The clock is ticking for Ban Ki-moon, and he knows it. Even walking on the United Nations’ dull linoleum floors, he moves like a man in a hurry, leaving his aides scrambling behind.

Ban is the UN’s newest secretary-general, and he has joked that the job is “Mission: Impossible.” But unlike in the movies, Ban, 63, has only one chance to get it right. Today, the UN is beset by scandal and infighting among its 192 member nations. Its ability to promote peace, prevent war, protect human rights and halt the spread of nuclear weapons—even its very relevance—will likely be decided on Ban’s watch. And in the U.S., patience with the UN is running out.

By more than 2 to 1, Americans believe the UN is doing a poor job—the organization’s highest negative rating since Gallup began polling in 1953. The Bush Administration has been disdainful toward the international body, particularly over what it considers the UN’s unruly bureaucracy and wasteful spending practices, as well as its failure to take a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

And there has been no love lost in the other direction either. Kofi Annan, Ban’s predecessor, was openly hostile to the U.S. by the end of his term. When he left as UN chief, he delivered a stinging rebuke to the U.S. on everything from human rights to its desire “to seek supremacy over all others.” Anti-American sentiment currently runs high throughout the UN—if not the world.

Even so, Americans are unwilling to give up on the UN—yet. Some 75% still believe it should play a “major” or “leading” role in world affairs, the Gallup poll found.

Ban, who spent 36 years as a South Korean diplomat, has chosen a risky course to revitalize the UN: closer ties with the U.S. “I’d like to see a stronger partnership between the United Nations and the United States,” he explains. “America is the sole superpower in the international community, exercising almost a decisive political and economic influence over the international community and also in the United Nations. I think the UN and the U.S. share goals, objectives and ideals.”

Ban’s pro-U.S. and pro-democratic stance dates back to his childhood during the Korean War. For nearly three years, his family hid in a remote mountain village to escape the savage fighting. After the armistice, Ban taught himself English, in part by watching swarms of American GIs. At 18, he won a Red Cross competition to visit the U.S., where he met President John F. Kennedy. It changed his life.

He credits JFK with his choice to become a diplomat. “I saw how he contributed to world peace and security,” Ban says. He admires Kennedy’s “decisiveness in making a decision when the chips were down.” Clearly, Ban hopes to do the same.

Yet, to make an impact, Ban has only his powers of persuasion. The UN depends on contributions from member states (the U.S. provides 22% of those funds), and even its 100,000-strong peacekeeping force is often a hodgepodge of poorly trained troops from developing nations. Ban has embraced the cause of human rights, but the UN’s 15-member Security Council can’t even pass resolutions condemning atrocities in despotic Burma and Zimbabwe, and it has failed to get enough peacekeepers into Sudan’s Darfur region to halt the genocide.

Internally, the organization is fighting itself. Newer, developing powers like China and India are tussling with established nations like Great Britain, France and, of course, the U.S. Earlier this year, a group of UN ambassadors rebelled over Ban’s first reform efforts. “All 192 member states come with their own national interests, unique experience and different agendas,” Ban explains. “ How to reconcile these differences of opinion is a huge task. I’m committed to playing a harmonizer role.”

Many observers don’t expect much. John Bolton, America’s UN representative in 2005-06, gives Ban an A+ for effort. Unlike past secretaries, he says, “Ban looks to the U.S. and China as the two most important of the permanent Security Council members.” But he adds, “I would never underestimate the inertia in the UN building.”

“Failure is inevitable,” says Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on Foreign Relations. “On every big issue, you have the problem of foot-dragging.”

Ban, of course, does not agree. Behind his tailored suits and monogrammed French-cuff shirts is a steely drive and determination—and a great faith in the power of diplomacy. Indeed, Ban considers it the very thing that saved his own country of South Korea. “As a matter of principle, all conflicts should be resolved through diplomatic means in a peaceful way,” he says. “Sometimes diplomacy has not worked, but still, this is the only way and the best way to address differences of opinion.”

Yet Ban is practicing what might be called “kimchee diplomacy,” after the fiery Korean pickled cabbage: He can be blunt, even a touch scathing. He chastised the Palestinian government for rocket attacks against Israel while also objecting to Israel’s separation wall. He pointedly told the Iranians to learn from North Korea’s pledge to dismantle its nuclear program.

Ban has big dreams. He hopes to be “the secretary-general who restored trust and helped the UN commit to lifting millions out of abject poverty.” Still, the question that follows Ban Ki-moon as he darts back down the hall is whether he is the secretary who can save the UN itself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the UN Still Matter?
Yes:
1) The UN is the only forum for the world’s nations to come together, air views and deliver a swift and united condemnation of atrocities.
2) It provides humanitarian services and international peacekeeping operations.
3) It offers the best diplomatic means for solving vital security problems, like the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

No:
1) The UN is riddled with scandals, from the looting of billions from the Iraq Oil for Food program to rapes by peacekeepers.
2) It perpetuates human-rights double standards, criticizing democracies like Israel but sitting silently by as dictatorships like Zimbabwe kill tens of thousands.
3) Its resolutions have no teeth: Iran is just the latest to ignore UN mandates.

written By Lyric Wallwork Winik
Published: June 25, 2007

NB / Take the poll, visit
http://www.parade.com/opencms/opencms/articles/editions/2007/edition_06-24-2007/AUN-Story