The upcoming appointment of the next United Nations secretary general provides an ideal opportunity to fix some of the flaws in the current process. However, the Security Council may not be completely in agreement.
First, there’s a good thing that the process of selecting the next UN secretary general for 2016 was conducted in a more transparent manner than before.
However, by denying two crucial suggestions – to recommend more than one finalist for the General Assembly and consider the possibility of a single term non-renewable for seven years, this Security Council has effectively nullified the effects of all other changes. The second part is, as you’ll see, not so great.
A campaign for a more efficient selection process
At the beginning of 2015, a renowned group dubbed the Elders released a document entitled A UN that is fit for purpose in the Munich Security Conference. Munich Security Conference.
It recommended, among other things, that the selection to be the new secretary general not be decided in secret in the presence of five regular members of the Security Council. Instead, it suggested an open search for the most competent candidates, regardless of gender or region.
The Elders’ document also suggested that the secretary general would be more independent in the event that the Security Council selected them and chose more than candidates and then extended their term. In citing the integrity clauses within the UN Charter, the document condemns the practice of giving members of the UN high-level positions in exchange for support in the selection process, stating that this could seriously damage the image of the United Nations.
The result was the beginning of a campaign dubbed 1 for 7 billion that formulated seven ideas to improve the process of selection:
A dialogue with the candidates.
Clear criteria for selection, and more than one candidate recommended to the Security Council to the General Assembly and a longer, non-renewable period.
Gender equality, as well as a clear and formal timetable and no bargaining over post.
Many UN states have endorsed these plans, and the most notable was the Accountability Coherence and Transparency Group, which comprises 27 small and mid-sized nations, as well as the Non-Aligned Movement, which has 120 members as well as 15 observers.
In December 2015, the presidents of both the Security Council and the General Assembly sent a message to all states that requested to nominate candidates using the following:
Proven leadership and managerial skills with vast experience in international relations, diplomatic, multilingual, and communication capabilities.
In the final round, 12 candidates – six males and six females were chosen, and they were able to upload their resumes as well as vision statements. Published on the UN website. From April to June of 2016, The General Assembly conducted informal dialogues with all of them.
Today, of the 12 initial nominees, three have withdrawn, and another has stepped in, leaving ten candidates (five males as well as five females).
Genre and Regional Rotation
The selection of an equal amount of women and men for the position was a major momentous event. In the last 70 years, there have been only three occasions when women have been suggested as candidates.
1952 In 1952 in 1952, the Soviet Union put forward Lakshmi Pandit from India as one of four possible candidates from the developing world. In 1991, it was suggested that the Norwegian Gro Bruntland was considered, but everyone agreed that it was now time for an African to head the UN.
The year 2006 was the time Vaire Vike-Freiberga, former president of Latvia, was elected to the Baltic states. However, she was also a victim of regional rotation as Asian nations demanded an opportunity to try.
