Ban Ki Moon is Expected to Fall… Would Israel Rescue Him?

By: Samir Karam

Translated by: Adib S. Kawar

8th Secretary-General of the United Nations

Never before the post of the UN General Secretary had been subjected to such harsh criticism as what the American political commentator, James Ruston (New York Times), in the mid sixties of the twentieth century, when he said that the problem with this post is that its occupier is neither honest nor general. And as we know he used the English word meaning “general” (overall) and a high military post.

Over and above most of the eight UN General Secretaries starting with the Norwegian Trigve Trygve, lee, TRIHG vuh (1896-1968) up to the eighth the, South Korean, Ban Ki Moon, at least as per my opinion, during crises, the general secretary is more than honest and stronger than a general.

And as per the preamble of the UN Charter, we can say, without fear of being exaggerating in criticism or in the general secretary’s understanding of his role , none of the eight general secretaries irrespective of their nationalities, education and experience was able to fulfill the expectations of the United Nation’s peoples since its establishments.

The preamble of the charter of the United Nations states:

PREAMBLE: WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

None of these aims and goals were fulfilled since the establishment of the United Nations up till today… And if witnesses are needed we have millions of Palestinians who are still alive today, and those who left this world since the establishment of the United Nations (and the post of its general secretary) since 1945 – irrespective of how they passed away – they are prosecution witnesses whose testimonies cannot be contested fully or partially, that the United Nations had betrayed itself, principles and its charter from the preamble down to its closing chapter, and through that which specifies the duties and assignments of the general secretariat and the general secretary.

The truth is none of what the present secretary general, Ban Ki Moon’s, sayings and declarations, are worth to be commented on or discussed hadn’t they reflected a degree of enthusiasm and a feeling of certainty on his part that had prompted any of his seven predecessors to make such too decisive judgments on matters that fall beyond his authority, and thus exceeding the proper bounds of the procedures that his post imposes on him… even if we presume that he was exposed to pressure by the most powerful nation in the world, which considers itself to be the world government… meaning the United States of America.

Ban Ki Moon went far beyond the text when he granted himself the right to criticize Hezbollah and the local and regional effects of this role, he even exceeded his authority as stated on in the United Nations’ charter, and he exceeded – which is more dangerous because it is more fundamental – them as stated upon in the text of the UN charter’s preamble.

Entering into the forbidden

Ban took the liberty to declare that the armed presence of Hezbollah in addition to that of Palestinian militias in Lebanon “hinders the ability of Lebanese government to spread its authority on all the Lebanese soil”. He added saying that the paramilitary abilities of Hezbollah forms a basic challenge to the state’s authority, which is supposed to have the sole authority to monopolize ownership of arms in Lebanon. He was not satisfied with that, he added that these military capabilities of Hezbollah conforms a threat to peace efforts and stability in the region.

How many political, regional and legal violations the General Secretary commit in these lines that summed up his stance?

1- The UN Secretary General who is assisted and served by the largest equip of officers, experts and assistants in the general Secretariat history, forgot that Hezbollah is a legitimate and integral part of the Lebanese authority. And he preferred to address the Lebanese authority as if it is the direct enemy of Hezbollah, and that it is his responsibility to dismantle this party as a paramilitary power and liquidate its presence.

2- The General Secretary ignored to realize that he and his declarations about Hezbollah and the Palestinian militias in Lebanon could be, so as not to get involved in accusations that is worse and dirtier – as if they were quoted from statements of some of Lebanese forces, powers and parties that enjoy support that is wider than their electoral by the United States, Israel and most European Union states. How did Ban Ki Moon accept to repeat what is repeated in the campaigns of Lebanese forces, powers and parties, especially since the Zionist entity’s war waged on Lebanon in 2006 summer, during and after their election framework?

3- The General Secretary, whose post dictates on him a full and detailed understanding of the history of the struggles in the region more than any other region’s history, ignored to realize and know that the presence of Palestinian refugees in their camps in Lebanon has a specific history that they are the Zionist entity’s victims and not the criminals… It is well known that UN records are saturated with episodes, proofs and evidences of what happened and lead to the creation of Palestinian refugee problem.

4- At the same time he ignored the Zionist entity’s responsibility concerning the presence of the Lebanese Hezbollah as a paramilitary power, and he didn’t have the courage to use the term “resistance”, because the use of this term fall within the Israeli and American framework as the forbiddens, and not as being forbidden in the United Nation’s charter to resist occupation in any place and time. And it is by - ipso facto – didn’t point out to “Israel’s” responsibility concerning the presence of Palestinian Arab refugees in Lebanon in their refugee camps, further to its responsibility to ist responsibility that lead Palestinian Arab refugees to carry arms and weapons in their camps…. Even though that Mr. Moon was already living and in an age that, he was old enough, to understand what was taking place when the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian Refugee camps massacres were committed against unarmed Palestinian civilians, and all the incidents that caused and encompassed it.

5- The General Secretary ignored in his announcements about Hezbollah and its role in relation to the timing that it accompanied the Egyptian authorities accusations against the party as if they were insinuated by these authorities and within the framework of their dispute in what the official Egyptian press called “The Hezbollah case in Egypt”. And as per the terminology of the Egyptian authority the “case” is presently in the hands of judicial authorities. And it is not appropriate of the top international official to speak as if he is not acquainted with the case at all(…)

6- It is difficult – if it is not impossible – to place the international General Secretary’s declarations within the framework of his responsibilities as specified in the fifteenth chapter of the UN Charter, which are responsibilities that are basically and fundamentally responsible for international peace keeping and security. This is in addition to the first paragraph of item hundred of the charter that states,

CHAPTER XV: THE SECRETARIAT: Article 100

1. In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.

2. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.

The limitations on the length of this study doesn’t allow us to go further into details… but it is necessary to stress on the fact that Ban Ki Moon’s tone in his declarations is not in any way the tone that the top international official should adopt, but it looks under the best assumptions to be the tone of the Zionist entity’s new foreign minister, the ultra racist Avegador Lieberman, or one of the leaders of the Lebanese sectarian political composition. The General Secretary is well aware that the unwritten principles for choosing candidates for the post is not to be a citizen of the five permanent members of the UNSC (The United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France), which is a principle that has its meaning in not to impose on the Secretary General the interests of the great powers that he is a citizen of.

In spite of that, this principle itself could not protect the post itself - as per the case of Ban Ki Moon – who is a diplomat that his homeland (South Korea) has more than a military and political alliance with the United States. This was this “inadequacy” that prompted the late Soviet leader Nikita Khrouchtchev

in the beginning of the sixties to demand the full cancelation of the post of the General Secretary of the United Nations, which is due to the general international built up of the UN that allows the election of a man whose convictions, inclinations and sentiments are towards the west. But Moon changed his suggestion calling for replacing the Secretary General’s post by a troika (three people) one from the west, the second from the east and the third from the Non-Aligned nations. But also the proposition failed because the Non-Aligned nations could not agree on an agreement to support the Soviet proposition.

Ban Ki Moon’s declarations had embarrassed Ban Ki Moon himself more than anybody else within the framework of the main reason why he was chosen for the post, which is a framework that a study written by Sebastian Molaby, manager of The American Geo-Economical Institute summarized in three descriptions, namely he is not a politician –not agreed upon – nor a good listener.

It is not strange that the same study expected Moon’s downfall before completing his five years long term, as it points out that he was elected for the post during the George W. Bush regime, which was different than the present. The policy now is completely different, those in power in Washington adopt a new diplomacy, which fired Ambassador John Bolton, the permanent representative of the United States in the United Nations. The study also points out to Moon’s weakness in relation to the reduction of the size of “the huge bureaucratic system of the international organization”.

Did Mr. Moon think that these declarations of his would reduce the possibilities of his fall because with such dissonant declarations he would gain support from the United States and the Zionist entity?!