Before I became the UN's secretary-general, I was an Asian diplomat. While I was foreign minister of the Republic of Korea, my government and I strongly advocated detente with North Korea. When some in the world called for sanctions and punitive action, South Korea pushed for dialogue.
That requires listening as well as speaking. It means sticking to principles, but also attempting to understand the other side, however irrational or intransigent it may sometimes appear.
This remains my style at the UN. I believe in the power of diplomacy and engagement. I prioritize dialogue over debate or declaration. Above all, I seek results.
We are doing that now in Myanmar. My special adviser, Ibrahim Gambari, has been back in Yangon. His brief is to be the honest broker, the facilitator of a dialogue between government and opposition leaders, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi. The goal is for Myanmar's government to release all detained students and demonstrators, engage with the opposition, move toward a more democratic society and rejoin the international community.
This brand of diplomacy is not quick or easy. There is seldom applause, and often no outward evidence of movement. It is a quiet, painstaking slog behind the scenes. You have to work the phones, cajole world leaders to do this or that. It is a symphony -- often not a very harmonious one -- of small steps that you hope will lead to something greater.
You expect nothing. You can only keep trying, keep pushing. Maybe it works, maybe not. Then you try some more, in a different way, aiming all the while for some small progress that makes the next step possible.
We are at this point in Darfur. I have spent hundreds of hours working behind closed doors with various parties to the conflict -- Sudan's government, rebel leaders, neighboring countries and African Union (AU) partners. Meanwhile, we are pushing ahead with one of the most complex peacekeeping operations in our history, feeding and protecting hundreds of thousands of displaced people, and sponsoring difficult peace negotiations in Libya.
But even as I push my brand of "Asian" diplomacy, it can sometimes feel a bit lonely to be an Asian at the international community's diplomatic roundtable.
We Asians inhabit the world's largest continent, with the world's largest population and its fastest-growing economies. We have a rich history and ancient cultures. Yet our role in international affairs is far less than it could, or should be.
Asia's contribution to the UN, though significant, could be greater. Its humanitarian assistance, to put it politely, is less than generous. We are the only continent where regional integration and common markets have not taken hold.
Latin Americans and North Americans dream of creating a free trade zone. Europeans speak of building a United States of Europe. The AU aspires to become a United States of Africa. Why no United States of Asia?
There are many reasons why Asia is different: history, cultural diversity, unresolved territorial and political disputes, a lack of multilateral experience and the predominance of one or two centers of power. But the main reason is that we have not tried.
Asia does not do itself justice. As an Asian secretary-general, I hope to see this change. I hope to see an Asia that is both better integrated and more internationally engaged.
I expect particularly great things of my fellow Koreans, a remarkable people who have come into their own. I hope to see Korea assume more responsibility in the world, commensurate with its growing economic clout -- especially in the area of development, one of the three pillars of the UN Charter. Koreans need to step up, speak out and do more, and that should start with more generous official development assistance.
Koreans have already shown their penchant for multilateral diplomacy and troubleshooting through the six-party talks. Now, they and Asians at large need to bring both their skills and their success to bear on the most pressing global issues of the day.
This is not just my hope, it is also Asia's obligation.
Ban Ki-moon is secretary-general of the UN. Copyright: Project Syndicate/The Asia Society
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS