After a decade, UN chief disappointed in many world leaders

[webfact]

After a decade, UN chief disappointed in many world leaders

By EDITH M. LEDERER

 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he's disappointed by many world leaders who care more about retaining power than improving the lives of their people — and can't understand why Syria is being held hostage to "the destiny" of one man, President Bashar Assad.

 

Nearing the end of his 10 years at the helm of the United Nations, Ban spoke frankly about the state of the world and his successes, failures and frustrations as U.N. chief in a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press.

 

Ban is the public face of the organization but he said that in private leaders see a very different and much tougher side to him.

 

"People say I have been quiet, and I have not been speaking out about human rights, but I can tell you I have been speaking out (more) than any of the Western leaders" who "are very cautious," he said. "You have not seen people as fearlessly speaking out as myself."

 

Ban also spoke candidly about his frustration at the way the U.N. operates.

 

It's unrealistic to expect any secretary-general "to be some almost almighty person," he said, because the world body's member states make decisions and the U.N. chief implements them — rather than implementing their own initiatives and policies, he said.

 

The U.N. could be far more efficient and effective if there were "some reasonable decision-making process" — not one that requires consensus on many issues before the General Assembly and statements by the Security Council, Ban said. This gives one country the power to block something all other nations agree on, or to water it down.

 

"Is it fair? Is it reasonable in the 21st century when you have 193 member states?" Ban said.

 

As an example, human rights groups have criticized the declaration set to be adopted at the U.N. summit on refugees and migrants on Monday, ahead of the General Assembly's annual gathering of world leaders, because it was watered down to reach consensus. The result was the elimination of Ban's proposal to resettle 10 percent of the world's refugees annually.

 

Ban said member states have the power to change the consensus requirement easily and quickly.

 

In a recent interview over lunch, the secretary-general said his generation in South Korea was educated in the ancient Chinese teachings of Confucius, which emphasize harmony, humaneness, compassion, propriety and honesty. "And I have been putting public interest first, over private interest," he said.

 

Comparing his approach to Western leaders, Ban said they usually speak through statements, which is easy, and sometimes they have pressured him not to say something or visit some country. But he said he "proceeded as I wanted" because he believes face-to-face meetings with world leaders are critical to try to get support on ending conflicts or on issues like climate change and combatting poverty.

 

"I've been saying, I can issue a hundred statements from here, but if you really want to get that apple dropped, you have to go and shake the apple tree," he said.

 

If you wait under the tree "until the apple drops into your mouth, it may happen if you wait 20 years," he said.

 

Sometimes, he said, when leaders urged him not to visit a hotspot and something later happened there, "it was they who really wanted to go there first, to get the credit." Ban said he could name names which "would be quite explosive" — but he won't.

 

When he advises foreign leaders, Ban said, he always tells them "this is private."

 

"I always told them ... if I don't think you will want to be seen as (having) your arm twisted by the secretary-general of the United Nations, make it your policy and change — and then I will support, I will welcome" it.

 

The turmoil the world is suffering today isn't from the people, but is "caused by the leaders," he said.

 

For many leaders, the key is to be elected "by whatever means," Ban said. "Once elected ... they rule over people, and they are mostly corrupted, and they do not respect the voices of the people."

 

He said that in January 2015 he told African leaders to respect constitutional term limits and not cling to power. U.S. President Barack Obama delivered the same message six months later at the African Union — and he repeated the message again in January.

 

But Africa and the Middle East, especially, remain rife with conflicts, including in South Sudan, Central African Republic, Congo, Syria and Yemen and the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute including three wars in Hamas-ruled Gaza during Ban's nearly 10 years in office.

 

Speaking with evident frustration about the more than five-year conflict in Syria, Ban said "I simply cannot understand why we have not been able to resolve this issue."

 

He pointed to the "lack of commitment to principles," particularly by the Syrian leadership.

 

"Why is it so important for one man's destiny? One man's destiny should not work as a hostage of all this crisis," Ban said, referring to the dispute between pro-government and opposition supporters over whether Assad should have any role in Syria's future.

 

He said his legacy should be left to historians, but he cited three issues he devoted his time, energy and "passion" to, which are widely regarded as accomplishments:

 

— His successful campaign from day one after succeeding Kofi Annan as secretary-general on Jan. 1, 2007 to address climate change, which he hopes will lead to last December's Paris climate agreement entering into force before he leaves office on Dec. 31 — and possibly even next Wednesday when he has invited world leaders to submit their ratifications.

 

— His push for all countries to agree on 17 new U.N. goals last September, which establish 169 targets to fight poverty, protect the environment, achieve gender equality and ensure good governance by 2030.

 

— His promotion of "gender empowerment," including the establishment of UN Women, spurred by his belief that women are "the least utilized resources in humankind," and if their potential is used "we can at least double" economic productivity and improve social development.

 

As for regrets, aside from not seeing an end to conflicts in Africa, and especially in Syria, he cited the injustice imposed "on many helpless people ... whose human rights and human dignity have been violated and abused," particularly women and girls.

 

He cited the sexual abuse and exploitation of women and girls by U.N. peacekeepers, stressed that he had fired the head of the U.N. mission in Central African Republic — a rarity at the U.N. — and his commitment and determination to end it. But he said he needs the help of member states to prosecute alleged perpetrators because the U.N. has no judicial enforcement measures.

 

The U.N.'s handling of the cholera epidemic in Haiti has also been widely criticized, and Ban stressed the U.N.'s "moral responsibility" to help improve the country's water and sanitation and eliminate the disease — but he said the Haitian government must also do more.

 

Rather than giving advice to his successor, Ban said he has some advice for member states: Be more united and work for the "common good" rather than your country's national interest.

 

As for his future, Ban said he will be returning home to South Korea but he deflects widespread rumors that he will be a candidate for president, saying his job is being secretary-general through Dec. 31. As a private citizen, he said, he will "spare no efforts" to help promote reconciliation with North Korea if there is an opportunity.

 

What about writing a book about his decade as secretary-general?

 

"One day, many years later, and I'm not in a position to write soon, but I can speak more freely because I do not want to criticize all of them while I'm in power," Ban said.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-14

[Usernames]

How many people voted for Ban Ki-moon?

[taichiplanet]

we are very disappointed in the UN too.

[Ulysses G.]

26 minutes ago, taichiplanet said:

we are very disappointed in the UN too.

 

Ban Ki-moon has not helped.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[ezzra]

 

And vise versa dear Mr. Ban Ki Moon, the UN has stopped being relevant long time

ago when it shows it's blatant bias to countries and factions of it's choosing and

preferences,

The bloated organization leaving and operating in the lap of luxury while seeking

donations in the billions from donor countries, 

There are many case to attest to the fact the  UN become a place of talk, talk and more

talk and little action, and when it acts' it's either too little or too late......

[daveAustin]

Complete waste of space and the greenest of green UN secretaries with a weak voice. I can't think of anything of worth you have done; nothing has improved. Blaming ongoing strife on the lack of doing by others is not part of your job description; addressing them is! Yes, go back home, Ban, and tell your folk your troubles. Nobody is listening. The sooner the world is done with faux-elitists such as yourself, the quicker it can move forward. 

[Alive]

I've got no problem with this guy. Ban, you will never get the support of the fascist lovers. Those who love the people you condemn are members of the mafia who abuse those nations. Their philosophy is our way or the highway. They are selfish and greedy and will never respect someone like you who avoids violence to get what he wants. Ban, you are loved by the good people on this earth. The stupid and greedy folks will condemn you but I know that you won't be swayed by their selfish remarks.

[bark]

And we should be disappointed in this guy also. UN is a waste of money. 

UN has no teeth.

[craigt3365]

Too many genocides and civil wars have happened with the UN (and the world) doing nothing.  Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, Syria, etc.  He's got a point, sadly, his organization has done little to stop these.

[roquefort]

1 hour ago, bark said:

And we should be disappointed in this guy also. UN is a waste of money. 

UN has no teeth.

The UN will only have teeth when the member states give it some teeth.

If you understand how the UN is run you'll know that the UN itself has no power. It's actions are governed by the Security Council, and in particular by the 5 permanent members (USA, China, Russia, UK, France) who cannot agree on anything.

That is why it is powerless to intervene in civil wars and other international crises. Blame the governments of the member states, not the UN.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, roquefort said:

The UN will only have teeth when the member states give it some teeth.

If you understand how the UN is run you'll know that the UN itself has no power. It's actions are governed by the Security Council, and in particular by the 5 permanent members (USA, China, Russia, UK, France) who cannot agree on anything.

That is why it is powerless to intervene in civil wars and other international crises. Blame the governments of the member states, not the UN.

