Home  >  "United" Nations / U.S. & Korea

Is the Bush Administration Backing Ban Ki-Moon?

Jim Hoagland thinks so, and he thinks we may regret that:

That warning of the dangers of answered prayers applies particularly to President Bush and his support for Ban Ki Moon, South Korea’s reliably stolid foreign minister, in the highly competitive race to succeed Kofi Annan at year’s end. Bush — pilloried by Third World radicals at last week’s General Assembly opening — may be picking up a lightning rod instead of a shield.

Hoagland isn’t very clear in his explanation of why that is, other than the fact that other nations will feel slighted.  Yes, and that’s why we should try to keep our balloting choices out of The Washington Post.  We’d be foolish to support Ban at all, but doubly so to let talk of it slip  into the public domain. 

It may be that many in our State Department genuinely want Ban in.  One possibility is that an axis between Ban and State Department  officials  from the Armitage-Burns mold  could block those like Robert Joseph and John Bolton who might favor stronger action.   Another possibility that occurs to me is that Ban is so predictably awful that  those who seek to undermine American confidence in the U.N. see  Ban  as the ideal candidate.  That may be true for the long term, but the U.N. still has considerable ability to impede us.   With Ban in charge, it will probably exercise it.

0Shares

8 Responses

  1. If the US supports Ban, it would have someone from an US ally be in charge of the UN. There are pros and cons to this arrangement. One good thing is that this could foster a closer partnership between the US and the UN.

  4. To Richardon: This is what Jim Hoagland has correctly pointed out –

    Bush’s decision rewards a long-established U.S. ally, South Korea

  5. Being a columnist for the WaPo doesn’t make you a Korea expert. Nor does “long-established” have relevance for the current relationship.

    I don’t think Ban is an idealogue like the rest of those in his administration. He is the primary survivor of the “Taliban” purge of Korea’s professional diplomats. He survived by being uniquely flexible in his moral and policy views; in other words, he can tell which way the wind is blowing and make like a balloon.

    If you’re serving as executor to policies made by others, that’s fine. If you are in an executive position and need to take an occasional stand, it’s disqualifying.