Yesterday, the Managing Global Insecurity project hosted an event in New York on the U.S. and UN. You can read a transcript or watch a video online. The line-up included Strobe Talbott of Brookings and Jim Traub of the NYT and Foreign Policy.
Jim raised an issue that he has written about before: his view that Ban Ki-moon is a liability for the UN and should stand down after one term next year. Strobe recalled the Clinton administration’s veto of Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s second term:
I will recall what it was like to be part of an administration that actually did grasp the nettle of denying a second term to a sitting Secretary General. It was not fun, and it was not pretty, and it was successful. And the reason it was successful was that there was a very powerful alternative available [i.e. Kofi Annan] and there was a very doable process whereby to bring it about, and as I observe the current issue as it plays out, and listen to people I have a lot of respect for, I don’t see either of those being the case here.
What does that mean for the UN?
When we talk about the leadership of the U.N., we should not treat that as a singular noun. It’s a plural noun. It’s a collective noun. And my guess is that unless the current Secretary General decides he wants to be the next President of the Republic of Korea, he’s going to be a second-term Secretary General. And a lot of thought should be given, including by him, to strengthening the team and the system around him.
It’s hard to imagine a clearer statement from a better-connected U.S. policy figure.
Ban’s second term is already secure.
