New Era in the UN

By: Ziv Maor
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:25:29
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

Does the appointment of Ban Ki-moon as UN Secretary General bode well for UN-US relations? What challenges does Ki-moon face? A quick sketch of the pre-eminent diplomat

On September 13 2006, the UN Security Council approved the appointment of Ban Ki-moon as the next UN Secretary General. Ki-moon is presently South Korea’s Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister. The position of UN Secretary General, which he will enter in early 2007 will apparently be the climax of a glorious diplomatic career in the service of South Korea. This career has brought him numerous prizes both from his country and from the countries where he served as representative.

The first question we need to ask following the change of personnel at the UN is how it will affect Israel. Will Ki-moon’s appointment banish the black cloud that has darkened Israeli relations with the UN? Under Kofi Anan, the UN outdid itself in treating Israel unfairly. This was evident in the Secretary General’s naturally anti-Israel stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the statements by the organization’s institutions condemning the “massacre in Jenin” (Defensive Shield), “the massacre at Kafar Kana” the “apartheid wall”. And the presence of deplorable bodies such as UNWRA – a UN commissionership for Palestinian refugees, etc.

Can we expect changes in the UN’s position on Israel during Ki-moon’s seven-year term as Secretary General?

Ki-moon and the Iranian Nuclear Problem

South Korea, Ki-moon’s home, is the first country threatened by the nuclear ambitions of North Korea. It will be interesting to see how a representative of this country will handle the even graver nuclear threat from Iran. According to Dr Alon Levkowitz, an expert on South Korea with the Center for East Asian Studies, Ki-moon’s policy will not drastically change the UN’s handling of the Iranian threat: “We don’t expect Ki-moon’s appointment to change the map of interests of countries like China and Russia. But he will be expected to optimize interests between the Security Council members – and he is expected to do this well”.

We must also consider that Ban Ki-moon was a driving force behind the “Six Party Talks – a negotiations forum comprising North and South Korea, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia, which sought to curtail North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The Six Party Talks flopped, and although representatives of the six countries still meet periodically, there are no high hopes from these meetings. As an author of the failed program, one might perhaps question Ki-moon’s capacity to handle the Iranian nuclear threat.

The government of Lee Hoi-Chang in which Ki-moon served has a conciliatory policy towards her northern neighbor. Ignoring North Korea’s nuclear test last week, the South Korean government is looking for ways to improve its relations with North Korea. Contacts have been made to promote trade between the two countries. This can also tell us something about Ki-moon’s future handling of the Iranian problem.

Another point on the same subject is the relationship between Iran and South Korea: the two countries have diplomatic relations. Lately, South Korea’s UN ambassador recommended sanctions against Iran. This seems to indicate that South Korea is on the right side in this issue. However, perhaps we can learn more from the history of the process: Iran’s Minister of Trade decided to impose sanctions on the distribution of South Korean goods in his country, Ki-moon then “dropped in” to settle matters with Teheran – and resolved the crisis.

Political commentators in and outside Israel generally align Ki-moon with the West on the matter of Iran’s nuclear drive. However, given the above this looks like a pipe dream.

Ki-moon and Israel

Present Israeli-UN relations leave Ki-moon with big shoes to fill in terms of anti-Israel hostility. With very little effort, certain steps by the incumbent Secretary General could be defined as international crimes. With little effort, we could term many of Anan’s statements as overstepping his authority.

It is hard to think of any memorable statements by Ki-moon regarding our local conflict. His country has stayed out of this game for many years and has only recently started to show interest in our region. As a new actor, South Korea automatically came in on the side “it is best to be with” and therefore gave its support to the road map, renewing the Quartet, and Resolution 242 and 338. However, that doesn’t say much about Ki-moon’s attitude toward Israel. In the end, those are the clich?s of a country seeking a more respected position in the international community and wanting to show that it understands a fashionable issue.

Two other issues which relate to South Korea in general and not specifically Ki-moon may tell us a little about his country’s attitude toward Israel. Perhaps they can teach us something about his position on the conflict:

Trade relations between Israel and South Korea are diverse. Israel is a leading software producer. South Korea is a leading producer of computer hardware and hi-tech products. This has been the basis of relations between the two countries. As Minister for Trade and Foreign Affairs Ki-moon should know and even admire the Israeli economy.

Another interesting and less known fact concerns the ties between the Israeli and South Korean education systems. The South Koreans seem to have a great respect for the Israeli education system and their curricula are inspired by it. Many Israeli children’s books have been translated into Korean. Eighth grade Korean students study a one-year course introducing the Talmud and adopting its methods. Commentators have labeled this trend a rejection of rigid Confucian education, which rejects discussion, and an adoption of the Jewish model of education, which greatly emphasizes discussion and creative thinking. Though this shows an affinity to the Jewish as opposed to the Israeli approach to education, it may still affect Ki-moon’s attitude toward Israel.

The bottom line is that Ki-moon has not expressed a clear opinion on the Middle East conflict. In an article on Ki-moon (October 8 2006), Ma’ariv (Israel’s second largest newspaper) correspondent Yoav Frummer speculated that if Ki-moon had said anything definite on the subject he would probably not have been elected, as in the case of his Indian rival, Shashi Tharoor.

Ki-moon and the United States

The United States is generally pleased with Ki-moon’s appointment as UN Secretary General, and for two reasons:

The anti-American line in the UN has worsened lately, in the main following the Conference of Nonaligned Nations in Venezuela last month. Ki-moon and his country do not automatically stand by every US resolution, but it is enough for the United States that they definitely oppose the anti-American line. This opposition has historical roots: America was South Korea’s patron before and after it became independent in 1948. The American life style has strongly affected South Korea and one can presume that this influence is still strong.

Another reason America is pleased with Ki-moon’s election concerns the reformist winds now blowing in America with regard to the UN. Ki-moon has already indicated support for reforming the UN and has announced his intentions to fight corruption, inefficiency, and wastefulness in the organization. The most important reform expected during Ki-moon’s term is a change in the structure and make up of the Security Council. Ki-moon has indicated support for this reform. It is difficult to tell whether his appointment will affect the next permanent members of the Council, but the fact that he supports the move is cause for satisfaction in American diplomatic circles.

A Gentle Diplomat

One of Ki-moon’s obvious qualities, which sets him apart from his diplomatic peers, is his quiet and unassuming way. This quality has garnered criticism from those who question whether he is not strong enough to undertake the duties of a UN Secretary General. Responding, Ki-moon has said that he represents the Asian approach – having a more retiring manner but getting the job done. Dr Alon Levkowitz thinks his strength stems from this quality: “His skill lies in his ability to optimize interests”.

The UN’s problems under Anan are not only his bigoted treatment of Israel. The UN in 2006 is under a pall of corruption and diplomatic scandal. Top of the heap of accusations against the UN is the “Food for Oil” scandal; this program was supposed to define which items Saddam Hussein could buy with oil revenue, with the obvious intention of stopping him buying arms and encouraging the purchase of food and items for humanitarian use. However, a loophole in the wording let Saddam choose which countries and suppliers he would buy food from. During this time, Iraq could buy as many weapons as she wanted. Worse still, the program apparently spawned a bribery network for ignoring the rampant arms dealing with Iraq.

There is also the question of the quarter of a billion dollars of aid money that was meant to reach the tsunami victims in 2004 and disappeared; and the trade in women and girls organized by UN aid forces in South Africa.

A reformed UN would mend its ways – not only in terms of how it treats Israel but also regarding the ubiquitous corruption in the corridors of the UN. If Ki-moon can reform the UN, we may assume that Israel’s position will also improve.

Cleaning out the UN stables is a tough challenge for someone with a lot of backbone. Slanting world public opinion to the right direction presumes standing firm against the current. Time will tell whether Ban Ki-moon is the right man for the job.

Article source: Expert Articles