• by Thalif Deen (united nations)
• Friday, August 13, 2010
• Inter Press Service

In South Korea, Ban Ki-moon is a prestigious brand name - like Samsung, Kia, LG and Hyundai.

When the former South Korean foreign minister completes his term of office as secretary-general of the United Nations in December 2011, the Koreans expect him to be voted a second five-year term in office.

In Korean culture, one Asian diplomat points out, failure is not an option.

'Anything short of a second term for Ban Ki-moon,' he said, 'would be the equivalent of committing political hara-kiri.'

A downfall will also be construed as a monumental disaster for a country fast emerging as one of Asia's major political and economic powers, wielding immense clout in the international arena, he added.

But during the last few months, the secretary-general has been on the defensive as his beleaguered administration - and his political leadership - have come under relentless fire.

A 50-page <a href=http://ipsterraviva.net/uploads/UN/UN/report.Pdf target=_blank>scathing attack</a> on Ban's leadership by outgoing Under-Secretary-General Inga-Britt Ahlenius - whose full report was exclusively reported only on the IPS news wire - appears to have rattled the besieged administration.

Ahlenius accused Ban of poor governance, lacking transparency in management, fostering a culture of secrecy, and virtually running an authoritarian regime and overextending his authority.

She told him in rather harsh language, perhaps never uttered before against any U.N. chief: 'Your actions are not only deplorable but seriously reprehensible.'

Last week the secretary-general was forced to retract a statement - later described only as 'guidance' - on the politically sensitive issue of Kashmir. The retraction was a speedy response to a strong protest by India.

The Indians, who consider Kashmir an essentially domestic issue, were angry that the statement, expressing 'concern' over the security situation in the politically-troubled region, emanated from Ban's Secretariat.

Barbara Crossette, a former U.N. bureau chief for the New York Times and who now covers the world body for The Nation, told IPS: 'I think there are several factors working against him: his halting use of English, and his slow response to crises.'

She said that Ban's office puts out a lot of reaction comments on things happening all over the world, but they never have much depth.

'An area where I think it is dangerous to go, but relevant, I think, is his East Asian/Southeast Asian style, which as you know too well tends to be non-confrontational and unemotional, at least in public, and not always analytical or demonstrative.'

Asked if there is a political conspiracy against Ban, a representative of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) told IPS: 'I don't think a conspiracy is needed to detect the flaws in Ban Ki-Moon's leadership. They are there for all to see.'

'U.N. staff are boiling, the institution is adrift, the secretary-general is steadily losing ground. And the United Nations badly needs a strong, dynamic leader,' he added.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former under-secretary- general and high representative of the United Nations and a diplomat actively involved in the U.N. matters for nearly 40 years, was equally critical of Ban's leadership and management style.

Asked about the negative reporting on Ban, Chowdhury told IPS: 'I should point out that the recent reports are not 'negative' per se; those stories are reporting only on what is happening inside the U.N. under his leadership.'

After three and half years in office, he said, it is high time that Ban's leadership gets a closer and critical examination. 'I believe that would help him to do a better job.'

Being least knowledgeable about the intricacies of the multilateralism that the U.N. symbolises, and being chosen through a convoluted and least transparent process, Ban has failed so far to provide the transformational leadership expected of any U.N. Secretary-General, he added. (see Sidebar)

Even by his own agenda presented in his acceptance of office speech, Chowdhury pointed out, Ban has no worthy record to show. 'What happened to his climate change leadership? What happened to his focus on the so-called 'bottom billion' that describe the number of the poorest population in the world?'

He has even failed to provide any leadership in disaster- stricken Haiti with his huge U.N. apparatus. And, management reform has been replaced by 'command and control' culture, as Ahlenius has pointed out very correctly, Chowdhury said.

He said Ban's senior management privately complain that their advice and suggestions are sought only to be ignored and discarded by his small coterie which has been his confidante from day one in office. 'Staff morale continues slide,' Chowdhury said.

Samir Sanbar, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general and head of the department of public information, told IPS the so-called 'guidance' by the secretary-general on Kashmir indicates a policy statement.

But playing on words makes the secretary-general and his leadership look worse.

To say the least, said Sanbar, the secretary-general is 'badly advised' by those around him, including the obviously ineffectual senior aides close to him.

Last week, the secretary-general hesitantly denied widespread speculation he had struck a backdoor deal with the Israelis promising that the U.N. panel of inquiry on the flotilla raid last May will not question security officers involved in the killing of nine Turkish nationals.

But Sanbar said a quick look at the names of the New Zealand and Colombian members of the panel -both former heads of government - is enough to indicate where it is heading.

'With (Geoffrey) Palmer and (Alvaro) Uribe, there will be no need for a deal. A phone call would do,' he said, indicating their close ties to the United States and the West, both predictable sympathisers of Israel.

Masood Haider, a longtime U.N. correspondent for the influential Pakistani daily Dawn, expressed the collective disappointment of most U.N. correspondents in trying to extract any worthwhile news stories from Ban's mostly rambling and unintelligible news briefings.

'For reporters, it is rather frustrating because there are no definitive answers given by the secretary-general on issues of importance - whether it is Israel, Kashmir, Sudan or Myanmar,' he said.

He usually remains vague in most of his responses to questions fired off by reporters, he added.

'We realise it's the nature of the beast in international diplomacy and politics, but the Secretariat has to indulge in some 'wag the dog' statements,' said Haider, a vice- president of the U.N. Correspondents Association.

Crossette, author of several books on Asia, including 'India Facing the 21st Century,' however sounded sympathetic towards the secretary-general on his so-called 'guidance' on Kashmir.

She told IPS that India is well known in international organisations, including at U.N. headquarters and in the field, for being defensive generally, and extremely sensitive on certain issues such as Kashmir, where it feels the situation is not a topic for international discussion - certainly not for outside mediation or even suggestions on how to proceed.

U.N. agencies and some officials have in the past had difficult relations with India; constraints on the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees over the years are a case in point, said Crossette.

'One wonders how the Security Council would deal with this attitude if India were to get a permanent seat,' she added.

At a press conference Monday, Ban was emotional defending himself against his critics.

'If anybody or any member states within the U.N. system, or if any colleague of mine within the U.N. Secretariat, accuses me on the issue of accountability or ethics, then that's something I regard as unfair,' he said.

He said he has personally ensured both accountability and 'the highest standards of ethics by the U.N.' and made 'unprecedented progress' on both fronts.

Ban also claimed he established the first ever Ethics Office in the U.N. system. 'I have applied it to all (U.N.) Funds and Programmes, despite much reluctance by U.N. agencies.'

© Inter Press Service (2010) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement