---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Reeves <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:24:12 -0400
Subject: "Darfur and Ban Ki-moon's Bid for a Second Term"
To: [email protected]
@font-face { font-family: "Times";}@font-face { font-family:
"Cambria";}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link,
span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited,
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline;
}p { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New
Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }"Darfur and Ban Ki-moon's Bid
for a Second Term"
from Dissent Magazine (on-line), June 10, 2011
http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=471
by Eric Reeves
[Note added June 10, 2011:Ban Ki-moon has been no less a disaster for
the South, Abyei, and now SouthKordofan. He has done nothing in the
face of the Khartoum regime’scontemptuous dismissal of the UN Security
Council "demand" (June 3)that all its military forces be withdrawn from
Abyei. He also likelyplayed a significant role in excising from the
first UN report on Abyeithe finding that Khartoum’s military actions
have been "tantamountto ethnic cleansing." More than two weeks
afterKhartoum’s military invasion and comprehensive destruction of Abyei
town, Ban himself declared, on whatbasis it is quite unclear, that it
was "far too early to claim that ethniccleansing is taking place." In
addition to massive numbers ofsatellite and ground photographs, showing
ethnically-targeted destruction offood and property in progress, there
are countless interviews that have beenconducted with those who fled,
making clear that Khartoum was intent on "changing the demography" of
Abyei. The UN HighCommission for Refugees estimates that more than
100,000 have fled southfrom the violence in Abyei, virtually the entire
Dinka Ngok population of theregion; the implications of this have
clearly not been absorbed by Ban. He has also been conspicuously silent
on the war that is exploding in SouthKordofan---and the events that so
clearly led to this premeditated and rapidlyexpanding violence.
During his entire tenure, Ban has beenshamefully obsequious in his
relations with the National Islamic Front/NationalCongress Party regime;
his response to the human catastrophe in Darfur has as aconsequence been
destructively incompetent.]
"Darfur and Ban Ki-moon’s Bid for a Second Termas UN Secretary-General"
Ban Ki-moon is presentlybeing considered for a second term as UN
Secretary-General. Given thewidespread criticism that he has received on
many fronts, much of it severe,his odds might seem long. But this is a
decision that will be made largely bythree wary members of the Security
Council: China, Russia, and the UnitedStates. And their criteria for
assessing job performance reflect nothing somuch as their own
geostrategic interests, which are often directly in conflict.This has
the effect of producing a "lowest common denominator" candidate, a
competition in which Ban Ki-moon excels. As onecritic has put it, these
three Security Council members "have conscientiously vetted for
dynamism" since the early 1960s,and anodyne Secretaries-General like
Ban, Kurt Waldheim, and Javier Pérez deCuéllar have been the result. The
same dynamic gives Ban a better than evenchance of a second term,
especially since the United States announced this weekits support for
Ban's reappointment. This decision should be reconsidered.
Ban'snickname in his native South Korea was "Ban-chusa," suggesting both
someone bureaucraticallyfastidious but also, as the Economistput it
shortly after Ban'selection, hampered by a "lack ofcharisma and a
supposed willingness to bend to the will of his superiors." It is
notable that several of Ban's most prominent critics from within the UN
havealso repeatedly cited his lack of "charisma," going so far as to
call him "spineless"and "repulsive."In the eyes of many, he has failed
so profoundly as a leader of the world bodythat there are barely enough
words available to account for his miserableperformance.
One outra
ged senior official,Inga-Britt Ahresigning last summer from her post
as UNundersecretary general of the
Office of Internal Oversight Services, leftbehind a scathing, fifty-page
memo characterizing Ban's job performance: "Youractions are not only
deplorable, but seriously reprehensible.... Your action iswithout
precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself....
Iregret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay."
Oversight reform was one of the issues onwhich Ban campaigned, so
Undersecretary Ahlenius'criticism cannot be dismissed lightly.
Another diplomat--Mona Juul, Norway's deputy permanent representative to
the UN--hadthe previous year (2009) made criticism just as tough on Ban
in a confidentialmemo to the Norwegian foreign ministry (it was leaked
shortly thereafter). Shedescribes him as "spineless" and merely a
"passiveobserver" to the crisis in Myanmar; shejudged him to have been
no better on the human destruction in Sri Lanka. Helacks "moral
authority" and leadership qualities, Juul wrote, andhas made the UN
irrelevant on a host of important international issues whereits role is
vital:
Commonto all of this is the fact that high-profile aides cannot
compensate for abland secretary-general who is lacking in charisma....
Apart from Afghanistan,Ban has generally chosen special representatives
and secretariat chiefs who don't make much of an impression either.
My purpose in offering this brutalsummary (and there are a great many
accounts that could be adduced on each ofthe issues raised) is to
suggest that Ban has proved just as feckless anddisappointing in leading
the UN response to Darfur, a vast human catastrophethat he promised
would be for him a signature issue. He has nothing to show forhis
efforts in Darfur, despite various efforts at self-puffery. The
conflictand suffering seem more intractable than ever, and the atrocity
crimes byKhartoum and its military forces are endless (see this June6,
2011 report from Human Rights Watch). The catalog of hismissteps,
moments of moral failure, and misrepresentations of the genocide
inDarfur is a long one, much longer than any indictment I might render
here. Butlet's take brief stock.
Since Ban assumed his position onJanuary 1, 2007, more than 1 million
civilians in Darfur havebeen newly displaced—more than 600,000 in his
first two years inoffice. If we want a crude measure of the failure of
the UN/African Union "hybrid"peacekeeping force (UNAMID) that Ban has so
continually touted, this is it.During his entire tenure, security has
continued to deteriorate, both forhumanitarians and civilians. Ban and
his disastrous special representative toUNAMID, Ibrahim Gambari, have
had nosuccess in pressuring Khartoum to permit freedom of movement for
thepeacekeepers and their military investigators, or in securing
unfettered accessfor humanitarians seeking to reach critically
underserved areas in Darfur.
Typical was Ban’s response to Khartoum's expulsion of half the
humanitarian capacity inDarfur in March 2009 based on the absurd charge
of espionage. Ban claimed "things will be alright" and minimized the
impact of the expulsions.A year later, in his April 28, 2010 report to
the Security Council,Ban was still arguing that the
"humanitarianoperation in Darfur has been successful in stabilizing the
situation in thefood security, health, nutrition, and water sectors."
But in fact the populous Jebel Marraregion of central Darfur was under a
total humanitarian embargo, imposed byKhartoum in January 2010 (the
embargo continued throughout the year and isstill largely in place).
There has been much cruel suffering as the regime's military and militia
forces resumedscorched-earth destruction of villages throughout eastern
Jebel Marra. Campsfor displaced persons, many of which had suffered
terribly for lack of food,water, and primary medical care, were clearly
not part of Ban's assessment. Three months later Ban finallyacknowledged
that the absence of skilled humanitarian workers, like
those whohad
maintained pumpsofdisplaced persons, was biting deeply: "Thescarcity
of water in Darfur
is growing, with reports of a significant number ofwells drying up."
Ban'saccount made no mention of the fact that UN agencies and aid
organizations wereflying blind in many respects because of
Khartoum'srefusal to allow the production and distribution of reports on
malnutrition.There was evidence, however, that food shortages were
rising sharply in someareas: anecdotal reports and scattered statistical
data suggested that the emergency level for Global Acute Malnutrition
(15 percent) had beenreached in a number of populations. Yet Ban has
never criticized orchallenged the UN's chief relief coordinatorfor
Sudan/Darfur, Georg Charpentier, despite his failure of nerve
inconfronting Khartoum’s leaders and his disingenuousness about
humanitarian conditions. UN agencyleaders and NGOs, almost without
exception, are fearful of speaking out aboutconditions before
Charptenier and are thus obliged to accede to his distortingcomments
about humanitarian access and the size of the population in need.
Ban has also done nothing of significanceto further the Darfur peace
process, which Khartoum has determined will be "domesticated,"with a
heavy emphasis on premature and unsafe returns of displaced persons.
Banindulged in factitious optimism on this score, declaring in July
2007, "During the last six months, we have made slowbut credible and
considerable progress in helping resolve thisDarfur situation." But
peace talks,which have now found an apparently indefinite home in Doha,
Qatar, have draggedon for years. Despite various "agreements" there is
no tangible progress on theground, and the main rebel groups have not
joined the talks. The most recentagreement leaves unsettled the key
issues of representation in the nationalgovernment, human security for
the region, and the administrative division ofDarfur—an especially
important issue for non-Arab Darfuris, the Fur inparticular (the largest
ethnic group in Darfur).
Instead of a focused diplomaticprocess, with the UN secretariat
orchestrating broad international support,there has been a succession of
negotiating venues and actors, as well asunseemly wrangling among the
UNAMID’s Gambari, the UN/AU joint mediator for thepeace process, Djbril
Bassolé (who is leaving his post soon to return toBurkina Faso), and
Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, representingthe AU. Ban
has done nothing to bring order to this diplomatic mess or to
bringpressure to bear on Khartoum to negotiate in good faith. Instead,
bycelebrating diplomatic non-events, Ban has provided the regime with
cover: in February 2009 Ban declared that"the [Doha] agreement of
goodwill andconfidence-building [signed by the Justice and Equality
Movement and theKhartoum regime in Qatar on February 17] represents a
constructive step in theongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful
conclusion to this long-runningconflict." The Justice and
EqualityMovement would shortly thereafter abandon the talks in Doha as a
betrayal ofits cause.
Critically, Ban has done nothing ofconsequence in persuading China to
play a more active role in Darfur, even asChina's obstructionism on the
SecurityCouncil is acknowledged by virtually everyone. China'sattitude
toward the human catastrophe in Darfur, governed entirely by its
oilinterests in South Sudan and Kordofan, was one of unsurpassable
indifference.In April of 2007, as insecurity was accelerating and
conditions in the campsbecoming more difficult, Chinese Assistant
Foreign Minister Zhai Jun said, "Mygeneral impression is that the
current situation in Darfur is basically stable,the local government
runs normally, the refugee camps are well managed withsound health
conditions and the basic living of refugees is guaranteed." This surreal
assessment served as the basisfor an aggressive push to enervate the
robust peacekeeping force that hadoriginally been proposed by the
Security Council in August 2006, a force thatwould ins
tead become in
July 2007 tremainedunchallenged by Ban, who knows that
Beijing'sleaders are almost
certainly the key to any second term. Bronwen Maddox of theLondon Times
put the matter best, declaring, "When Ban Ki-moon, the UN
Secretary-General, said thatChina had played a 'constructive role' in
the process, and that he was 'satisfied'with its contribution, he was
being polite to the point of dissembling, or hasstandards which are
inhumanely low."
If Darfur has been a signature issuefor Secretary-General Ban, as he
insisted at the beginning of his first term,then he must be held
accountable for the massive UN failure in the region.Whether
this---along with his mishandling of the crises in Burma and Sri
Lanka,his lack of leadership, and his failure to bring accountability
and oversightto the UN---is enough to block his reappointment is a
judgment that will bemade in Moscow, Beijing, and Washington. It has
been reported that the U.S.ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has strong
objections to Ban's continued leadership of the secretariat, butgiven
the White House's announcement ofsupport for Ban, Rice will need to find
outside political support. This shouldcome from domestic political and
human rights constituencies, as well as theother two permanent members
of the Security Council, France and the UnitedKingdom. U.S. acceptance
of Ban'sreappointment will reflect the survival of a "lowestcommon
denominator" selection processand set back for years the chances for
true reform of the secretariat.
[Eric Reeves has published extensively on Sudan, nationallyand
internationally, for more than a decade. He is author of A Long Day’s
Dying: Critical Moments in theDarfur Genocide.]
_____________________________
Eric Reeves
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063
[email protected]
413-585-3326
www.sudanreeves.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD
info" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
