Ban’s mixed legacy

For most of his 10 years at the helm of the UN, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has usually appeared mild-mannered and soft-spoken, so much that the global public often had the distinct impression he was invisible. But during his 10th and final speech at the General Assembly, Ban showed flashes of an angry side against a host of world leaders. “In too many places, we see leaders rewriting constitutions, manipulating elections and taking other desperate steps to cling to power,” he said. “My message to all is clear: Serve your people.” Ban’s blunt speech was an extension of his frankness about the state of the world during a recent wide-ranging interview in which he said he was “disappointed” by many world leaders who he accused of caring more about retaining power than improving the lives of their people. In both instances, Ban sounded like a man very frustrated at the leaders he’s had to work with, and even more so about the legacy he’s leaving behind when he steps down at the end of this year, having served two five-year terms. These are pretty strong charges from the South Korean whose style has generally been non-confrontational. While he will have some notable achievements to point to during his tenure, including the Paris Agreement on climate change to reduce global emissions, and the adoption of new Sustainable Development goals, he may be better remembered for the things he was unable to do. He has been lambasted for inaction over Syria — waiting over a year before criticizing the Assad government — and for his inability to get the Security Council to agree on a plan of action. Ban remained frozen as he helplessly watched as several Middle East countries unraveled. He will also likely be remembered for the UN’s failure to meet the unprecedented challenge of a record population of refugees and displaced people. Then there were the scandals. One was a years-long failure to address evidence of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in several conflict areas. Then came the Haiti cholera outbreak, which killed more than 9,300 people. Cholera was not seen in Haiti for over a century and experts determined that the source of the disease was a UN peacekeeping camp. For six years, the UN denied culpability for the outbreak, resisting demands for apologies and reparations. Only recently did the UN finally admit it played some role in the deadly outbreak. It would be unfair to see Ban’s tenure as entirely negative. Rates of extreme poverty and child mortality have plummeted, more girls are educated than ever before, and another world war has been averted. The job of US president is often described as the most powerful in the world; the UN secretary-general the most difficult. As such, it’s unrealistic to expect too much from any secretary-general because he can get only as far as the world body’s member states permit. They make decisions and the UN chief implements them. The UN could be far more efficient and effective if there were, in Ban’s words, “some reasonable decision-making process” — not one that gives one country the power to block something all other nations agree on or to water it down. Which is why Ban asked whether it was fair and reasonable that in the 21st century, when you have 193 member states, only a handful have veto power that can stymie the best-laid of plans and intentions of good will. But on Ban’s watch, numerous calls for the Security Council’s permanent membership to be increased were not met. Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the UN but little consensus on how to do so. Accusations of UN bureaucratic inefficiency, waste and corruption were also not properly addressed. The general belief is that the 71-year-old UN never fulfilled the hopes of its founders and that its goals remained unfulfilled under Ban.