How the Next UN Secretary General Will Be Chosen

Ban Ki-moon is due to step down at the end of next year when he completes his second term as United Nations Secretary General. Although a replacement is not due to be chosen until the second half of 2016, the race is already underway with a growing list of candidates being proposed. There is also a lively debate about the rules of procedure that ought to be used, with reformists arguing that the selection process needs to be modernised and opened up. Even more than usual, the eventual decision will reflect a delicate balancing act of competing interests and requirements. The formal rules are fairly straightforward. Article 97 of the Charter of the United Nations states that: “The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” A successful candidate must secure the affirmative votes of nine of the fifteen members of the Security Council, including all five of its permanent members (the P5) who have a right of veto. The Security Council’s recommendation is then considered by the General Assembly with a simple majority by secret ballot sufficient to constitute assent. So far the Security Council has always proposed a single name and the General Assembly has always accepted it. In addition to the formal rules, the choice of Secretary-General is governed by various informal conventions and non-binding decisions that have been evolved and accumulated over time. The Secretary-General should not come from one of the P5, should be able to speak French and English (the two working languages of the UN) and should serve no more than two five-year terms. Two of the most important informal requirements in relation to next year’s selection were set out in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1997 stipulating that “due regard shall continue to be given to regional rotation and shall also be given to gender equality.” The principle of regional rotation gained gradual acceptance after three of first four Secretaries-General came from Western Europe. Since 1981 the UN has appointed its first Secretaries-General from Africa and Latin America. Ban Ki-moon became the second person to hold the post from Asia. As the only one of the UN’s five regional groupings never to have held the job, there is a general recognition that preference should be given to Eastern Europe this time. Most of the UN’s regional groups are geographically defined, but Europe remains divided along Cold War lines with Western Europe grouped together with North America, Australia and New Zealand, and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe joined by Russia. The biggest obstacle will be identifying an Eastern European candidate acceptable to Russia in the midst of deep divisions over Ukraine. Failure would open the field to candidates from other regions. The growing campaign for the UN to choose its first woman Secretary-General is now a major factor in the race. Each of the eight Secretaries-General so far has been a man and it would be difficult to argue that the UN had given “due regard” to gender equality if it appointed another man next year. Last time only one woman was even considered for the job. The anomaly of an organisation that campaigns for gender equality at a global level while apparently unwilling to reflect that principle in its senior appointments is becoming harder to ignore. With the passage of time, the pool of women with the necessary experience at a senior level in government, the UN and other international organisations has widened. There is already an impressive list of potential female candidates. The opportunity for male hopefuls may only come if the Security Council is unable to reach agreement on one of these names. Although the UN Charter appears to give the final say over the appointment to the General Assembly, it is the Security Council that wields the real power to decide, and within that its permanent members. The veto means that the winner has to be acceptable to all of the P5. A viable candidate can’t have met the Dalai Lama, criticised the War on Terror, advocated or implemented sanctions against Russia or supported Spain’s claim to Gibraltar. He or she has to speak French. The P5 also don’t want a Secretary-General who might impinge on their prerogatives, either by campaigning for the wrong kind of Security Council reform or by turning the UN Secretariat into a rival power centre. That is why the job has never been given to a former head of state or government. The quality that is prized above all other is diplomatic skill, especially the ability to mediate between the P5 and navigate the UN system. It is no coincidence that all Secretaries-General so far have formerly been either foreign ministers or senior UN officials. The influence of the Security Council’s non-permanent members has increased a little over time. The expansion of the Council’s membership from eleven to fifteen in 1965 meant that the Secretary-General would subsequently need the support of four rather than two non-permanent members. Since 1981 the Security Council has used a system of indicative ‘straw polls’ to assess the level of support for different candidates. This was codified in the 1996 Wisnumurti Guidelines. Council members are given papers listing the candidates under consideration (red papers for permanent members and white papers for non-permanent members) on which they are invited to indicate which candidates they wish to encourage or discourage. Names can be added or removed over several rounds with the aim of reaching a consensus and making the final vote a formality. The General Assembly has also started to demand a greater say as part of a broader process aimed at “revitalising” its role within the UN system. It has called for a transparent and inclusive process that involves all member states, including a right of nomination and consultation before the Security Council makes its recommendation. It has even broached the idea of conducting hearings at which the candidates would be invited to explain their ideas. More radical proposals for reform put forward by countries like Canada and India would require the Security Council to propose more than one candidate from which the General Assembly would choose. The Security Council and its permanent members are not about to cede power to that extent, but it is likely that the opinions of the General Assembly and it members will carry more informal weight next year than ever before.