Ban Ki-moon: subject of a Jewish plot? (No.)

by | Jul 6, 2009 | Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific

Last month, I gave a quick overview of media coverage of Ban Ki-moon as he reached the half-way point in his term at the UN.  There’ve been positive pieces and negative ones, but the prize for least constructive criticism still goes to Jacob Heilbrunn’s FP piece on Ban as the “world’s most dangerous Korean”.  That’s silly, however you view the SG.  It has sparked an even sillier response from Moon Chung-in, a Korean prof:

Why is Heilbrunn targeting Secretary-General Ban? It is difficult to think of any reason, besides the fact that Heilbrunn is a well-known Jewish neoconservative. During the situation in Gaza last January, Ban was the first foreign leader to visit the scene. While denouncing Israel’s barbaric actions and expressing the position that those responsible needed to be found and punished legally, he requested an immediate unilateral cease-fire from the Israeli government. The world, and Arabs in particular, sent an unprecedented message of praise to the Secretary-General. Ban also visited the U.S. Congress in March and criticized the nation as a “deadbeat donor,” for not having submitted its 1 billion dollars in UN dues. This kind of behavior would be enough to generate objections from a neoconservative like Heilbrunn who regards the benefits of Israel as paramount and argues that the UN is useless.

This must not shake us. The people should be unstinting in their support and encouragement for Secretary-General Ban, who is working to speak for those without power and without voices to stand on their side in creating a better world.

Oh dear. This is not merely name-calling with anti-Semitic overtones. It is also wrong. As Robert Koehler – who has followed Korean reactions to Ban impressively closely – notes Heilbrunn is best known as a critic of the neocons.  Ban has responded to the last month’s criticism with dignity.  He doesn’t need this sort of help.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t: Ban Ki-moon’s trip to Burma

by | Jul 6, 2009 | East Asia and Pacific

Many development and humanitarian NGOs already regard their human rights brethren with a degree of exasperation for their no-compromise stance on Darfur and Northern Uganda  – where their successful push for International Criminal Court referrals in each case made life much harder for agencies trying to negotiate ceasefires or deliver help to people, without producing any obvious results in terms of conflict resolution or bringing baddies to justice. Having watched Human Rights Watch’s manoueverings on Burma over the weekend, I can see their point.

On Friday, HRW sallied forth for some incandescent briefing against Ban Ki-moon after Ban reportedly told General Than Shwe, the head of the ruling junta, that “I appreciate your commitment to moving your country forward”.  Cue the following response from HRW in the Guardian:

“That is absolute nonsense,” said Brad Adams, a Burma specialist at Human Rights Watch. “It’s just what we implored him not to say, to make these diplomatic gaffes. Than Shwe has steadily moved his country backwards.”

Then, over the weekend, Ban toughened up his line substantially.  During a speech to 500 officials, diplomats and opposition politicians in Rangoon, he castigated the regime for refusing to allow him to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, saying it had “missed a very important opportunity” ahead of next year’s elections, in that

“allowing a visit to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would have been an important symbol of the government’s willingness to embark on the kind of meaningful engagement that will be essential if the elections in 2010 are to be seen as credible”.

“I am deeply disappointed,” Ban concluded. So how did HRW react to the regime’s rebuff and to Ban’s tougher line?  Here’s the FT this morning:

“None of it was a surprise; his disappointment was almost a foregone conclusion,” said David Mathieson, a Burma researcher for Human Rights Watch. “It’s them saying, ‘We are going ahead with what we want to do and we don’t care what you think about it. The idea that you can come here and fix everything the west wants – forget it.'”

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, seems to be the line coming from HRW HQ – but then, it’s a pleasantly straightforward messaging strategy to sit on the sidelines and accuse anyone who tries to engage with the regime of being a sell-out (and no doubt it plays well with HRW’s members in these tough fundraising times). (more…)