A Secretary-General for an Effective UN

Laksiri Fernando 
February 23, 2006
The Asian Tribune
Original Source: http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=17147


There is much speculation going around about who is going to be the next Secretary General of the United Nations, and some Sri Lankans even seems to think that it is Sri Lanka’s turn and not merely Asia’s turn. First it was Tyronne Fernando, then Jayantha Dhanapala, of course for valid reasons, and now some even speculate it could be Sri Lankan born Niranjan Deva-Aditya. 

The last speculation (Asian Tribune, 20 February 2006) is based on what appeared almost two months ago in Chicago Times. If one wants to vehemently wish a Sri Lankan in the post, then it is best to stick to the official candidate and that is Dhanapala, who may or may not have a chance depending on the developments in the coming two to three months. Things are moving very fast but not necessarily in an unpredictable direction. 

But to suggest that Dhanapala should withdraw, giving way to Deva-Aditya, as he is old and might not stand a chance, is an insult to one of the best diplomats that Sri Lanka has ever produced perhaps after Shirly Amerasinghe. The following was what Sunil C. Perera reported from Colombo.

'Nirj will not be supported by Sri Lanka as long as Dhanapala is still in the race, but he would likely pick up that support if his countryman were to withdraw.'

I am not at all disputing the suitability of Deve-Aditya for the post. But Dhanapala is Sri Lanka’s candidate and his credentials for the post and his integrity are unblemished. It might be understandable that young journalists like Perera (I believe he is young!) repeating almost word to word what others have reported. But he should be careful about what is communicated. 

When it comes to 'straw-polls,' before the finals, Dhanapala might not get a majority, but no permanent member will veto him therefore his candidacy might continue for the finals. Dhanapala has not claimed the position as a birth right, but he has strongly put forward his candidacy with Sri Lanka's backing quite transparently according to his beliefs and principles. Whether he gets the post or not he will have his place in world affairs for the benefit of Sri Lanka and for Asia at large. He already has it, but it will be stronger. 

Having said that, what Daya Gamage wrote from New York to Asian Tribune on the http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=17110 19th February is quite helpful in understanding the current dynamics behind the selection process for the Secretary General position, except completely agreeing with him with some of his observations. 

His title is, Is United States laying guidelines for who the next UN Secretary General should be? and his conclusion is, Knowing the pugnacious manner in which John Bolton works, the United States may not find it difficult to lay down the guidelines that may be favorable to her…

A former Under Secretary General Brian Urquhart once described the selection process as the most labyrinthine process imaginable, shrouded in big power secrecy. The process still is labyrinthine but not that secret as far as the main issues or the principles are concerned. In the past, there were no much principle involved, only interests, but this time around there are certain principles emerging, of course partly to serve some interests. Bolton’s supposedly ‘pugnacious manner’ is largely related to this emerging principles or interests. 

The first issue was whether the position should be rotated or filled on merit. Here we are not talking about the President of the General Assembly but the Secretary General of the UN Secretariat. It is basically a managerial position, of course with considerable political responsibilities. The related issue which in fact became the most central one was whether it is Asia’s turn. 

Of course Asia did not have a Secretary-General for 35 years since 1971, after two terms of U Thant, and the Asian countries were politically smart enough to raise the issue very early and the notion became almost a fait accomplifor anyone to circumvent as far as the current selection process is concerned. China with her veto power was very pivotal in this venture. However, Asia is a very large entity in UN terms spreading form Turkey to East Timor (Timor Leste), and even beyond, giving much flexibility for the permanent five to select one from this geographical ensemble. 

Background to the controversy over selection is that the UN Charter does not supply much guide to the selection process other than Article 97 saying, The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. There is a General Assembly Resolution coming from 1946 which accords much more power to the Security Council in the selection process but without any mentioning of a regional rotation. 

The history of past appointments also nullifies a clear tradition of regional rotation. Only mention comes in a Working Group Report on Strengthening the United Nations System in 1997 which has been adopted by the General Assembly by Resolution which says as follows. 

In the course of the identification and appointment of the best candidate for the post of Secretary-General, due regard shall continue to be given to regional rotation and shall also be given to gender equality.

While the Report has no binding force on the Security Council, the important aspect is that the high powered working group recognized the existence of ‘due regard to regional rotation’ and suggested 'due regard shall also be given to gender equality.' While there has been no woman appointed as the Secretary General since the inception of the UN, there has been no one from Eastern Europe either. 

The past Secretary Generals have come from Europe with 6 terms; Africa 3; Latin America 2; Asia 2; but Eastern Europe 0. It is on that basis that the names of two former presidents from Eastern Europe, Vaira Vike-Freiberga from Latvia (woman) and Aleksander Kwasniewski (Poland), were strongly suggested. While both were considered extremely capable, Vike-Freiberga had another advantage being a woman. Nevertheless, Russia naturally had strong opposition to have someone from her former 'vassal states;' China expressing displeasure over a candidate coming from outside the Asian region. 

The US Ambassador John Bolton is the Chair of the Security Council for this month. He apparently wants to make sure that some guiding principles are well in place as soon as possible for the new appointment. The UN has been quite important for the US foreign policy throughout years, although in the past the US preferred rather a weak world organization than a strong one. This might not be the case any longer with the 'Project for the New American Century' still dominating the American foreign policy and John Bolton being quite close to the Project. 

In the recent past, the American foreign policy had a definitive orientation for unilateralism, but with experience and in the long run, the only super-power remaining might consider multilateralism in several areas and directions. A strong UN is important for those objectives and multilateralism. 

The US covers 22 percent of the UN budget, of course with occasional threats of cut backs and delayed payments with anger and pressure, and with its close associate Japan, the full amount of contributions goes over 40 percent. Whatever the critics might say about US foreign policy and its 'empire building,' no country has taken much interest in the UN system comparable to the US. 

China of course is waiting for its turn in world politics, but it is a long way out, and India is far behind to be realistic. It might be good for China to have a cleaned up world, probably by the US, before it comes to the seen, getting rid of menaces like Bin Ladens or even Khatamis. 

Apart from its apparent political or military ineffectiveness in situations like the crisis in Iraq or facing the menace of international terrorism in general, the US has been concerned about whether the UN has been spending its moderate budget of US $ 10 bullion in an effective or accountable manner even in organizing a tea party to celebrate ‘Palestinian Liberation.’ This is where the managerial question has become important. 

There are so many dead wood in the UN system. There are so many redundant programs. There are so many new and pressing areas to venture on. But the UN Secretariat has been handicapped because of its lethargy, ineffectiveness, 'live and let live attitude' or old style diplomacy, not to speak of 'oil for food scandal.' 

To make the long story short, what is required at the moment is a capable Secretary General for an effective UN. A comprehensive reform of the UN is underway. It might not come in one stroke given power politics at the highest levels. It can go in few stages without dragging in for too long. The role of the UN is quite crucial in the coming few years in issues such as nuclear non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, environmental protection, human rights, conflict resolution and in strengthening democracy. 

The new Secretary General could be someone in between, who comes with supple political cum managerial skills and goes with paving the way for a strong managerial office. By the time he or she leaves, the UN should be different.