Bolton On Ban

In today's Washington Post, John Bolton takes a look at the new Secretary General of the United Nations and sees both hope and peril for the new leader. When Ban follows his own instincts, he appears to have a very level headed and has a refreshing honesty that has been missing from the top leadership of the UN for the past decade (or more). But, when he begins listening to the entrenched bureaucracy that inhabits Turtle Bay, he is not quite as impressive.

 First, responding to Iraq's recent execution of Saddam Hussein, Ban said that the decision of whether to invoke the death penalty is a matter for each U.N. member state to decide for itself. This provoked howls of outrage from the international high-minded, who over the past decade had successfully encouraged U.N. resolutions opposing the death penalty from the U.N. Human Rights Commission (a body that eventually was abolished because it had only an incidental relationship with human rights). "The U.N. is against the death penalty!" the high-minded complained, arguing that Ban's comments amounted to a retreat from Kofi Annan's public outspokenness for the so-called U.N. position. Shaken by this barrage, Ban partly backed down later, urging the Iraqi government to stay the execution of the two men sentenced to death along with Hussein.

But his first instinct was the right one. The real controversy here is not about the death penalty, but more fundamentally about the proper role of the United Nations itself, and especially of the secretary general. The United Nations as an institution cannot have a legitimate position on a domestic issue such as the death penalty when there is such fundamental disagreement among its sovereign members — and especially where democratically legitimate governments have different views. To say that the secretary general must mouth the position adopted by a majority of countries in some U.N. body, whether legitimately or not, is a prescription for endless trouble. Were earlier secretaries supposed to declare routinely that "Zionism is a form of racism," as the General Assembly solemnly and overwhelmingly decided in 1975?

Read the whole thing. Ban has actually made some very encouraging moves in the short time he has been in office. He has called for the resignation of all 60 or so top officials in the various fiefdoms that have sprung up at the UN. That gives him a chance to accept or refuse the resignations and perform some housecleaning where needed. (Up until now these top spots have been virtually lifetime tenures). Bolton thinks Ban has real potential to make serious changes at the UN. Provided he remains true to himself.