Ban’s quiet diplomacy

Ban’s quiet diplomacy 

September 07, 2009 

Criticism of Ban Ki-moon might appear widespread, but the articles and columns are actually all coming from the same source.

Western media organizations have been increasingly critical of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of late. 

The feeling of ill will against Ban is spreading across Europe, the United States and Japan.

The Washington Post joined the critical offensive on Sept. 1, following The Economist, U.S. foreign affairs magazine Foreign Policy and The Wall Street Journal. 

The stinging Foreign Policy column was also published in Newsweek Japan. In Norway, Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Mona Juul’s report blasting Ban created controversy when it was leaked to the media. 

However, if you look closely, you will see something interesting about these attacks. 

Foreign Policy, which poured personal attacks on Ban, Newsweek Japan, which published the same column, and The Washington Post, which joined the offensive more recently, all belong to the same media group. 

Newsweek has been a part of the Washington Post Company since 1961, and Foreign Policy became a part of the group last year. 

Criticism of Ban might look widespread, but in fact, it’s all coming from the same source. 

Moreover, reports from the Washington Post subsidiaries leave a bitter taste. 

Just in time, Newsweek Japan included a translated version of the Foreign Policy column right before Ban visited Japan. The Washington Post’s article contained a crooked view by quoting Deputy Ambassador Juul’s comments criticizing Ban. 

Recently, Juul failed to receive an assistant secretary general position and might have reason to feel resentful toward Ban, since he has the power to nominate different candidates for the posts.

It doesn’t seem coincidental that Juul’s report was leaked to the media right before Ban’s visit to Norway to raise awareness about the severity of climate change. He wanted to draw attention to the issue by visiting the melting polar glaciers. 

Ban’s critics claim he has made compromises with dictatorial regimes, and the ethical authority of the United Nations, the fortress of international human rights, has been undermined as a result. 

They are talking about Ban’s meetings with dictators such as General Than Shwe of Myanmar, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka. 

Than Shwe is the autocratic head of Myanmar’s military junta, and Omar al-Bashir is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court on charges of mass killings in Darfur. Rajapaksa is considered responsible for a civil war that cost thousands of civilians their lives. 

The conservatives might have been disappointed when the UN chief shook hands with these dictators instead of harshly censuring their autocratic rules.

However, the reason Ban met these dictators and the consequences of the meetings are now taken for granted. By meeting with Than Shwe, a half million refugees from the devastating cyclone were saved. 

Ban pressured Bashir into permitting UN Peacekeepers into Darfur. Ban’s visit to Sri Lanka, despite the danger, drew the attention of the international community to the civil war there.

One concern is the fear that Ban lacks organizational dominance over the United Nations. It might be a side effect of his UN reform: Reform is meant to be followed by resistance. 

The more UN officials resist, the more open his office has to be. Unless he manages his organization smoothly, his external accomplishments might lose their shine. 

*The writer is the New York correspondent of the JoongAng Ilbo.

by Chung Kyung-min 

------------

quiet diplomacy

In the context of international relations and politics, this is a term that refers to the method of prosecuting your strategy and seeking to achieve your goals using soft power.

The conduct of soft power diplomacy is mostly done away from the lime light so not on the lectern of major forums, away from the media spot light and the sound grab and outside of the most parliaments.

When quiet diplomacy is conducted in these forums it is done in a style that is inclusive with a focus on consensus building and momentum rather than hectoring, lecturing, posturing or threatening.

Quiet diplomacy uses back channels and personal contacts established by: Ministers, Department Heads, Corporate Movers and Shakers, major NGOs etc to further the country or organisations goals, this may result in a TV news segment on a topic in a target country, zone or city, it may result in an invite to a forum or a fund raising dinner etc and at these charity events etc the opinions and goals of the nation or organisation using soft diplomacy gets it's views filtered upwards towards the target group.

ASEAN is a 100% soft Diplomacy Organisation, achieving its goals via quiet Diplomacy, firstly it has little no hard power to deploy in the form of a united military or the ability to deliver sanctions, trade bans etc but its extraordinarily successful at getting its work done and its views across.

China until 2011 was amazingly successful at using soft power and quiet diplomacy to reach its goals, its foreign affairs corps is the stand out performer of the last 30 years. How ever now she has switched in the South China Sea and the East China Sea and along her boarders to hard power, which must be very difficult for the grandsons and daughters of the New Society Movement emerged in the 1920s and whose thinkers have transformed Chinas international relationships since 1949 with talent and acuity.

American is the classic hard power / soft power mix up and uses quiet diplomacy internationally but not at home, the US often comes across to the uninitiated as the bi-polar star of the World Order. Soft power and quiet diplomacy by career diplomats, civil servants and politicians made America great but it gets a poor run in the current environment due to the huge funds behind the arms industry, the blunt appeal of force to voters bewildered by complex world events and the 24 hour news cycle which is allergic to any nuanced discussion.