The UN was my customer for many years.  I was there on a fairly regular basis.  The staff would tell me stories of the reps from the various countries.  Many from wealthy, or well connected, families mainly there for partying and having fun.  They'd sleep through meetings...or just never show up.  So yes, blame the member states, but they are the ones who make up the UN.  A mess for sure.

[roquefort]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The UN was my customer for many years.  I was there on a fairly regular basis.  The staff would tell me stories of the reps from the various countries.  Many from wealthy, or well connected, families mainly there for partying and having fun.  They'd sleep through meetings...or just never show up.  So yes, blame the member states, but they are the ones who make up the UN.  A mess for sure.

Completely agree that the UN is a bloated, bureaucratic organisation full of useless hangers on (rather like the EU). But any reform has to come from the members themselves and there's no sign they have any intention of changing the status quo. I think Ban Kee Moon, like other secretary generals before him, had good intentions but his hands are tied.

[Kerryd]

The UN has been a corrupt, inefficient organization almost since it's foundation. It has next to no power to enforce anything. As a result, the best it can normally do is make meaningless resolutions (by the score) and try to enforce a sanction or two (as long as not too many member states disagree). 

The Human Rights Council is stocked with members from some of the worst human rights abusing countries in the world, yet they have the gall to accuse other, significantly better, nations of being violators. 

Their Peace-Keeping operations are failures for the most part. Some of their missions have been going on for well over 30 YEARS and have devolved into nothing but revenue sources for the locals where those missions are located (or "swan" postings for people who want a medal for doing next to nothing for 6 months). Other missions have been a complete disaster like Rwanda and Somalia. 

 

The Golan Heights. Peace-keepers have been there since 1974 ! 42 YEARS ! In 2013 and 2014 those wonderful, kind, gentle, honourable Syrian "rebels" attacked and kidnapped UN Peace-keepers from their positions numerous times. After a couple incidents in 2013 some countries threatened to pull out of the operation unless their troops were allowed to carry more than just pistols. Frikken pistols against armed rebels with heavy weapons !! The incidents in 2014 included the kidnapping of 45 Fijian peace-keepers as well as firefights involving the Filipino troops. The "rebels" attacked their positions and the Indian general in charge at the time (of the peace-keepers) ordered the Filipinos to surrender and leave their weapons for the rebels. However the Filipinos received orders from their commander in the Philippines to hold their ground so they did. 

The Syrian Army even helped them by firing artillery at the rebels. The Filipinos were able to escape (with their weapons) that night under cover of darkness. The Fijians were released a couple days later after the "rebels" demands had been met by the UN. (Yeah. Way to go UN.)

Get this: "In June of last year (2013), when the U.N. Security Council approved its six-month renewal of UNDOF's mandate, the council emphasized "the need to enhance the safety and security of UNDOF." It also endorsed U.N. recommendations for UNDOF to change its "posture and operations," allowing troops to defend themselves when attacked. " (my bolding and under-lining)

 

We had the exact same problem in Croatia in the early 90s when I was there (UNPROFOR). We had been in theatre for nearly 3 months and after numerous "incidents" the UN passed a resolution authorizing us "to return fire if fired upon" !!!!!! Good thing no one told us we weren't supposed to defend ourselves prior to that !! The UN higher-ups actually thought that if the Croat or Serb armies (or their various militia groups) shot at us, we shouldn't do anything !! They only passed the resolution when it became obvious that we would defend ourselves (and had been doing so since day 1). 

There was a great cartoon I saw in an issue of the Stars & Stripes I think it was (we didn't get a lot of newspapers over there at the time). The cartoon was reprinted from somewhere else (NY Times or Washington Post maybe) and it showed a huge roaring tiger with the UN emblem poised over a tiny, defiant little Slobodan Milošević. Of course Milošević was defiant, the tiger had no teeth or claws !!

 

In Rwanda over 1 million people died while the UN was "peace-keeping". Why ? Because despite repeated requests from the peace-keeping contingent for support the UN did nothing. When word was received (just prior to the genocide) that Hutu militias were being armed the Canadian General contacted the UN. " Dallaire sent a cable to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) in New York, requesting permission to raid the weapons caches;^[18] the UN refused Dallaire's request to raid the arms, and rebuked him for exceeding his mandate " (my bolding and under-lining)

Way to go UN ! Over 1 million dead in the next 100 days !

