영국의 ‘이코노미스트’는 지난 2016년 5월 21일(현지시간) 차기 유엔 사무총장 선출 문제를 다루면서 반 총장에 대해 “파리기후협정 합의를 이끌어 낸 것은 성과”라면서도 “반 총장은 (유엔 내) 행정 능력이나 (유엔 밖의) 통치 능력 모두에서 실패한 총장으로 평가받고 있다. 코피 아난 등 전 총장들에 비해 강대국들에 맞서는 것을 싫어했다”고 밝혔다. 반 총장이 강대국의 눈치를 본다는 지적입니다!

이코노미스트는 “반기문 총장이 10년이나 임기를 누릴 수 있었던 것은 반기문 총장이 우수한 능력이나 자질을 갖췄기 때문이 아니라 거부권을 가진 상임이사국 5개국이 특별히 반대할 이유가 없는 무난한 사람이었기 때문”이라고 평가하기도 했습니다!

이코노미스트는 반 총장에 대해 “말을 잘 못하고, 의전에만 집착하고, 현안에 대한 빠른 대처 능력이나 업무 깊이도 부족하다. 임기 9년이 지났는데도 ‘점령’ 같은 논란이 되는 용어를 쓰는 실수도 했다”며 “가장 활기 없는, 최악의 총장 중 한 명”이라고 비판했다고 합니다!!

테퍼먼은 “반 총장과 유엔은 (시리아 내의) 대학살에서 완전히 무능(totally ineffective)했으며 이것은 그 스스로도 인정하는 바이다”라고 적었다.

그는 반 총장을 “수동적”이라고 묘사하며 시리아 사태와 더불어 2009년 스리랑카 유혈사태 당시에도 별 목소리를 내지 못했다고 지적했다. 

또한 그는 반 총장이 “어설픈 의사전달자 (clumsy communicator)”라며 그가 영어를 잘 하지 못해 말할 때 메모에 의지하는 경향이 있다고 적었다. 그는 익명을 요구한 한 전직 유엔 고위직원을 인용하며 여러 국가들의 고위 관리들이 반 총장과 만났을 때 그가 대화가 부족한 점에 실망하는 경우가 많다고 주장했다.

<관련 영문 기사>

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.”

([email protected])

출처: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130925001060