Ban Ki-moon: “noodge” or gambler?

by Richard Gowan | Jun 26, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific, Global system, Influence and networks

Next week, Ban Ki-moon reaches the halfway point in his term as UN Secretary-General.  There’s been a trickle of negative stories of late about his performance.  Justified or not, they’ve brought his SG-ship (and what he needs to do to win a second term) into focus.  The debate has also introduced me to the fine word “noodge”.

The trouble began with a piece in the Economist giving Mr. Ban scores out of 10 on aspects out of his tenure.  8/10 for seeing the “big picture” on climate change and food scarcity, but 3/10 for “speaking truth to power” (mainly on Sri Lanka). Then this:

Management skills: 2/10 Mr Ban cuts an isolated figure, cut off by an inner circle of mostly Korean advisers. Communication with senior staff is poor, and since Mr Ban is not a good listener, it is hard to harness their expertise. What is needed is some leadership from Mr Ban and some clear goals to aim at.

Unluckily for the SG, this article came out just before his monthly press conference, and a canny hack asked him to comment. His response (which you can see here) has been described by UN-watchers as “angry” and “robust”.   The sheer passion doesn’t really come across.  But the FT got in on the act a few days later:

The questioning of Mr Ban’s record has become a staple of conversation among staff at the UN’s New York headquarters and of diplomatic chatter among the foreign missions that crowd midtown Manhattan.

So I doubt that the SG feels that well-disposed to the British quality press (times change: Kofi had a number of former FT journalists in his executive office). The Korean press has been complaining about the articles’ apparent anti-Asian bias.  The worst was to come from the US this week. Here’s Jacob Heilbrunn at Foreign Policy on, er, “the World’s most dangerous Korean”:

It’s not that Ban has committed any particularly egregious mistakes in his 2½ years on the job. But at a time when global leadership is urgently needed, when climate change and international terrorism and the biggest financial crisis in 60 years might seem to require some-any!-response, the former South Korean foreign minister has instead been trotting the globe collecting honorary degrees, issuing utterly forgettable statements, and generally frittering away any influence he might command. He has become a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage.

And so on. This time, it was Ban’s Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar who got to strike back:

Heilbrunn’s account of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Foreign Policy’s July- August issue abounds in innuendo and patronizing commentary instead of serious analysis. Where others have seen Ban Ki-moon’s commitment to “big picture” issues such as climate change and the global food crisis, Heilbrunn only sees smoke and mirrors. Where others see the soft-spoken but tough-minded Secretary General speak out forthrightly amidst the rubble in Gaza, the author sees a “nowhere man”, and a “dangerous Korean”.

Hm: it looks like Ban’s team has filleted the Economist‘s reference to the “big picture” but let other parts of its critique drop. Well, you can’t blame them for a bit of spin. And Mr. Ban will welcome a profile in The Nation that is far more sympathetic to his style:

Ban feels most comfortable and useful in the role of global noodge and pivotal player among nations and nongovernmental actors. A genial man given to informality who has been known to break into ditties or self-deprecating humor at sedate dinners, he is neither a charismatic figure nor a spellbinding speaker. He tries to cement his position a little wonkily through issues, with the world financial crisis sharing the top of the priority list with global warming.

Admittedly, the piece does go on to criticize the SG’s management style, but the battle for his reputation remains open.  What’s striking about the entire debate is that everyone (bar Heilbrunn) accepts that Ban’s tenure will be defined by climate change, on which he’s staked a huge amount of political capital.  Stuff like Darfur, high on his agenda in 2007, is out of the equation.  If the Copenhagen negotiations go well (which Ban may affect but cannot control), he’ll be able to draw a line under a lot of criticism.  If they prove unsatisfactory, there’ll be a lot more negative stuff.  For all his wonkiness and noodgity (if that’s a word) the SG seems to be a gambler who likes big stakes…

UPDATE: Stephen Schlesinger has weighed in with a broadly favorable profile of Ban for the Huffington Post.  And Ban has responded – in a typically measured fashion – to media criticism in a weekend interview.

UPDATE #2: But it’s not over.  Inner City Press (which is pretty virulently anti-Ban) implies that the Washington Post and NYT may swing in soon.  Even Al-Jazeera has got a dig in.  But Ban has doubtless taken comfort from a poll showing him to be the world’s most trusted statesman after Obama.