Ban Ki-moon’s first two years at the United Nations
Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has cultivated many nicknames over the course of his long and illustrious career as a diplomat. As the foreign minister of South Korea, he was called Ban-chusa, a moniker meaning both “bureaucrat” and “administrative-clerk.” His colleagues in the ministry praised him for his scrupulous attention to detail, but criticized his lack of charisma and deference to superiors. As U.N. chief, Ban has experienced deeper criticism: some of his staff have taken to calling him “Mr. Invisible,” a sardonic reference to his low-profile style of leadership. Over the past two years, indeed, Ban Ki-moon has emerged as a quiet diplomat who has maintained the prestige of his post and made bold strides as an administrator, but has undercut his own image as a reformer by shying away from the most controversial political issues faced by the international community today.
Able Administrator, Weak Mediator
Ban displayed remarkable administrative ability by passing several important reforms within his first few months in office. He immediately attacked the aura of nepotism and cronyism that had surrounded U.N. appointments under Kofi Annan, ensuring that all staff would be hired on five-year contracts and undergo annual performance appraisals. And he persisted in spite of the packs of disgruntled and resentful staff that greeted the passing of each controversial provision. This brand of determination and decision-making ability has earned him the reputation of a hardened reformer, but it has also provided a stark contrast with his softer approach on issues of grave international concern.
The Secretary-General took a cautious stance on controversial political questions from the beginning of his tenure. When asked to weigh in on the execution of Saddam Hussein, which occurred a few months into his term, he dismissed it as a matter of Iraqi jurisdiction and “sovereignty.” This comment provoked a significant negative international response because the United Nations has long maintained a policy against capital punishment by member states. In the two years following this incident, Ban showed increasing resistance to intervention in contentious crises. Whether it was the Chinese holdout on action against Darfur in the Security Council or the Russian invasion of Georgia last summer, Ban has been continually reluctant to condemn unilateral state action by any of the major powers, a longstanding position of the organization.
Ban’s Battles
Ban is often compared to his iconic predecessor, Kofi Annan, whose high-profile command contrasted sharply with Ban’s “safe” approach to international diplomacy. While Ban has decried threats to international order in places such as Darfur, Burma, and Gaza, he has been careful not to confront any of the major powers directly. Robert Rotberg, professor of public policy at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, highlighted some of the main disappointments with Ban’s leadership: “Ban has not managed to extract good peacekeeping mandates or sufficient money from the Security Council. Nor has he managed to mobilize effective Chapter 7 responses [to breaches of the peace.]” Rotberg pointed out that Ban was “weak on Congo” and refused to take action in Somalia. His status as a reformer has also been jeopardized by his failure to correct many longstanding problems with U.N. operations in Africa, such as theft and rape by peacekeepers.
Many defenders of Ban’s record insist that these failures are due more to the shortcomings of an overtaxed, underfunded U.N. system than the Secretary-General’s mishandling, but critics argue that Ban’s subdued style is unwarranted. Elliott Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the HPR that it is up to the individual leader to take advantage of the international platform that the post of Secretary-General presents. “The strengths and weaknesses of Ban’s rule are his own, and not of the office or the geopolitical situation in the world,” said Abrams.
Ban has rarely leveraged his position to call out obstructionist member states or lend moral authority to criticism of world powers. As Rotberg noted, he “has not found a way to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to almost everything, and must continually worry about the hostility and suspicion of the Group of 77,” a loose coalition of developing nations in the United Nations. “Annan was consummately political in this regard. Ban is perceived as being less so.” Whereas Annan engaged with world leaders extensively on the most significant political issues of his day and even took on the United States by declaring the invasion of Iraq illegal, Ban Ki-moon has been a much less prominent figure in international controversies. “In his first few years Kofi Annan had more impact on the international political system, and his intervention in a matter carried a lot of weight,” said Abrams. “With Ban, this influence is considerably less.”
Conscience of the World?
Although much of its influence depends on the will and resources of its member states, the United Nations is also expected to serve as an international watchdog with a highly visible advisory role. The Secretary-General’s diplomatic vantage point places him in a unique position to act as the “conscience” of the world, a leading moral authority. But while Ban “seems on top of the big issues,” said Rotberg, “his bully pulpit is sometimes muted more than necessary. He has been more outspoken on climate change, which is easier to talk about, than on Africa or Israel-Palestine.” Many experts, pointing to Annan’s knack for balancing cooperation with independent scrutiny, fault Ban for not speaking truth to power and hesitating to engage in forceful dialogue. “Annan worked closely with the United States in the Balkans, but spoke against them during the Iraq invasion,” Rotberg explained. “Ban Ki-moon has avoided this path entirely, to focus on issues like climate change and Darfur that do not fuel strong international disagreement.” Deliberately avoiding controversy, Ban undercuts the image he has sought to promote as a true agent of reform.
As international crises highlight an increasingly interconnected world, however, the case for a proactive world leader has perhaps never been stronger. Humanitarian organizations, U.N. experts, and other observers have become more and more vocal about Ban’s reticence. Samantha Power, a U.N. expert and current foreign policy advisor to President Obama, typified growing criticism of Ban’s leadership in an interview with New Statesman last year. “Is that all there is?” Powers demanded. “Can we afford to do without a global figure, a global leader?” Ban, who once gained the nickname “The Slippery Eel” for his ability to dodge difficult questions from reporters in Korea, may find that Powers’ challenge is not one he can evade in the long run.
