Many Japanese have a deep-rooted optimism about what the United Nations can do for the world. Those who believe in the idealism of the United Nations are the same people who believe in the values of the postwar Japanese constitution, especially its preamble and Article 9.
　　　　　UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who hails from South Korea, is headed for Beijing at this writing to attend a ceremony on September 3 marking the 70th anniversary of China’s victory in its war with Japan. Ban’s visit attests to how much of an illusion Japanese optimism about the UN really is.
　　　　　The UN has failed to perform its proper functions in a number of ways. Without question, this multi-national body comprising nearly 200 nations is bound to see a wide range of varying opinions and assertions. The five members of the UN Security Commission each have the right to a veto, dismissing resolutions contrary to their national interests. It is a fact that the member nations of the UN, fully aware that their independence is to some degree undermined under such circumstances, nevertheless have been doing their best to enable the UN to function as effectively as possible. In point of fact, the Secretary-General should be in the vanguard of such efforts. International law, along with the universal value of safeguarding freedom and human rights, should definitely be the foundation on which he is expected to stand.
　　　　　Many of the successive UN secretaries-general, numbering eight altogether, have performed their duties conscientiously, transcending the national interests of their own countries, although there were differences reflecting their background and personal traits.
　　　　　Here’s a list of nations from which the eight secretary-generals have hailed since the inception of the UN in 1945: Norway (Trygve Lie, 1946-52); Sweden (Dag Hammarskjold, 1953-61); Burma, now Myanmar (U Thant, 1961-71); Austria (Kurt Waldheim, 1972-81); Peru (Javier Perez de Cuellar, 1982-91); Egypt (Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 1992-96); Ghana (Kofi Annan, 1997-2006); and South Korea (Ban Ki-moon, 2007~).
　　　　　Obviously, they have been selected from small or medium-sized nations for a specific intent: They have been entrusted with a mission to protect the positions, values, and national interests of the lesser powers of the world so that the UN, dominated by the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, will not be managed by the will of the big powers alone.
　　　　　A former member of the Japanese delegation to the UN, who prefers to remain anonymous, remarks that the UN Secretary-General has a grave responsibility to safeguard the universal core values of the international community. Some of the eight Secretary-Generals have obviously contributed significantly to the peace and stability of the world, while others have engaged in “questionable activities” in order to fulfill their ambitions. This former Japanese UN delegate fondly recalls Hammarskjold, the second Secretary-General (who died in a plane accident in Africa in 1961) as perhaps the most respected of them all, noting:

Remarkable Diplomats from the Third World

　　　　　“During his tenure as Secretary-General, the Cold War shifted into full swing following the Korean War. With China supporting North Korea, Hammarskjold flew to Beijing and negotiated with Chou En-lai to obtain the release of 15 American airmen in January 1954.”
　　　　　China entered the war on October 25, 1950, exactly four months after hostilities broke out. The UN forces initially drove the North Korean army to the North Korea-China border but the Chinese army turned around and went on the offensive, preventing the UN forces from advancing further north. By late November, the Chinese counter-offensive had regained the North Korean capital of Pyongyang.
　　　　　As the UN’s top official, Hammarskjold sought a path towards peace in his own way amid the ferocious conflict between the US and China. I believe the calm posture demonstrated by Hammarskjold is what every UN Secretary-General must constantly strive for.
　　　　　Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt, who served as the sixth Secretary-General, was another great man, according to the former Japanese delegate. He explains: “Many nations saw no chance of success in 1992 when Japan undertook part of the UN peace-keeping operations (PKO) in Cambodia. However, Ghali trusted Japan, cooperating with Japan and valuing its achievements in our Cambodian operations very highly. His presence at the UN was extremely reassuring to Japan. Unfortunately, he collided with the US over Somalia and other incidents, and Washington refused to back his candidacy for a second term.”
　　　　　Tadae Takubo, deputy director of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, a privately-financed Tokyo think tank I head, recalls Ghali as an impressive Secretary-General as far as Japan was concerned.
　　　　　Takubo observes: “Each time Ghali visited Japan, he made a point of visiting the Shinto shrine in Tokyo that enshrines Admiral Heihachiro Togo. [Togo led the Japanese fleet that destroyed the Russian Baltic Fleet in 1904 at the Battle of Tsushima.] Japan’s surprising victory over Russia at the time was an object of great admiration for the lesser nations in the West, such as Egypt, dominated by great powers like the United Kingdom. Ghali was openly for a constitutional revision in Japan. Japan may have lost the war, he said, but it didn’t make sense that the country was still bound by an American-written constitution. As a member of the international community, it was not normal that Japan was still governed in this way.
　　　　　Adds the former delegate to the UN:
　　　　　“Ghali and his successor Kofi Anan, who hailed from Ghana, were of the opinion that both Japan and Germany should be named regular members of the Security Council. Ghali was particularly forthcoming about this. I felt that the mettle Ghali showed in dauntlessly expressing his views had something in common with the spirit of a samurai.”
　　　　　Successive UN Secretary-Generals before Ban Ki-moon had made great efforts to be consistent in their actions, following universal values in order to prevent a handful of big powers from getting the whip hand over the international community. How does Ban compare with his predecessors?
　　　　　“In short, his action strikes me as questionable” is what the unnamed former UN delegate has to say about Ban. By “questionable” I would assume he means Ban’s words and deeds are too political.

Safeguarding Universal Values

　　　　　After resigning as the fourth UN Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim became president of Austria. Some believe Waldheim initially announced his candidacy for UN Secretary-General in the early 1970s with a political desire. While the possibility of Ban running for president of South Korea has been talked about, one has good reasons to suspect that Ban, conscious of how Korean public opinion would react, has been careful about how to speak and behave under certain circumstances.
　　　　　Take, for example, his August 26, 2013 remarks before the press in Seoul. As regards the historical perception of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Ban stated that having a “correct understanding of history was linked to friendly future-oriented relations between neighboring countries.” By correct perception of history, any Japanese would think Ban means perception of history from the Korean viewpoint. Ban’s posture of favoring one nation’s historical perspective and blatantly rejecting another’s is proof that he was completely oblivious of what his position at the United Nations calls for.
　　　　　Meanwhile, as the UN Secretary-General, whose heavy responsibility it is to safeguard the universal values that the UN is committed to protect, Ban has failed to make any meaningful statements about the highly questionable actions of China or Russia in recent years. Ban attended the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia in February 2014, which was boycotted by the leaders of the US and major European countries, but he failed to protest against Putin’s horrendous human rights violations in connection with Crimea. What, if anything, will Ban say in China this time?
　　　　　It was China’s intervention that provided support to North Korea and needlessly prolonged the Korean War, taking a heavy toll of lives across the Korean Peninsula. China even now remains a potential source of violence that threatens the peace and stability of the international community. This is obvious from China’s continued acts of aggression in the East and South China Seas, ethnic cleansing against the Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongols, and the world’s most opaque military buildup, among other things.
　　　　　Mr. Ban should ordinarily have lodged strong protests with Beijing in his position as the most powerful man at the UN. His visit to Beijing this time widely strayed off the desired course of action of the top UN official, seriously impairing the credibility of the United Nations as an international body, and also that of South Korea as a nation.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 670 in the September 10, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)