In Dublin this week, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon was frank about the frustrations of his job and defended his soft-spoken style which has been criticised as blunting the power of the UN
THESE ARE difficult days for the man who inhabits the secretary-general’s office on the 38th floor of UN headquarters in New York. Midway through his five-year term, Ban Ki-moon surveys a world pummelled by what he calls the “Four F” crises: food, fuel, finance and flu. Add to that global warming and continuing conflict in the likes of Afghanistan, the Middle East, Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo, to name but a few. Then there is Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea’s muscle-flexing, or perennials such as poverty and hunger. As Ban puts it: “Have you ever seen in our lifetime a time when this world is being hit by so many crises at once?”
The trouble is critics are now loudly wondering if Ban is up to the challenge. It is not the first time the UN chief has been slated for perceived faults that include not doing more, not listening enough, being too low key, or deferring too much to the “Big Five” around the Security Council table (China, France, Great Britain, the US and Russia). But in recent weeks, the whispered sniping that had been largely confined to the corridors of New York’s East River has burst out into the open.
Ban’s performance has been dissected in several unflattering reviews. The most catty was the writer in Foreign Policy magazine who sniffed that Ban had been “trotting the globe collecting honorary degrees, issuing utterly forgettable statements, and generally frittering away any influence he might command”. The UN’s eighth secretary general had become “a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage”, the columnist opined. The Economist was a little more charitable, describing Ban’s performance as “mixed” before going on to award him a paltry three out of 10 for speaking truth to power, and two out of 10 for management skills. He did, however, earn eight out of 10 for his grasp of “big picture” issues, such as climate change and the global food crisis.
The 65-year-old former South Korean foreign minister insists he is happy to acknowledge constructive criticism “with a sense of humility”, but he is also quick to defend his record and his approach to the job.
“I may not be a man of fiery rhetoric but I am a man of action and results,” Ban says, his voice rising slightly. “Some people may think my name has not become a household name. I am not working for my own name recognition. I am working for the name recognition of the United Nations.
“I am leading by example . . . that is what I will continue to do. People have seen how strict, how principled, how disciplined and committed I am.”
Ban argues that there needs to be a better appreciation of the United Nations during challenging times such as these. He also points out that the issues the world faces right now cannot be addressed by one leader, country or institution alone. “We need a collective response to global issues. That is why I have been emphasising global leadership, global solidarity and renewed multi-lateralism.
“We need full support, resources and political will . . . I know this criticism comes from frustrations . . . that we have not been able to overcome these crises . . . I am trying to mobilise and generate global leadership but I need the support of the whole international community.”
It is too easy to trot out the hoary quip that the quietly diligent and somewhat wonkish Ban appears much more “secretary” than “general” when compared to his charismatic predecessor, the larger-than-life Kofi Annan. Ban is no “secular pope”, as Annan was once dubbed. But even some of Ban’s defenders fear that his soft-spoken style blunts the only real power that comes with the title of secretary-general – that of moral authority.
Ban rejects this outright. “Whenever it comes to universally accepted principles, protecting human rights, protecting vulnerable people, aiming for socio-economic development, eradicating hunger and helping the sick, I think I have been more vocal than any other leaders . . . that should be properly appreciated.”
To bolster his argument, Ban talks of rushing to Burma (he refers to it as Myanmar as per UN style) after last year’s cyclone to persuade the junta to allow aid to reach its devastated population, an effort he says ultimately saved the lives of more than half a million people. He talks of standing in the rubble of Gaza in January and calling for a unilateral ceasefire: “The ceasefire was immediately done at my urging.” He talks of recent visits to Sri Lanka and Burma (though the latter was widely considered unsuccessful given that the junta refused Ban’s request to see Aung San Suu Kyi).
The man whose diplomatic style is almost always described as quiet or low key bristles at the suggestion his approach might be too soft to be truly effective. Ban mentions no names when he speaks of his “quiet tête-à-tête meetings with certain leaders who have been very much closed from the international community”, but those sitting in Rangoon, Khartoum and Harare are some that spring to mind. “There are certain types of people who do not want to be criticised in front of their senior advisers,” he explains. “This [approach] is much more useful, and much more effective, in persuading them.
“During my tête-à-tête meetings I have been quite direct, firm and strong. [This approach] is not soft-spoken . . . it has sometimes been more effective than publicly criticising them.”
Some of Ban’s supporters claim that criticism of his style, honed during four decades in the South Korean foreign ministry, has more to do with Western perceptions of how diplomacy should be conducted. In a recent interview with a Korean news agency, Ban described himself as the first secretary general with “genuine Asian values”, although he is the second Asian to serve as UN chief (the first was Burma’s U Thant in the 1960s). When I ask him what he meant by this, Ban is at pains to stress that his intention is not to emphasise one set of values over others. “It is true that I am Korean, and I was brought up in an Asian culture but I have also been educated in the United States, and I have been engaging in a diplomatic career for 40 years. So I know all different cultures, traditions and values. As a secretary general, I am trying to promote all values . . . Asian values or Western values should complement each other.”
Ban recently fell foul of the Iranian regime after he condemned its violent response to the protests that followed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election last month. “[They] heavily criticised me, saying it was interference in domestic matters. I do not agree . . . I have been doing exactly what I should do as secretary general – upholding the principles of the United Nations charter; protecting human rights and freedom of speech, assembly and expression.”
The current situation in Iran is “very complex”, Ban ventures tentatively. “Therefore we need to follow closely and monitor the situation to see how it evolves.”
ASKED TO NAME the most trying moments of his term, Ban hesitates before mentioning Burma, going on to admit that dealing with the junta is “very difficult and frustrating”.
“I have conveyed as hard as I can the concerns of the international community to the military authorities in Myanmar,” he says. “I will continue to do that, but this time I am sure they have got the message from me.”
Given that climate change is the issue that has come to most define his term, it is hardly surprising that Ban counts among his most memorable moments the last-minute appeal he made to member states after the Bali roadmap risked falling apart in December 2007.
“We must seal the deal in Copenhagen this year but that was a very dramatic and very moving moment for me as secretary general. I mobilised all my moral voice and my political authority and they listened.”
From his early days at the helm of the UN, Ban has been deeply committed to reforming its creaking infrastructure. “I think I have made significant changes and reforms so far but this is still ongoing. There is no clear-cut benchmark . . . We must continuously reform our organisation. My priority in reform has always been to make this organisation more efficient, mobile and effective . . . At the same time [it] should be equipped with the necessary resources and political support from member states. That’s what I’m asking for – help from member states.”
The Bush administration’s relationship with the UN was a notably fraught one, and events such as the invasion of Iraq threw the debate over the relevancy of the UN into sharp relief. Ban sidesteps the question of how President Obama’s attitude to the UN compares with his predecessor, but acknowledges that the new administration is “actively engaging” with the UN on issues such as climate change, food security, and the Millennium Development Goals.
“President Obama told me once: ‘You will find in me a strong partner of the United Nations.’ That was a very reassuring and encouraging commitment,” says Ban.
“The United Nations by any standard is the only universal inter-governmental organisation. You cannot find any alternative.”