Posted By David Bosco Share

Reuters' superb UN correspondent Louis Charbonneau has some thoughts on whether Ban Ki-moon will get a second term as Secretary-General:

It’s hard to find a delegate to the United Nations who despises U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it’s even harder to find someone who thinks he has the gravitas and charisma of his Nobel Peace Prize-winning predecessor Kofi Annan, who invoked the wrath of the previous U.S. administration when he called the 2003 invasion of Iraq “illegal.” As one senior Western official, who declined to be identified, said about Ban: “It’s not as if he’s lightning in a bottle, but we can live with him.”

I'm afraid that this type of invidious comparison is by now part of the accepted institutional history. Kofi Annan was charismatic; Ban is not. Annan had moral authority; Ban doesn't.  You get the idea. I don't have a particular view on Ban, but I have always thought that Kofi Annan's vaunted moral authority had a very weak foundation. In fact, I'll go further--I don't think he had the moral authority to get the job in the first place.

Kofi Annan was the first secretary-general to rise from the ranks of the UN bureaucracy. Before he got the top job, he served as head of UN peacekeeping. As his Nobel Prize biography reports, "he was Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping at a time when nearly 70,000 military and civilian personnel were deployed in UN operations around the world."

The Nobel bio neglects to mention that while he was in that post, two of the most shocking episodes in UN history occurred: the Rwanda genocide and the massacre at Srebrenica. In both cases, UN peacekeeping forces were essentially eyewitnesses to genocide. The greatest portion of the blame, of course, goes to the Security Council member states that authorized weak peacekeeping forces incapable of defending civilians and that balked at bolstering them once the bloodletting started. But it is fair to say that Annan's office did not cover itself in glory.

For all of Ban Ki-moon's evident shortcomings, at least he doesn't have that as part of his record.

 

ROMNEY

12:49 AM ET

February 17, 2011

Brief But to the Point

I agree with your assessment. Ban's blandness is both a weakness and a strength.

 

JAUME

6:30 AM ET

February 18, 2011

A weakness and a strength

Ban's blandness is a strength for him and a weakness for the UN.

 

NDJAïNDJAï

11:58 AM ET

February 17, 2011

Don't malign Kofi Annan...

I totally disagree with what you say about Kofi Annan. I hope you know the way the UN works. If you REALLY do, it's unfair to malign the former Secretary General for what happened in Rwanda and in the former Yougoslavia. Annan was head of peacekeeping operantions. He did his jod. He asked Security Council members -the permanent 5 in this case- to change the mandate goven to forces operating under UN banner. They balked and refused.

He asked that what was happening in Rwanda be called a genocide. Security Council members, led by the US delegation under ms Albright leadeship, refused. Because the Clinton adminstration and its NATO alies gor burned in Somalia they though no western public opinion could support another armed intervention in Africa.

In Srebrenica, the UN peacekeeping mission, mostly NATO and European countries forces were de facto under a chain of command over which the UN Department of peacekeeping operations (DPKO) had NO CONTROL. Dutch soldiers, French officers and other Euro troops looked passively when Serbian militias slaughtered innocent civilians.

So it is a gross exageration and misinformation to say Kofi Annan and UN DPKO let the Rwandans and Bosnians down! You don't need to malign and demean Kofi Annan's name to show support for Ban Ki-moon. Each of these two men has their strenght and weaknesses. They operated on very different circumstances. Annan was UN Secretariat General during the most difficult and unstable time the world had known since the end of World War II. It's a much quieter environment now. I wonder how Mr Ban would have operated in the 1990's and early 2000's...

 

RICHARD GOWAN

6:38 PM ET

February 17, 2011

An amoral riposte

Hi David,

Very nice piece, but I've posted an amoral (though not immoral!) riposte over at Global Dashboard:

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2011/02/17/an-amoral-perspective-on-the-un/

 

David Bosco reports on the new world order for The Multilateralist.

Read More