Moon's wrong foot forward S. Nihal Singh | The Asian Age | March 08, 2007
http://www.asianage.com/ Never in the history of the United Nations has a secretary-general, described as the most impossible job in the world, had a rougher ride after taking office than South Korea's Ban Ki-Moon. Whether it is attributable to the cautious Korean culture or Ban's desire to please all he approvingly quotes his country's press calling him "the slippery eel" he does not seem to have put a foot right. Traditionally, the major powers seek out mediocrities for the top UN job, with the rare instances of an initially underrated Dag Hammarskjöld or a brilliant Boutros Boutros-Ghali inadvertently slipping through the net of the permanent members' vetoes. For them, the UN is a mere adjunct in pursuing their foreign policy interests and they invariably favour men like Ban, described by the New York Times as "a status quo secretary-general." There is perennial debate over whether the holder of the office is more a secretary than a general. The problem for the major powers is that once a secretary-general assumes office, he acquires a moral authority as the head of the only truly international organisation out of proportion to his stated powers and however meek he might appear to be. And the United States, more responsible than anyone else for helping set up the UN and other international institutions in the post-World War II era, has developed a pronounced antipathy to it. If the Cold War hobbled the functioning of the UN for half a century, its end has been notable for the tug of war between the US and the UN. As the hyperpower, America believes that it should run the organisation as it wants and refuses to be restrained by the discipline imposed by an international organisation, as it demonstrated by invading Iraq. And Kofi Annan, the man Washington handpicked for the job, did it many favours for securing him the post until safely into his second term and made peace with the US by bowing to the demands of the legislature of one member country (the US Senate). It would be unfair to judge Ban some two months into his impossible job some American and western analysts are already suggesting that he is doomed to fail he has made a string of gaffes. At his very first press conference, he said it was Iraq's business to hang Saddam Hussein. His early high-level appointments of a Tanzanian with unproved managerial skills as deputy secretary-general and the displacement of the highly regarded Jan Engeland from the field of humanitarian affairs in favour of an Englishman who has no experience of such work raised eyebrows. The world took note of the effusive welcome Ban received at the White House, a poisoned chalice in UN terms, and the developing world rebelled at his initial decision to merge the UN's disarmament and political affairs departments giving the head of the new entity, slated for an American, unprecedented powers to serve his country's interests. Again, over an American complaint over hard currency funding for North Korea, Ban ordered an accounting of all such operations worldwide. After every such effort, he takes half a step back in an effort to blunt criticism. There is, indeed, a built-in conflict between the US and richer countries on the one hand and the developing world on the other, greatly exacerbated by the current Bush administration. In his memoir, Boutros-Ghali has recalled how difficult it was to deal with the Clinton administration, with Madeleine Albright striking up attitudes, instead of using arguments, to want to have her way. Kofi Annan sought to finesse it by doing America's bidding in his first term and seeking a more impartial approach in his second. Perhaps Ban failed to realise that by enthusiastically embracing America's reform agenda as his first task, he has bitten off more than he can chew. To make amends, he has been meeting the developing world's permanent representatives to seek a more consensual approach. Ban has spoken of the Darfur situation and climate change as worthy of attention but has refrained from saying anything about the UN's role in the Middle East or broader West Asia. Apart from problems around the world crying for attention, the secretary-general has immense housekeeping tasks and seems somewhat overwhelmed by the competing pressures and demands. For some in the West, it is open season for Ban-bashing. A French Canadian journalist has reported that he was scandalised that the secretary-general hardly spoke French, despite his curriculum vitae. And The Australian newspaper ran the headline "UN chief hits the ground stumbling." Newsweek last week ran a cover story on "Why This Man (Ban) will fail." Ban needs to take a fast learning curve trajectory to survive. A larger problem for the UN is that there is an imbalance between the power of the US and the rest of the world. There have been many calls most recently by the foreign ministers of China, India and Russia for a multipolar world. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the chaos and disillusion that followed, Moscow is gaining new confidence in influencing events in the world, thanks to political consolidation at home and the clout of energy resources. China and India are emerging as influential powers and although Europe is in a mood of introspection, the traditional Gaullist view of a less subservient European Union is finding resonance. Much depends upon future developments in the United States, on how far it can retrace its steps from the neoconservative path to the more traditional virtues of enlightened self-interest. Perhaps all Americans believe in the exceptionalism of their country and in the core beliefs set out in President Bush's strategic doctrine of 2002 although not in its primacy to employing force to impose democracy or otherwise serve the country's interests. Europe and the US are inextricably bound in economic, trade and emotional terms. Despite the "new" Europeans' pro-American leanings, America's neoconservative follies and approach to combating terrorism are taking the US philosophically and psychologically away from European sensibilities. To an extent, Ban is a mere spectator of these trends and events.