 

(Note: One reason we had a successful peace-keeping mission in Croatia in the early 90s was that we didn't wait for the UN to tell us what not to do. We set up surveillance. We recce'd targets. We conducted road-blocks and raids and confiscated thousands of weapons. The UN had told us were weren't allowed to search the Croat police or their vehicles, but our surveillance determined that it was the police that were responsible for transporting and caching weapons all through our area. When we raided their houses, we found enough weapons to fill 3 sea containers, just in that one series of raids !)

 

In the late 90s there was a crisis at a UN Refugee camp in the Sudan. The UN staff at the camp heard gunfire in the distance and they all jumped into their vehicles and left the camp (of almost 100,000 men, women and children) to fend for itself. Turns out the fighting was over 10 kms from the camp and never got any closer.

I applied for a logistics position with the UN after that, thinking that they needed people who wouldn't cut and run every time they heard a "bang" in the distance. Filled out the paperwork, submitted my application and was informed that "sorry, too many people from Canada, the US, UK and Australia are applying for these positions and we need more people from Ghana, Togo, Suriname (etc, etc)." I asked why they were having a problem hiring people from those places. I was told that people from "those places" didn't want to go somewhere like the Sudan (where it was dangerous and poor).

 

So they turn away qualified "Westerners" because they'd rather have unqualified people that don't want to go where they are needed.

 

The stories of corruption and incompetence at the UN would fill walls worth of books. The problem is, the only way to fix it would be to get rid of 85% of the bureaucracy and replace them with trained, competent people. The problem with that is, of course, that you'd immediately be accused of discrimination and racism and every other kind of bias there is.

 

The UN was created with lofty goals and ideals but like the League of Nations before it, it was pretty much doomed to fail from the beginning.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Kerryd

[Kerryd]

One thing I was going to add about the Golan paragraph was the UN's lack of support.

Just like in almost every other mission, had things gotten worse there is nothing the UN itself could have done. Those peacekeepers were pretty much on their own there (though it was rumoured that Israel, the US and Qatar had some involvement. I suspect Qatar convinced the "rebels" to let the Fijians go while the US and Israel were prepared to go in and rescue them if need be.) The Syrians did help by shelling the rebels, but might have done that even if the peacekeepers had of escaped earlier.

It does go to show what a joke that mission is though. A couple hundred unsupported peace-keepers (armed with pistols) sitting between 2 nations that are technically still at war (since 1973). If they'd be useless and their only option would be to stand aside and hope they didn't become "collateral damage". They have absolutely zero ability to enforce any kind of peace in that area.

 

When we deployed to Croatia in early '92, the UN expected us to show up with just our rucksacks and rifles and they'd supply everything else.However, the first unit deployed was from our Battle Group in Lahr, Germany and as per their SOP, they rolled with everything they had just as if they were expecting to face the Warsaw Pact. They had their APCs, HMGs, anti-tank, heavy mortars and our normal battalion support elements. Lucky for us because there were a whole lot of people, on both sides, that weren't really happy to see us, including the Croat and Serb armies.

 

Unfortunately for some of the other contingents though, they did show up with just rucksacks and rifles (the Kenyans were a wee bit smarter as they brought something like 50 goats and 200 chickens with them). The UN failed to provide even basic support for a lot of those other contingents and if it wasn't for us and our support from our home units (in Germany), they would have probably lost a lot of people. The Nepalese were in our Sector and living in bombed out buildings like refugees, with scraps for roofs and a hole in a farmer's field for a toilet ! We gave them our spare tents and heaters and helped out wherever else we could. (We were on a "winter" tour and of course they had the worst snowfall in 20 years that winter. Seems we brought the weather with us.)

 

At one point in the early spring of 1993, violence started up in various areas between the Croats, Serbs, Muslims and assorted "militias". A Serb brigade was manoeuvring towards a Croat brigade in our Sector and we were right in the middle. Our CO contacted both sides (individually) and informed them that they'd have to go through us to get to the other guys. Both sides withdrew because they knew they might not even make it through us and if they did they'd still have to face the other guys. Both brigades returned to their home bases and stayed there for the rest of the time we were there.

 

At the same time, the Nepalese were in an area along the border with Bosnia. There was a bridge across a river that was supposed to have 2 way traffic in accordance with some agreement. A Serbian unit in Bosnia decided to change that and took control of the bridge. They built sandbag bunkers on it manned with RPG crews and stationed tanks at the far end. The Nepalese were crapping their pants because there was no way they could stop anything with just their rifles (remember, these were regular Nepalese army, not specifically chosen and British trained Ghurkas - big difference between the two). 

