Remember
the back channel sniping about Ban Ki moon's
lack of charisma, his hopelessly bland personality. Or the attacks from within
the U.N.'s own ranks that Ban's weak
leadership was destroying the institution. Remember the impassioned pleas to
Obama Administration officials to dump Ban in order
to save the United Nations from irrelevance.
Ah, they
seem so distant now.
I think Jeffrey
Sachs probably best captured the mood at Turtle Bay this week as
U.N. bigs and diplomatic heavyweights vied for the most over-the-top
superlatives to burnish the former South Korean diplomats much maligned first
term.
"The world
can breath easier with the reelection this month of United Nations Secretary General Ban
Ki moon to a second term in office," wrote Sachs, the head of Columbia
University's Earth Institute and a UN special advisor on the Millennium
Development Goals. "During a recent trip with Ban to Egypt and Tunisia, I
watched in awe as he deftly backed the democratic changes underway in those two
countries while simultaneously dealing with many other upheavals in the
region."
Susan
E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, gushed about the record
of the top U.N. diplomat, citing his support for democratic change in the
Middle East, his role in the ousting of Ivory Coast's strongman Laurent
Gbagbo, and seeking to wash away any of the doubts about Washington's attitude
towards Ban.
"This is
an important day in the life of this institution," Rice said at Ban's reelection ceremony. "For
the past four and a half years, the Secretary General has navigated turbulent
waters with a steady hand."
"We have
all benefited from the wisdom and experience he has amassed over the course of
a long, distinguished, and selfless career of public service," Rice continued.
"Secretary General Ban is a leader who listens to the voice of the voiceless-of
the refugees sheltered beneath UN tents, of the children vaccinated through UN
programs, of the innocent civilians whose lives have been saved by effective
U.N. action."
Even
outside analysts got into the act, penning a series of articles that highlighted
Ban's contribution to global peace and tranquility. In a blog post entitled
"Why Ban Ki-moon is Good for the United States," Daniel F. Runde, an analyst at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, played up Ban's
contributions to U.S. initiatives from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Notably,
the South Koreans showed a bit more restraint in characterizing the tenure of
their most famous foreign sons. South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-Hwan
described Ban as a "legendary diplomat" in the Korean foreign-service and the
pride of the Korean nation. "Secretary-General Ban is widely acknowledged and
respected in Korea and beyond for his virtues of integrity, diligence, and a
strong work ethic."
The glowing
plaudits perhaps didn't reflect the more skeptical views of Ban's tenure that
emerge from within the U.N. quarters, where many rank and file diplomats and civil
servants still remain unenthusiastic about his leadership. Human rights
groups say that while they appreciate his support for pro-democracy
demonstrators in North Africa and the Middle East in recent months they are withholding judgment
until they see whether he can exercise the independence necessary to challenge powerful
interests, including China, on their human rights records. "Free at
last from reelection concerns, the Secretary General needs to work on his
legacy," said Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. representative for Human
Rights Watch. "While we welcome his new tone over the Arab spring or the
Ivorian crisis, his willingness to stand up to big powers remains a question
mark."
Follow me on Twitter
@columlynch
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE