The good news for Ban Ki-moon is that he has become secretary-general of the UN at a time when the prospects for conflict between or among the world's great powers -- the US, China, Japan, Russia, Europe, and India -- are remote. The bad news is that the prospects for just about every other sort of conflict are high and the international agenda is both crowded and demanding.
Ban needs to begin with a cold, hard assessment of his new position. A secretary-general of the UN is more secretary than general. He cannot command. It is not the same as being a president or a CEO. He possesses more influence than power. Moreover, power at the UN is divided, not simply between the Security Council and the General Assembly, but more fundamentally between the 192 members and the UN itself. The UN is comprised of sovereign states, but it is not sovereign itself and cannot act as if it were.
More than anything else, the UN reflects the ability of the major powers (above all, the US, China, Russia, France and the UK, the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council) to agree -- and to back up their agreements with resources. When they are willing and able to do so, the UN can make a difference; when they are not, the UN can act in only the most limited way, if at all, regardless of what the secretary-general wants.
Consider Darfur. The world has largely stood by in the face of genocide. This is not a failure of the UN or the secretary-general so much as a reflection of the reality that the major powers are divided. China clings to a notion of sovereignty that allows governments freedom of action within their borders. In today's world, such an unconditional definition of sovereignty is inadequate.
But the reality is that no amount of time spent negotiating in New York will turn things around. What matters are the instructions sent to China's UN ambassador from Beijing. In this case, Ban needs to spend time in China's capital, making the case for the notion that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens, and that when they fail to do so (as Sudan's government clearly is), they forfeit some of the advantages that normally are associated with sovereignty.
Ban cannot simply reform the Security Council to reflect better the realities of this era. But he can make the case that countries such as Japan, India, Germany and others deserve an enhanced position in the UN's most important body, one more commensurate with their power and status. Again, what is holding the UN back is not the UN itself, but its leading members, who cannot agree on what change is needed.
Ban can also make the case that there is no justification in today's world for terror -- defined here as the intentional harming of civilians for political purposes. Not just governments, but religious and other leaders need to be persuaded to denounce terror, shaming and de-legitimizing those who carry it out. The secretary-general is positioned to make this point loudly and repeatedly.
Two other areas exist where practical changes are both achievable and desirable. Ban should support the creation of an international facility that would provide governments access to (but not physical control of) enriched uranium and plutonium for the generation of electrical power. Such an innovation would help stem the spread of nuclear materials and weapons, while also contributing to a shift away from use of oil and gas, thereby reducing global warming in the process.
The other area is peacekeeping. Establishing a large, standing international force under the UN's control is not feasible and may not be optimal. But providing incentives for governments to maintain such forces at a high level of alert and setting standards for equipment, training and professionalism is something the UN can and should do.
All these suggestions highlight what might be any secretary general's most important asset: his voice. What Ban chooses to say, and how and where he says it, can enhance his influence. Over time, enhanced influence will enable him to get more things done.
Here again, Ban would be well advised to leave New York and spend more time in the capital and around the country. The US needs and benefits from effective multilateralism in a global world, one in which challenges cannot be met by any single country acting by itself. The US has a particular need for effective international cooperation now, when it is stretched militarily, economically, and politically owing to its policies toward Iraq and Afghanistan. Contributing to the emergence of a more productive relationship between the world's most important international organization and its most powerful member would be no small feat.
Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS