UNSG: To Blame or not to Blame

In the case of any state leader I am reluctant to blame them for problems occurring during their tenure because doing so would mean the leader has absolute power so that he has absolute control. To have such control over just one state is unlikely at best; to have control over all the states in UN is impossible. That being said, I believe while the SG should not be culpable for inaction on the part of the UN, he/she should bear some blame for failed or ineffective action. The members of the UN have drastically different cultures and goals so any action taken is short of a miracle. For this reason, I believe the SG cannot be blamed for inaction and should be applauded whenever his recommendations are heeded. In these recommendations is where the SG fulfills his role: creating a vision, providing a direction for the UN to move towards. When these actions fall short, because the SG delegates many duties and, therefore, should oversee them, the SG can be blamed. If the UN had taken action in Rwanda and failed then the SG could be responsible. Even then, neither the UN nor the SG is properly equipped to complete their role: enforcing rules and direct the UN, respectfully. The SG’s main, if not only, source of power is the position itself and the moral authority that comes with it. When that fails the SG is left with few other resources. Too often the SG lacks the hard power necessary to organize and mobilize such a diverse organization.