Backing Ban

It was evident a few months ago that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would easily sail through to a second term with the backing of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

So it came as no surprise when the 15 members of the Security Council on Thursday officially endorsed Ban for another five-year period at the helm of the United Nations. The final act of the election took place Tuesday when the UN General Assembly voted in favor of Ban, who was the only candidate.

More interesting than the election itself is how a secretary-general, who was famously labeled by Spain's El Pais newspaper as "the invisible man" for his dour and unimpressive style, managed to secure the unanimous support of the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council for a second term.

In trying to answer the question two very distinct narratives of Ban Ki-moon's tenure and interpretation of the role of UN secretary-general emerge.

For Ambassador Mark Lagon, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ban "has been a mediocre secretary-general."

Safe bet

According to that narrative, the main reason Ban received the full backing of the divergent set of permanent Security Council members - US, Britain, France, Russia and China - is because he simply didn't rock the boat.

"From a perspective of all five, Ban Ki-moon is someone who is a facilitator rather than someone who is trying to be an independent player," Lagon told Deutsche Welle.

Washington, like the other permanent members, supports Ban because he is a safe choice, adds Lagon, a former deputy assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush.

After the tenure of the very public and outspoken Kofi Annan - who was extremely disliked by the White House - the US wanted his successor to keep a lower profile and to simply stick to fulfilling the role as the highest-ranking international civil servant instead of acting like a politician.

"He is exactly what John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN at the time when he was chosen, wanted: a colorless clerk," said Lagon.

Low profile

And indeed, Ban during his first term hasn't really rankled any of the major international powers. He hasn't pushed hard enough for human rights, argue critics like Lagon, a move that could have irritated Russia and China. He hasn't meddled in the Israeli-Palestinian affairs which could have angered Washington and Israel. And he hasn't launched any high-profile global initiatives or campaigns.

More recently, he has come out in support for the democracy movements in North Africa, during the power struggle in the Ivory Coast he took a stand for the newly elected president and he called for a separation of Sudan, but even then his delivery remains mostly diplomatic and lacks the emotional and personal flavor exhibited by some of his predecessors.

And yet it is precisely that, his no-drama style, which according to the second narrative explains not just Ban's broad international support, but also why he is a good fit for the job.

No blunders

"The most important thing is he hasn't blundered in any obvious way unlike his predecessor Kofi Annan," argued Marco Verweij, a political science professor at Jacobs University in Bremen, who thinks Annan should never have been made secretary-general in the first place, because of his role at the UN during the genocide in Rwanda.

"Not having blundered in a very difficult, very violent and very unequal world is already quite an achievement," Verweij told Deutsche Welle. After all, he added, Ban has a job with a lot of responsibility, but almost no direct power and is dependent on the member states.

His attempts to reduce the budget and to push for more transparency within the UN have been welcomed by the US in the aftermath of the oil-for-food and other scandals at the organization.

"If a harsh UN critic like John Bolton has some praise for the pro-democracy action of the secretary-general and of the efforts to cut the budgets then that is a sign that he is not doing too badly," noted Verweij. Another achievement, said Verweij, is the creation of UN Women, a new organization focused on gender equality, a key issue in many parts of the world.

Hard worker

Verweij concedes that Ban can sometimes give the impression that he is too eager to please, for example when after having being criticized for not speaking French fluently enough, he picked up French lessons again.

But Verweij believes that in the end most countries feel Ban has been a rather balanced UN secretary-general who has been relatively transparent and has come across as a very modest and hard-working figure.

"I do think he deserves a second term," said Verweij.

Asked whether he thinks the UN is better off now under Ban than five years ago Lagon, who calls himself an admirer of Kofi Annan, has a clear answer: "I am an uncommon voice having served in the Bush administration for saying this, but I don't think so."

"I am not sure that the world needs someone quite so placid."

Author: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge