Astana, Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan Nazarbayev welcomed United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to his nation’s capital. The two held talks in the presidential palace, where they discussed nuclear proliferation, environmental concerns, and human rights issues.
In open remarks to the press, the secretary general repeated a line on several occasions that he seems to have picked up from the foreign minister’s remarks the day before at the Semipalitinsk testing site – particularly, that Nazarbayev has the “moral” voice necessary to address the nuclear proliferation issue on the world stage. The message was, together they hope to work toward a nuclear free world.
It’s an interesting word choice, to call the Kazak leader “moral,” and its use reveals a great deal about the head of the United Nations.
Ban used this phrase in direct connection to nuclear proliferation; referring to the fact that Nazarbayev got rid of the nukes his country had inherited when it became an independent state from the then-Soviet Union. The implication of Ban’s phrase is, the possession of nuclear weapons, no matter for what cause, is immoral. And that the only moral action a nation can take when it has nuclear weapons is to get rid of them entirely.
Perhaps in an alternative universe, where the threat of a rogue, dangerous state or actor acquiring nukes isn’t a remote possibility, Ban might make sense. But calling the act alone a moral action is dangerous and misguided.
For instance, Iran’s moral status does not hinge on whether it acquires nuclear weapons. Indeed, the world does not want Iran to get nukes precisely because it believes Iran is an immoral nation. But by using Ban Ki-moon’s reasoning, one could say that Iran, despite its atrocious human rights record and active suppression of its citizenry, is moral, since it currently doesn’t have nukes. On the flipside, France’s possession of a stockpile of nukes does not in any alter its moral status as a nation – likewise, for the United States.
And that’s precisely the problem. Ban’s unmitigated praise legitimizes a leader who is essentially a dictator. It’s true — he’s better than many others in the region (especially true in the case of Kyrgyzstan, whose people are now rising up against its oppressive ruler and protesting throughout the city). But he is not a moral leader. And he is not moral. Freedoms are scarce in Kazakhstan, and the people are subject to the rule of the “president,” who is not elected freely or fairly.
To his credit, Ban did address human rights with the Nazarbayev, saying:
I further urged the government to implement the recommendations put forward by Member States during the Universal Periodic Review in February 2010, including the establishment of an independent human rights institution. I am encouraged that President Nazarbayev and his governemtn are committee to establishing this. A robust engaged civil society – with full guarantees of free speech and media, and tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity – is a powerful force for modernization.
But this section of the UN secretary general’s remarks completely undermine his praise of the Kazak leader. If he were really a moral leader, such remarks would be superfluous. To his credit, Ban did make an issue of the really important issue–the way the Kazak leader governs–but it would have been more effective not to have offered unwarranted praise beforehand.
While I was waiting the Ban Ki-moon to arrive, I leaned up against an ornate column in the grand entranceway of the presidential palace. The column was not made of marble, as it appeared to be. It was wooden. And it was hollow.
This meeting between the Nazarbayev and Ban was like the columns in the presidential palace where it took place – it appeared solid, but really it was hollow. The whole thing was just a show.