 

We deployed a rifle company in M113s and set up anti-tank dets with TOW missiles to cover the bridge. The Serbs were given an ultimatum to withdraw by a certain time "or else". Minutes before the deadline, the Serbs withdrew their troops and the bridge was re-opened. Afterwards I talked with the guy who was the driver in the lead APC. He would have been the first one to hit the bridge if the word had been given to go. They were actually set to go, hatches down, engines running, tranny in gear, weapons cocked and locked. 

He told me he'd been sweating (nearly sh***ng bricks) while waiting. The first bunker wasn't a concern as it was just a couple of soldiers with rifles. The second bunker had the RPG crews though and they'd probably take out the first couple of APCs by themselves. Then there was the T-72 tanks. They would have shredded the APCs like wet tissue paper.

Fortunately, the plan was that if the word was given to hit the bridge, the first thing that would have happened is the anti-tank dets hidden on a hill would have fired on the RPG bunker and the tanks. By the time the APCs broke cover and headed to the bridge all they would have seen was the bunkers and tanks getting blown to bits ahead of them (all going well).

 

The Nepalese were so grateful to us afterwards that every time a Canadian vehicle would pass through their area, they'd call everyone to attention and salute us (it was a little embarrassing for us actually as you knew they had senior military officers saluting corporals and privates). They had thought at the outset of the incident that the Serbs were going to invade their area and they'd have been wiped out.

 

The UN ? No where to be seen. If we hadn't been equipped and used our initiative it could have been a disaster. (It wasn't really mentioned but if things had of gone bad I'm sure our CF-18s would have been on their way in from Germany to support us as well whether the "UN" liked it or not.)

 

I used to put in supply requisitions to our UN support element in Zagreb (about 130 kms away) . At the same time I'd send the same requisition by train to our base in Germany (just over 1,050 kms away).

8-10 days later I'd get my stuff from Germany. 3-4 weeks later I'd get informed that my supplies ordered through the UN were ready for pick up. I was just requisitioning basic items like stationary and cleaning supplies, mostly because the boss wanted to see if they (the UN) could be counted on to support us. Technically we weren't supposed to get any support from our "home" as the UN was supposed to supply (and therefore pay) for everything we needed.

Yeah right.

 

The funniest bit though was one day I got a shipment of foot powder in. I distributed a few cases to each sub-unit in the battalion. A few days later I was at the mess having breakfast and I noticed a plastic container of foot powder in the table. At first I thought someone had left it behind by mistake. Then I saw the same bottles on other tables.

 

I asked one of the cooks why they had foot powder (Fuss Puder) on the tables and "he" informed "me" that it was table salt. Then "I" informed "him" that "Fuss Puder" means FOOT POWDER in German ! (The bottles were gone shortly thereafter but I wonder how many people put foot powder on their eggs that morning !)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

I think he gave a good presentation of how and why the UN fails to play the role imagined.

 

While the UN often seems impotent, I'm not too sure everyone disparaging it would be all to happy with a UN possessing authority superseding that of sovereign nations and the independent means to enforce it.

[ddavidovsky]

All it takes is charismatic leadership. I've never heard Ban say anything of any significance.  I've made a more important contribution to world peace simply by my comments on ThaiVisa. I've solved four wars in the past few days.

[coma]

The United Nations is a joke/farce. Particularly in the Security Council where 5 countries get to use veto power against the majority. Bit hard to blame Ban for it. It was a failure before he took office and as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, the UN will continue to fail after he is gone. The UN's greatest feat, the Korean War. It worst was creating Israel. Both happened a long time ago. Time to move on from this useless apparatus and find a new way forward that serve EVERY nation. Not just a handful of countries that's only interest is their own.

[Ulic]

The UN. What more can be said. The gold standard of corruption, patronage, and incompetence.

Miles ahead of FIFA and the IOC and that is saying something. Politicians around the world are

corrupt and morally bankrupt. All of them doing whatever it takes, selling out the country to stay

in power. Of course some countries are better than others but none are really that good.

As far as I am concerned they are all bad, and many governments are basically just criminal

organizations. Lets get rid of the UN and start over. Not going to happen, but we can live in hope.