of reproductive services. It has helped reduce infant and maternal mortality in 100 countries.
Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Ban Ki Moon is living proof of that. But then neither are you, Richardx, and I am not advocating putting you down. Because I believe the good you do is greater than the evil you do. Which is also the case with the UN.
No, “leftists” do not have any “slavish devotion to the UN.” Realists understand that it is an institution worth maintaining, that’s all.
Here we go with the whole “the UN is useless” trope issued by the dreary, right-wing, don’t-give-a-hoot-about-what-goes-on-outside-the-heartland remoras of the board. First, I should issue disclaimers, lest the this gets the Brendon Carr treatment, but I am not a member of the left and I do have a pile of stories, from first-hand witnesses about abuses, sloth and graft in the UN. However, before we go throwing the baby out with the bathwater, consider that some constituent organisations, such as, let’s say, the IOM, do some outstanding work where governments fail. Again, disclaimer, my partner and several friends work within, but that is another thing. But rest assured, in our patch of SE Asia, given the goings on in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are slowly being swamped by asylum seekers and despite the best efforts of the Australian government to cash up the Indonesians to resist the onslaught, it’s still a losing battle. When we are getting 40-odd arriving by boat a day, mostly via Malaysia whose lax immigration laws (vis-a-vis arrivals from Muslim countries) and general lack of desire to do anything about the problem exacerbates it beyond control, someone has to step in and fill in the cracks. It is to that end that I see this particular branch of the UN stepping in where nobody else can. So before we bag the whole shemozzle, and heck I agree Ban is bad for the organisation and lots needs doing to reform it, remember the odd bit of good does come out of it.
I just watched Charlie Rose try to ask Ban Ki-Moon questions about North Korea. That had to be one of the most frustrating interviews Rose has ever conducted; you can tell with each follow-up question that Rose is probably wishing he could just stop the taping and slap the UN General Secretary. It was a total waste of television time; wish I had switched over to Letterman joking about South Carolina’s governor instead.
Re: My post #8. I meant to say “fun to bash the UN.” Crap.
If he could just get the US to pay its 1.5 billion dollars backdues, think what he could do next
Mizar and aaronm;
Please explain.
A few years ago the US withheld its usual 25% dues payment to the UN. Since its inception the US has paid the most of any country, percentage wise. The US was unhappy with the slow pace of reform at the UN.
Did the other 190 countries pick up the slack in funding?
IF they didn’t, would that be an indication that THEY have no faith in the UN and its wonderful work?
Is the UN really irreplaceable?
What about USAID and the hundreds of NGOS?
Why can’t they fill the gap?
What does the UN do that they can’t?
Well, the UN is not completely worthless.
The Indian UN peacekeepers are teaching Lebanese kids how to do Yoga.
By the way, aaronm, I was part of the liberal JFK generation and spent 4 years in Korea, three as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cheungju City.
But then I was idealistic. My dreary, imperfect, right wing phase kicked in later when I became a pragmatist. and I lost my rose colored glasses.
Not, really. It simply means that there is a leadership gap. A UN without the US would be meaningless. The presence of the US gives gravatas to the organization and enhances its effectiveness.
In today’s world, with today’s nuclear threats, yes, now more than ever. For example, take a look at the US ship tailing the NK ship Kang Nam. Were it not for the UN, that would be nothing less than an act of war.
Because the UN has more credibility, influence, broader participation and greater funding. I mean that sincerely.
That’s good. I have equal disdain for the youthful brand of uncritical conspiratorial left-wing idealogy. However, there is a whole spectrum of positions between the left and right wings. And, as Buddhism asserts, a string that it strung too tight or too loose can’t shoot a straight arrow.
I’m pleased to hear about your having been in the Peace Corps and honor you for your service.
Mizar.
Thanks for the cogent response.
And your kind comment regarding my PC service.
But, sorry, I still don’t think the rest of the world reveres the UN as much as you.
You know how much something is worth by the sacrifices you are willing to make to keep it going.
Ah, the Kang Nam. Which cannot be boarded unless the captain gives permission.
The North Koreans say they will obliterate the US if the ship is boarded and would be an act of war.
Evidently they missed the distinction between the US and the UN.
In the Sudan and Bosnia it was the US that used diplomacy to broker peace deals.
(with the rebels in the south)
Remember Somalia?
The US was asked to send a QRF, mostly marines, to restore a semblance of order.
The UN then would take over.
It did and disaster followed. ala Black Hawk Down.
You mean that kind of credibility and diplomacy?
Remember the photos of UN peacekeepers being handcuffed to telephone to thwart
NATO airstrikes in Bosnia?
They still cannot or will not stop the flow of weapons to Hezzbollah.
But they do have yoga classes.
Speaking of the ME. If the UN is so good at diplomacy why is it that the Israelis and the Arabs want the US to broker a deal?
And in your neck of the woods(are you actually in Korea???) its not the
UN but the “six nations” that are trying to reach a deal with the Norks.
Why, if the UN has so much influence and credibility?
By the way, “broader participation” is not necessarily a good thing.
Too many agendas. Think Tower of Babel.
“All know the way but few walk it”
another apt Buddhist saying eh?
“Since its inception the US has paid the most of any country, percentage wise.”
Thats the price of hegemony, and being the founder, insisting on the security council, etc, etc,
US set it up including the contributions levels etc….
The US can leave any time it wants……but instead it refuses to pay its dues unless it gets the reforms it wants…in a “United Nations”
Remember the tsunami? While UN staffers were doing multiple “assessments” of the situation from their five-star hotel in Jakarta, the U.S. Navy was actually delivering food, medicine and water and rescuing trapped people. And then when they finally went to the disaster zone they tried to boss the USN around. Heh.
One day, in some dreamy far off future, we may actually end up with one world government. We should at least keep trying.
Yeah, and just our luck, it’ll be a theocracy.
Richardx:”another apt Buddhist saying eh?”
Richard, it’s not that I disagree with you. As per Churchill, democracy is the worst form of govt. aside from all the other alternatives.
Likewise, I don’t disagree with you about the limitations of the UN, and all its flaws. However, it’s better than the alternative, which is no attempt whatsoever at pulling together as a human race.
You must log in to post a comment.