UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has received a mixed review on the performance of his first hundred days in office. This is not surprising given the complexity of challenges he faces at the world body.
At one end of the spectrum, his admirers give him high mark for showing a strong self-confidence and proactive stance in dealing with tough issues ranging from the UN reform to the humanitarian disaster looming in the Sudan’s Darfur region. He relishes playing the role of “harmonizer” in tackling the global trouble spots.
At the other end of the scale, his critics take issue with his cautious style of decision-making. Ban has come under attack for trying to please all corners, including, in particular, the Permanent Five members of the Security Council who backed him for the job. Some other critics blame Ban for seeking a hasty reorganization of the departments for UN Peacekeeping operations and disarmament affairs, asserting he was mainly playing to the audiences in Washington in tackling this agenda.
I have a different view on his performance. For a start, he deserves a longer “honeymoon” respite from criticisms. No other secretary general in the past has been subject to such a short, impatient reading of score-card. In the four months that he has been in office, Ban has had to take steps he considered essential to restore the international community’s trust in the United Nations, a most critical issue when he took office. He was also deeply committed to make the UN secretariat leaner and more efficient.
A series of initiatives secretary general Ban has undertaken after he sworn in four months ago were quite predictable given his cawpaign pledges of restoring trust in the United Nations and management reform.
The controversy over Ban’s reform may be attributable to the developments since former Secretary General Kofi Annan’s second term began in 2002. The Iraq war, Annan’s criticism of the US invasion of Iraq, the oil for food scandal involving some high-ranking UN officials, and growing tensions between the developing and developed countries exacerbated by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton’s drive for rapid reform. Each of these issues has contributed to deepening mistrust not only among the UN member states, member states and the secretariat, but also between the secretary general and the media. Consequently, those who have questioned Ban’s initiatives tended to be more suspicious rather than favorable. Such mistrust was at the background of the oppositism to Ban’s plan for the reorganization of peacekeeping and disarmament affaires departments.
The issue of reorganizing the United Nations and reforming the way it operates is a most challenging task easier said than tackled. Former secretaries general in the past tried their hand on this tough issue, but with mixed results. They found this out when they lamented that running the UN is the world’s most difficult and challenging job.
Ban refuses to get bogged down in the quagmire of the UN bureaucracy. He has demanded resignation from senior officials as part of streamlining process. He has asked them to make a financial disclosure on their assets as a way of providing more transparency in the organization. He has flown to Africa and Iraq shortly after taking office. He has successfully persuaded Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir to accept more UN peacekeeping forces. These are big steps for a fledgling secretary general.
In tackling these problems, it’s true he has ruffled a few feathers. How else do you shake up the system? Consider this comment from one influential ambassador who sits on the Security Council: “He’s a newcomer · · ·. You have to identify who are the stakeholders and how to test the water temperature before jumping in. [Ban] hasn’t done that and he has felt the heat.”
That may very well be the case. But you don’t seriously begin reforming the secretariat without hurting some ego. Ban holds the belief that the institutional or personnel reform should be carried out in the first six months of his taking office so that he can then focus his attention and time on other weighty issues as well.
The UN has known many glittering leaders in its history. Dag Hammarskjold was an activist par excellence. He risked his life trying to bring peace in Africa. Boutros Boutros Ghali was a strong leader who placed pride and independence ahead of keeping the Permanent Five happy. Kofi Annan brought an enormous weight to his office with candor, moral power and charisma. Ban Ki Moon, in my mind, will stand in this line of great secretary general as a pragmatic problem-solver with his quiet diplomatic way, which he calls “soft leadership”. An Asian, he is a consensus builder, a harmonizer and an activist. His first four months in office demonstrates that he is more comfortable doing things quietly than with a flourish and fanfare. Ends.
The writer was Korea’s ambassador to the UN and currently teaching at Korea University Graduate School of International Studies.
2007.5.1자 코리아헤럴드
