The UN has long had a public relations problem. Its detractors are loud and passionate, its supporters low-key and reasonable. Around the world the numbers of people who wish the organization well far exceed those who see it as a nuisance, yet they barely make their voices heard. As a result, the UN is always on the defensive.
Never more than now, six months after Ban Ki-moon was installed as the eighth secretary-general. Foreign minister in the South Korean government which sent troops to Iraq after the US invasion, he was the Bush administration's favorite among the five contestants. His country is totally dependent on the US for its defense. He had little experience of the UN or large parts of the world. He was described as a cautious, even faceless bureaucrat and a man of little vision.
Whoever leads it, the UN and its many agencies still arouse global expectations. So when I went to hear Ban speak in London last week, I was not alone in hoping to come away reassured, if not inspired.
What other center is there for mobilizing change in a world of massive inequalities, bloody conflicts, a widening nuclear arms race and the new challenge of climate change? What other forum offers small and medium-sized states a chance to challenge US unilateralism and get a hearing (though not much press coverage)? It was not just France that blocked the UN Security Council from authorizing the attack on Iraq in 2003. US President George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair could not get support from enough of the 10 council members who have no veto. No wonder international polls at the time showed the highest ratings the UN has ever had.
All the former UN officials and other UN-watchers whom I rang to ask about Ban's performance before the meeting asked to speak off the record. This was not a good sign. If you've something positive to say, why hide it? Some mentioned gaffes, like Ban's support for the death penalty in a comment after former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was hanged, or his statement in East Jerusalem that he was pleased to be in Israel.
Others pointed to his decision to close the Department of Disarmament Affairs and put its staff into his own office, a decision which he described as giving it a higher profile, but critics say downgrades it as a favor to Washington. Bush wants to focus on stopping new countries going nuclear rather than have the existing bomb-owners cut back.
Almost everyone I consulted agreed Ban knew little of the UN "culture" before he got the job. One said, somewhat haughtily, that he is "the first secretary-general who is neither a European or brought up in a British colony." (Perez de Cuellar, the Peruvian who held the job in the 1980s, was so white and upper-class that he might as well have been a Spanish grandee.) The remark was meant to highlight Ban's unfamiliarity with the arts of marshalling arguments elegantly and seeming to express passion without becoming shrill. They were epitomized by the silken style and smile of his predecessor Kofi Annan.
If he intended to understand the UN quickly, Ban's first appointments were not encouraging. He picked a Tanzanian as deputy secretary general and an Indian as his chef de cabinet, neither with extensive UN experience. His gatekeepers -- his executive assistant and scheduling officer -- are South Korean and UN outsiders, as is his deputy chef de cabinet. Although he had two months between getting the job and starting work, he is said to have filled staff jobs slower than his predecessors.
"On the issue of competence it's a huge disappointment. I thought he must have been chosen at least because he's a good manager," one New York-based watcher said.
The human-rights community is gloomy. Annan famously said the UN's third pillar, after development and international peace and security, was human rights. Ban is reported to pay less attention to it, tending to farm controversies out to the feeble new Human Rights Council in Geneva. Senior Israelis like him, apparently because they consider him less pro-Palestinian than his predecessors.
On climate change, Ban has been soft. In the run-up to this summer's G8 summit, when a row developed over Bush's wish to move the post-Kyoto agenda away from the UN to a process which Washington would lead, Ban failed to speak up for preserving the UN framework. He only did so after the G8 kept the issue with the UN.
In this litany of pessimism, the most optimistic notes I heard were that the jury is still out. Give him time. He's learning. He had a hard act to follow. That was the gist of it. At a Chatham House reception it was clear he has no small talk but his big talk was little better. His speech ran safely through a list of current crises. This kind of audience does not applaud readily, but they are overwhelmingly pro-UN types. Not once did they clap at any point he made, though there was polite laughter when he suggested imposing the off-the-record Chatham House rule on the UN.
He was skillful at evading tough questions, not least what benefit he sees for the UN in maintaining its political boycott of Hamas.
In Ban's favor one has to say that being UN secretary-general is an impossible job. He is a secular figure to whom people turn for a moral lead. We desperately want a new world order and look to the UN as the only place where it may be born. We hope for an internationally recognized referee who will show a yellow card to the unilateralists and bullies who flout their own or other people's rights and break international law.
In our rational moments we know these dreams are unrealistic. The secretary-general has even fewer divisions than the pope. But could he at least be an actor and not just an instrument? Could he go beyond his charter-mandated duties as servant of the Security Council and play a strong role as an agenda-setter? The one power he has is not to confer legitimacy on things that are wrong, be it the invasion of another country or a policy of ostracism which UN members have not approved.
He needs to speak up and speak out. No chance of this from Ban, to judge by his record thus far.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US