Since 1946, the United Nations has appointed seven secretaries general based on an imprecise General Assembly resolution outlining the terms of the appointment. Although a new resolution from 1997 affirmed the need for a more inclusive process, the language of the 1946 resolution, which limits the involvement of the General Assembly, remains unchanged. The earlier resolution states “it would be desirable for the Security Council to proffer only one candidate for the consideration of the General Assembly.” While this provision has avoided divisions over the nomination in the General Assembly, putting the decision entirely in the hands of the Security Council has significantly weakened the office of the U.N’s top man.
This year’s selection offers an opportunity for the General Assembly to fix this problem. By choosing to adjust the language of the 1946 resolution, the General Assembly could initiate an improvement in the way U.N. secretaries general are selected. Moreover, an active policy on this issue would help elevate the weakened status of the General Assembly and its contribution to the organization. The General Assembly is the only organ where all 191 members are represented and stand equally at the United Nations. As a principal body, the General Assembly suggests policies, approves budgets and elects members of other bodies, including the Security Council. Over the years, however, the role of the General Assembly has been undermined by redundant committee structures and political divisions among the regional groups, and by its apparent preoccupation with a single concern - constraining the influence of the United States in the world organization.
What the General Assembly Can Do
Since its inception, the General Assembly, has issued two resolutions regarding the process of secretary general’s appointment. One, adopted in 1946, states that the Security Council should present one nomination only to the General Assembly. The second resolution, passed in 1997, calls upon the General Assembly to make “full use of the power of appointment enshrined in the Charter” and outlines a role for the president of the General Assembly in facilitating interaction with the Security Council. The Group of 77 constituting the majority of the U.N. membership with 132 countries from the developing world has a choice. It can lead the General Assembly to accentuate the power bestowed upon it by the 1997 resolution and press for a modification of the language of the 1946 resolution to request two candidates as opposed to one to be submitted by the Security Council. In return, the developing nations could try to vote responsibly and evaluate the candidates based on merit, not only on their region of origin.
The developing nations support regional rotation because they fear that, without it, the developed states would dominate the United Nations through high level appointments. In a way, regional rotation acts like a system of checks and balances between the developing world and the powerful members. But if the General Assembly is involved in the decision which chooses the next secretary general, the custom of regional rotation for this post will serve little purpose. Mr. Jan Eliasson, the President of the General Assembly, could take the first step and rally the General Assembly to claim its role in the selection process by adopting a revised resolution. Moreover, he could recommend to the member states a time-line for nominations and a guideline for selection, including discussion of long term goals such as establishing a search committee and campaign rules, which may not be achievable presently due to time and political constrains.
Improving the selection process is a policy option for the developing nations if adopted would re-assert the diminishing role of the General Assembly at the United Nations. It’s a far more constructive approach than the Group of 77’s current tactic of butting heads with Washington, which is nothing but reactionary.
What the Security Council Can Do
The obvious role for the Security Council would be to respect a decision by the General Assembly, if it in fact, receives an appeal from the General Assembly for two nominations. By accepting to go along with this, Security Council would not only have to find two of the best candidates for the job but would also add an element of transparency to its working methods.
Security Council, in the short time remaining before the appointment of Annan’s successor (expected in late Fall), could also encourage candidates to come forward and make themselves available for evaluation. For this year, time is running short to establish a search committee and it looks like, yet again, the majority of member states will not have a fair chance to get acquainted with the candidates. Russia and China would be investing in their international reputation, if at a minimum, they considered candidates outside of Asia, including aspirants from Eastern Europe, which is a region that has not yet had a secretary general. Eastern Europe is acknowledged as a regional group in Security Council elections and has just recently been allocated six seats as a region on the newly established Human Rights Council. So if regional rotation is to be a consideration, contenders from Eastern Europe are as eligible as any, if not more. Asian countries oppose the idea of an Eastern European secretary general, because, they argue; Eastern Europe is losing its own unique political identity and is assimilating into Europe at large. Russia, reasons of historical grievance and political expediency, is happy to support the Asian position and preclude an Eastern European successor. Thus if it is Asia’s turn, it’s not because the convention of geographic rotation dictates as such, but because China and Russia says so. The determining factors in this debate, however, as most observers agree, should simply be the merits of the candidate, while taking into consideration the gender and region of origin of the candidate.
Simon Chesterman of New York University’s Institute for International Law and Justice, has suggested that having both candidates from the same region could help prevent regional divisions interfering with fair, merit-based voting by the General Assembly. If the best-qualified candidates do not emerge from the same region, Chesterman says, secret ballots could be used to reduce the risk of divisions among the regions, when the General Assembly votes to appoint a secretary general.
The implications for Washington
Washington has been pressing for a major management overhaul at the U.N. that would give the secretary general greater authority and flexibility in hiring and firing. This realm currently falls under the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee on administrative and budgetary issues and is also dominated by the Group of 77. The Group of 77 perceives U.S. proposals to strengthen the office of the secretary general as just another power grab strategy in the overall reform scheme being pushed by the United States. Employing threats to cut U.N’s funding will not be enough to convince the General Assembly otherwise and relinquish its hold over this vital aspect of running the world body. For that, the United States needs to build confidence in its reform initiatives.
Selection of the next secretary general could provide a simple, painless way for the U.S. to demonstrate the sincerity of its reform agenda. It could be offered as a gesture of good will, in return for which developing countries could agree to stop their micromanagement of the office. This fits well into American Ambassador John Bolton’s ‘attacks on conventional wisdom’ course, which in moderation is a useful approach at times of change. Second, the involvement of a wider U.N. membership would promote a common ownership of this decision beyond the five permanent members of the Security Council, equipping the next secretary general with a stronger mandate. Third, wider participation in the process would make the thorough examination of the candidates more likely. All of these combined would not only help produce the best candidate for the job, but would empower the next secretary general with the aptitude to address the pressing issues he/she will face upon assuming the post on January 1, 2007. For the U.S., it would advance American interests in other reform areas, by easing suspicion of U.S. intentions.
Ayca Ariyoruk is a research fellow at the Center.