"Ban’s weakness at crisis management came to the fore in 2009, when he and his advisers failed to pull together a credible response to the Sri Lankan government’s vicious campaign to eradicate the Tamil Tiger rebel movement, which claimed more than 40,000 lives. This grim episode has haunted the secretary-general’s term in office, and he has creditably pushed his staff to review the lessons from the killing. Ban has become bolder about speaking out about emerging crises, and surprised his critics by taking a firm line in favor of the Arab revolutions in 2011. But U.N. officials grumble that the secretary-general often seems to think these statements are enough and does not engineer any deeper political strategies to back them up.
If this is what the Bush administration wanted, the Obama administration has also found it congenial. Unlike Annan, Ban has never attempted to take a leading role in the Middle East peace process, leaving the field open for U.S. diplomacy. Ban loyally supported the Western military intervention in Libya even after many U.N. members—including Russia, China and the African Union—criticized NATO’s aggressive air campaign. When Ban ran for a second term as secretary-general in 2011, Washington smoothed his path."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/ban-ki-moon-united-nations-united-states-102491.html?hp=l5#.UuFB4RBxy1s
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire