link BBC News – Profile: Ban Ki-moon.
This all sounds warm and fuzzy, but what is it exactly that the head of the U.N. does? Not to just to pick on Mr. Ban, but let’s include the professional tsk tskers before him, Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, etc. etc., all the way back to U Thant. Viewed outside of the circle of the political jet set, what accomplishments do these people actually achieve? More importantly, how do they get appointed to these cushy jobs?
We would have to assume that the number one priority of this person and in fact the founding reason for the U.N.’s existence lies with the standard answer given by beauty contestants for decades; that is world peace. By this measure, the results are spotty and certainly debatable. Founded in 1945 after World War 2, the U.N. was ostensibly set up to prevent the outbreak of another world scale military conflict through diplomatic means. On the surface, this kind of worked, but perhaps only because after World War 2, the only nation that wasn’t obliterated was the United States. In fact, through the rebuilding process of its wartime enemies Germany and Japan, the Americans helped move the world into a period of 60 years of general prosperity accompanied by a somewhat uneven peace. Conflicts such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, Kosovo etc., were arguably policing conflicts rather than world scale hostilities. It was the U.N. that helped with the creation of Israel in 1948, ironically, the source of much of world conflict today.
It’s certainly debatable whether or not the U.N. has had any real efficacy if not for their main asset of American financing, resources and of course military arsenal. Paradoxically, the U.S. is consistently at odds with the rest of the members of the U.N. on many world issues. Given a chance, all and sundry banana republic nations condemn the U.S. for one thing or another. Just as the Democrats in the U.S. like to pin all that ails the nation on George Bush, so does the rest of the world assign blame to the Americans for all of the world’s woes. This, despite the collection of shady and comic book caricatures of tin pot dictators that populate the U.N.’s committees. Most recently, Mohmar Khadaffi, he of bombing his own people fame, was the Chair of the U.N.’s human rights council and in fact created the eponymous Khadaffi prize for excellence in that field. You can’t make that one up.
So, getting back to Mr. Ban. What unique qualifications does this guy have that he is unopposed and unanimously acclaimed for another term in office? If you read the article, he is exalted for his efforts on Global Warming during his first term. Hmm. So world peace is not among his accomplishments, but ‘awareness’ of global warming is. Call me cynical, but I suspect there’s more money in the global warming racket than there is in quelling dictators. If only he didn’t have to share a stage with that media hog Al Gore.
In addition, it’s not as if he even has to learn anything new for his job. It’s likely that there exists a manual of epithets and catchphrases that he can choose from in which to create rousing speeches, all applicable to any circumstance:
“We must act now to avert an imminent crisis”
“Time is running out to avert a humanitarian crisis”
“The world must come together to avert this crisis”
“The world cannot stand idly by while this crisis unfolds”
Crisis of course is the key word, without which there would be no implied urgency. On the other hand, saving the world is a tough job. Hope he’s up to it.
