It's easy to say the secretary-general is weak, but the United Nations is mostly hampered by its members
The headline of your leader column obscures the salient points it makes (United Nations: Weak leaders wanted, 15 August). It correctly states that the UN "confronts a vast array of problems", including many "its founders could not have imagined". UN agencies feed, clothe and shelter millions of people, and UN peacekeepers operate in some of the most fragile states.
It rightly concludes that "deeper currents are making the UN more, not less relevant": issues from climate change to nuclear proliferation cannot be tackled by countries unilaterally. It also identifies the many challenges facing the UN, performing its life-saving work on a shoestring – it employs fewer people than McDonald's and its core budget doesn't come close to that of the London 2012 Games. The UN has indeed been "sorely neglected" by world leaders.
Which is why it is frustrating that your editorial – at least its eyecatching headline – gives them a free pass by implying that responsibility for the UN rests solely with the secretary-general. It is the world leaders, not he, who agree the UN's budgets and programmes. It is they who confirm high-level appointments. It is they, and not just the "emerging powers", who fail to condemn rights abuses.
Far from "presiding over [a] slow decay", Ban Ki-moon has worked hard to improve the UN. He has refreshed his top team, recruiting high-calibre leaders like Helen Clark, ex-prime minister of New Zealand, who runs the UN development programme, and former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, who heads UN Women – the new super-agency formed thanks to Ban's patient but dogged negotiations. He has energised partners from business and civil society to increase the UN's reach. And he has cut red tape and eliminated waste.
Ban's quiet diplomacy may not please everyone but it has yielded results – think of the largely peaceful South Sudan independence referendum earlier this year. And, under his watch, the UN has not shied away from robust action, in Cote d'Ivoire for example. He has been a strong advocate for human rights, condemning the Middle East crackdowns and pushing forward the rights agenda (he is, for example, the first secretary-general to strongly denounce violence based on sexual orientation).
There are many times when the UN Association of the UK, a critical friend of the UN, believes that it should have been more forceful or quicker to respond (eg in Sri Lanka in 2009). But though it's easy to point the finger at Ban, the UN is only as strong as its members allow it to be. States pay lip-service to a strong UN and then block action on Syria (China, Russia), Israel-Palestine (US), climate change (India), nuclear disarmament (Pakistan) and migrant workers (EU). They talk about UN reform but were content merely to tinker with the human rights council during its recent review and are yet to agree a formula for the security council.
There is no doubt that a resurgent UN would help progressive leaders (not to mention millions around the world), but they must give it the tools to do so.
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/blame-ban-ki-moon-un-problems
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment