출처=공동취재단
시리아 내전을 종식시키기 위한 움직임이 다시 교착상태에 빠진 것을 두고 이 같은 비판의 목소리가 나오고 있는 것이다.
미국 외교 전문지 ‘포린 어페어스’(Foreign Affairs)의 조나단 테퍼먼 편집장은 24일 인터내셔널 헤럴드 트리뷴(International Herald Tribune)에 “반기문, 당신은 어디 있는가(Where are you, Ban Ki-moon)”란 제목의 글을 기고했다.
테퍼먼 편집장은 이 글을 통해 ‘반 총장이 시리아를 포함해 최근 국제사회에 있었던 사태에서 뾰족한 해법을 제공하지 못했다’면서 “투명인간 총장 (invisible secretary general)”라고 비판했다.
테퍼먼은 “반 총장과 유엔은 (시리아 내의) 대학살에서 완전히 무능(totally ineffective)했으며 이것은 그 스스로도 인정하는 바이다”라고 적었다.
이어 그는 반 총장을 “수동적”이라고 묘사하며 “시리아 사태와 더불어 2009년 스리랑카 유혈사태 당시에도 별 목소리를 내지 못했다”면서 “반 총장은 어설픈 의사전달자 (clumsy communicator)이다. 그가 영어를 잘 하지 못해 말할 때 메모에 의지하는 경향이 있다”고 적었다.
테퍼먼은 익명을 요구한 한 전직 유엔 고위직원을 인용하며 여러 국가들의 고위 관리들이 반 총장과 만났을 때 그가 대화가 부족한 점에 실망하는 경우가 많다고 주장했다.
이밖에도 테퍼먼은 “반 총장이 유엔 역사상 최악의 사무총장에 든다는 말이 나온다”며 “무력한 관찰자”, “존재감 없는 사람”(nowhere man)이라는 등 혹독한 평가를 받고 있다고 지적했다.
그러면서도 그는 반 총장의 “무능”에는 그의 역할을 제한하는 유엔 주변의 조건에도 문제가 있다고 분석했다.
테퍼먼은 유엔 총장은 전세계의 지도자 중 하나로 여겨지지만 실제로 자신의 의지를 관철시킬 만한 실질적인 힘은 없다는 점을 짚었다.
애초에 반 총장이 총장 자리에 오른 것 자체가 전임자 코피 아난과 대립하는데 지친 강대국들이 ‘밋밋하고’(bland), ‘고분고분한’(pliable), 후임자를 원했고, 그 결과 ‘무채색’(colorless)의 반기문이 적임자였다고 분석했다.
[테퍼먼의 영문 기사 전문]
Ban Ki-moon blasted as ‘invisible’ U.N. chief
The managing editor of influential U.S. foreign policy magazine Foreign Affairs said Tuesday that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been completely ineffective as a shaper of global affairs.
Among numerous alleged failings, Jonathan Tepperman said Ban had failed to address the crisis in Syria, while attacking his “clumsy” communication skills, including poor English proficiency.
“Ban and the United Nations have been totally ineffectual in stopping the carnage, as he himself recently acknowledged,” Tepperman wrote in a column for the International Herald Tribune, describing the secretary-general as “otherwise invisible.”
“He’s been called among the worst secretaries general in U.N. history, a powerless observer and a nowhere man,” he said.
He pointed to the “passivity” of the South Korean-born U.N. chief in his failure to speak out against violence in Syria as well as the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka in 2009.
Tepperman said Ban was also a terrible communicator. He said that Ban was uncomfortable in English and had to rely on notes to make his speeches, during which he “struggles to convey intellectual heft or moral drama.”
Tepperman quoted an unnamed former high-level U.N. official who told him that senior heads of government were often disappointed by his “lack of engagement.”
The journalist, however, recognized that Ban’s supposed lack of capability to get anything done stemmed from the nature of his job, rather than his level of competence. The top U.N. official is often viewed as a world leader but has little power to enforce his will, he said.
Tepperman claimed that Ban’s “fecklessness” was why world powers, tired of the confrontational figure of Ban’s predecessor Kofi Annan, tapped him for the job in the first place.
The less-than-friendly assessment of the secretary-general may shock his compatriots in South Korea who hold Ban in highest regard. In particular, Tepperman’s sharp criticism of Ban’s English might disillusion many South Korean students here, who praise Ban’s fluency in English.
A recent survey by Munhwa Ilbo newspaper on potential candidates for the next presidential election showed that Ban had the highest support among South Koreans. His 24.9 percent support rate topped those of last year’s presidential candidates Ahn Cheol-soo (19.9 percent), Moon Jae-in (8.7 percent) and Seoul mayor Park Won-soon (7 percent).
In another survey by job-seeking website Guijok-alba, Ban was selected as the politician most respected by college students in South Korea. Among youngsters, he is considered a diligent role model who constantly works hard to communicate with others and commands an excellent level of English.
The editorial brought about mixed response from South Korean netizens.
“It‘s difficult for the secretary-general to retain a balance of power in a post that is largely honorary,” said one South Korean netizen.
Another person said that while Ban’s hard work and will should be held in high regard, his abilities as a politician were “questionable.”
[온라인 정치팀]
