Ban Ki-moon sworn in as UN chief

[SunWuKong]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6180573.stm

Ban Ki-moon sworn in as UN chief

South Korea's Ban Ki-moon has been sworn in as the next UN secretary general at a ceremony in New York.

Mr Ban, from South Korea, will take up his post as the eighth secretary general on 1 January, 2007.

He told ambassadors he would be a "bridge-builder", leading by example as he sought to restore trust in a UN that needed to be "dynamic and courageous".

He added his voice to tributes paid to outgoing Secretary General Kofi Annan, saying he was humbled to follow him.

Mr Ban's oath of office was administered by General Assembly President Haya Rashed al-Khalifa, from Bahrain.

She said she was confident he would "lead the organisation wisely, with determination and integrity".

Three pillars

In a statement made to the General Assembly after taking the oath, Mr Ban pledged to work to rebuild the trust of member states in the organisation.

"By strengthening the three pillars of our United Nations - security, development and human rights - we can build a more peaceful, more prosperous and more just world for succeeding generations," he said.

"As we pursue our collective endeavour to reach that goal, my first priority will be to restore trust. I will seek to act as a harmoniser and bridge-builder."

He said he intended to set the highest ethical standards to protect the UN's reputation.

"The good name of the United Nations is one of its most valuable assets - but also one of its most vulnerable," he said.

The BBC's Laura Trevelyan in New York says Mr Ban is keen to improve morale at the UN, which has been hit hard by the oil-for-food scandal.

An investigation last year found that the oil-for-food scheme operated by the UN with Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been mismanaged and was riddled with corruption.

North Korea talks

Giving a press conference after the ceremony, Mr Ban said the conflict in the Middle East was one of the most serious issues facing the world.

He also said he would focus on the situation in Sudan, saying the suffering of the people of Darfur was "simply unacceptable".

However, he said there was no military solution and that the UN, African Union and Sudan must continue to talk.

Mr Ban said he would watch closely the resumption of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme next week.

He added that it was "crucially important" that North Korea live up to commitment made last September to give up all its nuclear activities.

Unanimously elected in October, Mr Ban will be the first Asian secretary general for 35 years.

He has said he is considering several potential contenders for the role of deputy secretary general, with a preference given to women candidates.

'Exceptional contribution'

Mr Annan, who received a standing ovation from 192-member assembly, was praised for his efforts during his 10 years in office.

A resolution hailed "his exceptional contribution to international peace and security, as well as his outstanding efforts to strengthen the United Nations system and promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in the interest of a better world".

Ms Khalifa also paid tribute to the 68-year-old's achievements.

"Kofi Annan will leave a lasting legacy. He has guided the United Nations into the 21st Century with vision and leadership. As a result, the multilateral system is stronger," she said.

On Tuesday, Mr Annan used his final speech as UN secretary general to call on the US not to lose sight of its core principles in its fight on terror.

Born in Ghana in 1938, Mr Annan has led the UN since 1997 and, in 2001, he and the UN received the Nobel Peace Prize.

[yoMAMA]

I hope under his tenure, the reform of the UN continues, and the inclusion of Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa and permanent members can become a reality.

It really is a mockery of the UN when Japan, who pays most of the bills, does not get veto power, and when emerging nations such as India, Brazil and South Africa doesn't get any representation as permanent members.

[VV o n g B a]

the problem w/ expanding veto power is that it gets harder and harder to generate consensus. if everyone gets a veto, stick a fork in the UN cuz it's done.

it's not that i don't think they're deserving, but it's that u'll get incredible gridlock. veto power should just be eliminated. but obviously i don't think the original members would give up their veto rights, so maybe a compromise is just a permanent seat on the council. the new members don't get vetoes, but they get a say.

[Banana]

Japan is actually lowering it's commitment to the UN and China is going to start paying more.

Who cares anyway? The UN is almost pointless because countries can't get past the idea of doing the correct thing as opposed to what they do now, catering to their own country's interests.

Darfur? How long has that shit been going on now?

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by Banana

Japan is actually lowering it's commitment to the UN and China is going to start paying more.

Who cares anyway? The UN is almost pointless because countries can't get past the idea of doing the correct thing as opposed to what they do now, catering to their own country's interests.

Darfur? How long has that shit been going on now?

I do agree that the UN is SHIT.

but what other alternatives does the world have?

UN is still better than the rules of jungle during the heydays of imperialism.

[otter p.]

Originally Posted by Banana

Japan is actually lowering it's commitment to the UN and China is going to start paying more.

But, Japan isn't the one blocking any progress on Dafur, is it?

Too bad, NATO can't just step in like it did in the 90s with Serbia.

[BeTheReds]

Darfur isn't under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization though is it?

Reform of the security council would be nice, as it doesn't make any sense that the victors of World War II still carry so much power.

Putting Japan as a permanent member though... not a good idea...

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by BeTheReds

Putting Japan as a permanent member though... not a good idea...

why not?

[Banana]

Japan hasn't shown itself to be socially responsible. How can you possible justify a country that creates so much animosity with a whole continent to reliably sit on the security council without problems?

I am totally against Japan having any type of permanent seat on the security council for one reason alone. It's a country that hasn't mentally matured enough; it's akin to an extremely rich child attempting to buy his way into everything.

Yes, they have money and that's currently what dictates influence in the UN. It shouldn't be. I would rather Japan pay nothing and have no power whatsoever until they've come to terms with their past crimes. With every shred of evidence I've seen, Japan has done almost nothing but try to buy their way out of trouble such as citing their low interest loans to China/Korea as a way to make amends with other countries.

Personally, I'd actually recommend countries like Germany that has also contributed troops and security forces (though small, like Japan) around the world to be a permanent member of the council. At least they've attempted to make amends with Israel and Jews for the Holocaust with monuments, financial support, and banning Nazi regalia, as well as not attempting to whitewashing and hide history.

If Japan were to come to terms, in full detail, about their war crimes, only then would I sponsor them, even encourage, the UN to add them to the council.

[SunWuKong]

i think India and Brazil should get permanent seats.

[oogleman]

Its better than nothing i agree - but they really need to sort out the peacekeeping forces bit - they rarely manage to keep any peace.