U.N. secretary general has already made history early in tenure.

Ban Ki-moon, the new U.N. secretary general, has done some unusual things to kick off his tenure. At the recent annual dinner of the U.N. Correspondents Association in New York, for instance, he entertained the guests briefly by singing, to the tune originally written for Santa Claus, his own arrangement: "Ban Ki-moon is coming to town."

Today, Ban is coming to Washington, his first visit since assuming office Jan. 1. The former South Korean foreign minister has made it clear he intends to be a different kind of "SG" from his predecessor. The United States backed Ban, largely with such a change in mind. Nonetheless, his first few days in office have raised some questions. The struggle is under way to determine what sort of leader Ban will be.

Consider the following issues:

First, responding to Iraq's recent execution of Saddam Hussein, Ban said that the decision of whether to invoke the death penalty is a matter for each U.N. member state to decide for itself. This provoked howls of outrage from the international high-minded, who over the past decade had successfully encouraged U.N. resolutions opposing the death penalty from the U.N. Human Rights Commission (a body that eventually was abolished because it had only a coincidental relationship with human rights). "The U.N. is against the death penalty!" the high-minded complained, arguing that Ban's comments amounted to a retreat from Kofi Annan's public outspokenness for the so-called U.N. position. Shaken by this barrage, Ban partly backed down later, urging the Iraqi government to stay the execution of the two men sentenced to death along with Saddam.

But his first instinct was the right one. The real controversy here is not about the death penalty, but more fundamentally about the proper role of the United Nations itself, and especially of the secretary general. The United Nations as an institution cannot have a legitimate position on a domestic issue such as the death penalty when there is such fundamental disagreement among its sovereign members.

According to the U.N. Charter, the secretary general is the institution's "chief administrative officer" — not its chief moralizer.

Even more problematic than the death penalty debate was another matter Ban raised during his first week on the job. In an interview, he argued that "if the issues with the conflicts between Israel and Palestine go well," other issues, such as Iran and Lebanon, "are likely to follow suit." This position reflects the view of Ban's predecessor.

It is unclear whether Ban was articulating his personal view or following the talking points provided by the U.N. secretariat. The idea that Hezbollah's efforts to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected government of Lebanon might be curtailed or eliminated by progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front is hard to take seriously.

Ban's reliance on this favorite U.N. cliche, however, is more than simply a lapse in judgment; it may well reveal his intentions for future involvement in the Middle East, an involvement embodied in the "Quartet," an ungainly occasional gathering of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the secretary general. U.S. policymakers should start working overtime now to correct the misimpression that Ban may have obtained from his briefers.

Much to his credit, Ban has already made history early in his tenure. He announced last week that he will make public his financial disclosure report, the first U.N. secretary general ever to do so — and something that Annan repeatedly refused to do. Ban has stressed that he wants to restore trust and confidence in the United Nations, which it sorely needs.

Accountability begins with transparency, and within the U.N. system, the secretary general is especially well-placed to lead by example.

Finally, Ban also made the courageous decision to call for the resignations of all senior secretariat officials, about 60 altogether, except those chosen with the concurrence of other U.N. bodies. This was a change that Washington had urged, one that can make clear that high-level U.N. jobs are not entitlements, either for the individuals involved or their countries of origin. Because this sort of transitional "cleaning house" is unfamiliar to the U.N. system, U.S. advocacy of the concept raised questions, and Ban's decision to implement it will undoubtedly raise more.

The key is to shake up the secretariat's entrenched baronies, and to let them know that new management is in charge.

No one of these four incidents, nor all of them together, tells the complete story of Ban Ki-moon. Where he has followed his instincts, he has done well. When he has followed the conventional wisdom inside the U.N. bubble on First Avenue in New York — on matters of U.N. theology such as the death penalty and the Middle East — he has not. In Washington this week, the president and others will again have the chance to take his measure.

Based on what we have seen so far, I hope they encourage him to let Ban be Ban.

John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006. He wrote this commentary for the Washington Post.