All entries for Tuesday 27 March 2012
March 27, 2012
I came across a Foreign Policy article suggesting that Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, hasn't done much for a man in his position when the global leadership is urgently needed.
The author also mentioned that Ban "frittering away any influence he might command, become a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage", when people in one coutries were being slaughtered, for example.
I'm not sure whether I am to agree or disagree with the comment as I don't know much about what he has done and what he didn't do, but I don't think Ban can just order a nation leader to stop doing something, or order another nation to send in a troop to stop the killing.
At this point, I tend to disagre with the article as at least, Ban showed a quality of a good leader.
To me, he knows who he is leading and foresee the consequences (not being used by UN or US). Think about how much climate change/politics he has to handle, his job is to negotiate, develop understanding, bridge the gap between developed and developing countries, bring balance to the UN and to the world.
And it's not like he is managing his followers, because those people in the world forum are all leaders.
Leading leaders,....that must be tough. What would be a compliment quality to those who have to lead leaders?
The art of manipulation?
For some mysterious reason, I was thinking of when was the first time I heard the name 'Vin Diesel'?
(as much as I like him, this blog is not about Vin Diesel though)
...And if not mistaken, from a movie called 'Saving Private Ryan'. After a bit of a research to confirm my thought, indeed, Diesel was in this movie in which a big part of the plot was about the 'D-Day landings' during the World War II.
Dwight Eisenhower, the U.S. general in charged of the Allied back then eventually drafted a short message on a day prior to the event which would had become public if the landing became disastrous that he would be the only one taking all responsibilities and blames. To me, that's a true leadership; a leader with accountibility.
In the present days, if an U.S. attack in Afghanistan turned out to be a mistake with many civilian casualities, I doubt that the press secretary of the U.S. Commander in Chief would tell the press this was due to the presdient's poor decision.
Blame it on the bad intel.
P.S. The actual text message read "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."