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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS