The U.N.’s waning relevance can be boosted by a new leader who focuses on core duties instead of politics.
The U.N.’s waning relevance can be boosted by a new leader who focuses on core duties instead of politics.
U nited Nations Secretary-General António Guterres is in his last year in office, and the U.S. has been eagerly anticipating who might follow. This eagerness is particularly acute given the decline of the organization in stature and relevance to peace and security, development, human rights, and other matters of international concern. The process formally kicked off in April, with candidates for U.N. secretary-general presenting their vision for the organization and fielding questions. The results were underwhelming — and it’s obvious that without a clear shift in the way the U.N. head has been functioning, it won’t matter who is ultimately selected.
Currently, there are four candidates: Michelle Bachelet of Chile; Rafael Grossi of Argentina; Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica; and Macky Sall of Senegal. This is far fewer than the 13 candidates in the last open race in 2016. But some of the 2016 candidates entered the race after April, and candidates this year also may enter in the coming months, so it’s quite possible that the next secretary-general may not yet be nominated.
The U.N. Charter says little about the election process, stating only that the secretary-general shall be appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. In practice, this means that the Security Council has the real power in the selection and, by extension, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — as veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council — must support the candidate.
Since 2016, the U.N. General Assembly has sought more influence in the process by requiring candidates to be formally nominated by a U.N. member state and participate in a live question and answer session with member states and representatives of civil society. U.N. General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock promised “potentially the world’s hardest job interview.”
The three-hour interviews were long, but not necessarily grueling. Similar questions were asked to each candidate. While this advantaged later candidates, the lines of questioning were predictable. Candidates could anticipate being asked about U.N. reform, the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, U.N. appointments and hiring, peace and security, human rights, the U.N. liquidity crisis, concerns of specific groups of states, and issues like climate change, arms control, artificial intelligence, and environmental concerns.
Typically, answers were generalities. The candidates expressed fidelity to the U.N. Charter and commented on the need to revitalize the U.N. and the multilateral system. They assured the questioners that they agreed that their priorities were important and would be a focus of their attention if elected. They supported reform of the U.N. but failed to detail specific measures they would seek to implement. They favored a robust role for the U.N. in peace and security but resisted mentioning specific conflicts or actions aside from promising to actively engage with the Security Council to help mediate crises and conflicts if appointed.
The sessions revealed the dilemma facing the candidates. Many member states and civil society organizations want to continue or expand U.N. mandates, interventions, and activities. Other member states, including the U.S. and other large contributors, support efforts to reduce costs, inefficiency, and duplication and seek to narrow the scope of U.N. activities. Candidates cannot please everyone, so they resort to banalities and lowest common denominator opinions.
This interaction was intended to create more transparency in the selection process. Instead, it has disincentivized frankness, which might be forthcoming in private meetings, and encouraged obfuscation to avoid controversy. Ultimately, this process is performative, and the final choice will still be decided by the Security Council.
Which raises a more basic question: Why should the secretary-general election merit such attention? Baerbock recently opined, “The selection of the next Secretary-General . . . will send a powerful message about what the United Nations stands for and how it intends to address the challenges of today’s interconnected world.”
It will not.
The office of the secretary-general has become inflated. The secretary-general is not a “secular pope” embodying the hopes of 8 billion people. Past U.N. secretaries-general did not rouse themselves to denounce the illegitimacy of autocratic, non-democratic governments like Cuba, China, Iran, or Russia. The next one is similarly unlikely to do so, regardless of what the U.N. Charter says about self-determination.
The Secretary-General has no inherent moral authority. Some have been worse than flawed. Kurt Waldheim was complicit with Nazi war crimes. Even highly regarded secretaries-general like Kofi Annan have fallen short of holding their staff accountable for corruption or abuses.
The reality is that governments run the U.N. and set its agenda, not the secretary-general. Too many want to ignore this, seeking to use the office to promote various causes. But the secretary-general cannot compel action on climate change, nor impose peace, nor force governments to observe human rights. The battered reputations of Ban Ki-moon and Guterres stand testament, respectively, of not satisfying the demands of activists or of heeding their calls and falling short.
However, the problem lies primarily in unrealistic expectations. The secretary-general has one primary responsibility in the U.N. Charter: to be the chief administrative officer of the organization. That is a big responsibility made doubly complex by the fiscal and reputational crises besetting the organization. Meeting this challenge will be made more difficult if the next secretary-general de-emphasizes that primary responsibility in pursuit of causes beyond his or her remit.