Picking new UN Secretary-General no simple chore, but new process is more transparent

by Tony Fleming

The United Nations Charter, adopted in 1945, provides what appears at first read to be a rather uncomplicated selection process for the Secretary-General – appointment by the General Assembly upon nomination by the Security Council. This succinct text has since been supplemented by other procedural rules and accepted practices. Nonetheless, the process of selecting the world’s top civil servant has remained for most of the organization’s 61-year history lacking in transparency.

Previous Secretaries-General were often compromise candidates chosen through protracted, politicized and largely secretive bargaining among the permanent Security Council members. Purported candidates remained unknown to most governments – and even to themselves in many cases – and the final selection was made very shortly before the individual took office. The General Assembly would receive the Council’s choice with little prior knowledge of the nominee’s background, vision or agenda, before appointing him (it’s always been a ‘him’) to the post.

In contrast, this year’s UN Secretary-General selection has been unprecedented in its openness and transparency. An atmosphere of UN reform encouraged discussion on predetermined selection criteria, active campaigning by candidates and substantive monthly engagement between the presidents of the Security Council and General Assembly as the process unfolded.

To be nominated, a candidate for Secretary-General must receive at least nine positive votes in the Council, barring a veto from any of the permanent members. This year, the Security Council includes permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and rotating members Argentina, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia and Tanzania.

An informal tradition in the selection process calls for regional rotation in the nationality of the Secretary-General. This year, the near universal consensus (the United States being the principal exception) was that the next Secretary-General should hail from Asia. This view, along with recognition of China’s growing regional and global influence, convinced many observers that the candidates would have to impress Beijing as much if not more than they would the United States.

The field of candidates eventually came to include South Korea’s Ban Ki Moon, India’s Shashi Tharoor, Sri Lanka’s Jayantha Dhanapala, Thailand’s Surakiart Sathirathai, Jordan’s Prince Zeid, Afghanistan’s Ashraf Ghani and – the only non-Asian and only woman in the race – Latvia’s Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

Unlike in previous years, candidates were encouraged to openly discuss their views on global issues and approach governments for support. Responding to this new environment, candidates presented campaign platforms, created websites and spoke at public events around the world. Discussion on the revitalization of the General Assembly included calls by Canada, India and other middle-power states for a stronger role for the General Assembly in proposing and vetting candidates under consideration. To their credit, the Security Council – expected to maintain an unrelenting grip on the nomination phase – responded by limiting its consideration to only formally (read ‘publicly’) nominated candidates from member governments. The overall impact has been that governments outside the Security Council, as well as the public, know more about the individual who would guide the UN through the next five-to-ten years than they had about any previous nominee in the organization’s 60 years.

Before a formal vote is taken by the Security Council, a series of “straw polls” are usually taken to weigh each candidate’s level of support among member governments. In the past, this allowed permanent members to eliminate those potential nominees to which they were clearly opposed. Colour-coded ballots were used to differentiate permanent members from non-permanent ones. Disapproval of a candidate by a permanent member was likely to equal a veto in the formal vote. If further straw polls or negotiations failed to change the opposed government’s position, the candidate was dropped from consideration.

This year, however, the Security Council held three straw polls in which all 15 members either “encouraged,” “discouraged,” or offered “no opinion” without regard to their permanent or non-permanent status. The means of narrowing the field down to acceptable candidates shifted to the candidates themselves (or their sponsoring government). Weaker candidates, those who received the fewest “encouragements” from the full Security Council, were encouraged to withdraw.

During the straw polls, Ban Ki Moon led each time, but always with one “discouragement.” Without the differentiating ballots, however, it was impossible to tell if that vote was from a permanent member and therefore a possible veto. Speculation abounded as to which government cast the disparaging vote, with China, Japan and Qatar each being suggested, among others. Nonetheless, Ban was considered the “front-runner,” his tallies indicating strong support among the Council as a whole and with significant encouragement by a number of permanent members in each round.

Tharoor posed the only apparent challenge to Ban, consistently earning second place in each of the straw polls. Like Ban, however, he also received discouragements which may or may not have been cast by permanent members. Thailand’s nominee, Surakiart Sathirathai, who had launched his campaign a full two years before and secured the full endorsement of several Southeast Asian governments, never secured more than the minimal required encouragements in any round. Even prior to the military coup which deposed his government, most observers, and even the major Thai media, wrote off his candidacy as a long shot. Sri Lanka’s Jayantha Dhanapala’s poor showings surprised many, with even Foreign Policy magazine in June predicting he would be the eventual nominee. Zeid, Vike-Freiberga, and Ghani were all seen as entering the race much too late to make an impression on member governments.  

Ban’s consistently strong showing was accepted by many as indicative of achieving the necessary support. With the undifferentiating ballots, however, it was still possible that he was being discouraged by a permanent member. The importance to governments of reaching consensus in the nomination prompted the Security Council to provide for differentiation between permanent and non-permanent members. In the fourth straw poll, held on October 2, permanent members cast votes using blue ballots, and non-permanent marked their preferences on white ballots. Again, Ban Ki Moon and Shashi Tharoor came in first and second place, respectively. However, only Ban Ki Moon secured the support off all permanent members; all other candidates received at least one discouragement from a permanent member.

The result of this poll confirmed Ban’s unanimous acceptance by the Security Council, and more importantly, by the permanent members. The Council immediately set Monday, October 9th as the date for the formal vote. Following the announcement, Shashi Tharoor delivered a concession speech and expressed congratulations to Ban as the inevitable choice. Over the next several days, each of the remaining candidates also withdrew. (Jayantha Dhanapala had withdrawn prior to the fourth straw poll, having consistently secured the lowest support.)  This left Ban as the sole candidate for the post.

Ban was nominated by the Security Council to a five-year term, to run from January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2011. By coincidence, the Council’s formal vote for Ban occurred mere hours after a purported nuclear test by North Korea. Among others, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton noted the irony of the Council nominating the South Korean foreign minister to head the UN as his government’s neighbor has escalated a threat to international peace and security. Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima suggested that “the fact that the candidate is the current Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea is an asset in dealing with the situation in the Korean Peninsula that we are now facing.” In a news conference in Seoul, Ban reflected “This should be a moment of joy, but instead I stand here with a very heavy heart. Despite the concerted warning from the international community, North Korea has gone ahead with a nuclear test.”

Ban’s nomination was taken up by the General Assembly the following Friday, where he was appointed by acclamation, accompanied by applause by the assembled delegates. In accepting the appointment, Ban affirmed he would continue the reform efforts begun under current Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

“I intend to stay the course as Secretary-General,” Ban noted in his acceptance remarks.

During the campaign, Ban was viewed by many as the least visible and offering the least objectionable views in order to not offend any governments. Unlike Tharoor or Dhanapala, he rarely made public appearances or spoke in specific terms of his vision. He also chose not to respond to questions from civil society groups on his campaign or contribute an op/ed along with other candidates for a New York Times series. He responded to this criticism, noting his own reputation and humble demeanor as well as the virtue of modesty in Asian cultures.

“…modesty is about demeanor, not about vision and goals. It does not mean the lack of commitment or leadership. Rather it is quiet determination in action to get things done without so much fanfare… This may be the key to Asia’s success, and to the UN’s future. Indeed, our organization is modest in its means, but not in its values. We should be more modest in our words, but not in our performance.”

This view of modesty and performance may portend what can be expected from Ban’s administration. During Kofi Annan’s two terms, the international community has made significant advancements and adopted new norms in human rights, development commitments and international justice. With Ban at the helm, we may see the United Nations return to a more traditional “intergovernmental” role, working to consolidate the “supranational” gains achieved in the last decade.

Ban Ki-moon has been South Korea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and formerly National Security Adviser to the President of South Korea, Foreign Policy Adviser to the President of South Korea and Chef de Cabinet for the President of the UN General Assembly.