A better way to choose United Nations leaders

By David Hannay 
March 22, 2006 
The Financial Times
Original Source: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a49911b6-b9c8-11da-9d02-0000779e2340.html

http://news.ft.com/c.gif \* MERGEFORMATINET
The United Nations secretary-general has very little power and not much more direct authority but he (no she so far, although it is surely high time consideration was given to candidates irrespective of gender) does have a lot of influence.

The end of the cold war brought with it a big expansion of the UN’s scope for action and responsibilities and an extension of the threats and challenges facing the international community. We now look to the secretary-general to prevent conflicts, to broker solutions to disputes and to give a lead in the fight against poverty, disease, malnutrition and environmental degradation. We expect him to run a complex bureaucratic machine with bases in New York, Geneva and Vienna, and about 16 peacekeeping missions worldwide with 80,000 peacekeepers deployed. That is a tall order and one that requires a more systematic and less haphazard approach to recruitment to the office than has been the case.

Later this year a new secretary- general will be chosen by the UN General Assembly acting on a recommendation from the Security Council. The way in which that choice is made and the mandate given to the new incumbent are as much in need of reform and adaptation as are other parts of the UN which have recently received greater attention and on which agonisingly slow but real progress is now being made.

Does it still make sense to apply a Buggins’ turn regional rotation, thus excluding any candidate from other regions? Is it wise to choose someone without a clear idea of how they will set about the job and what their main priorities will be? How can one square the circle between the need for a super-diplomat with real political influence and the equally pressing need for an able manager and administrator? Is a five-year term of office the right one, or would a single, non-renewable seven-year term not be better?

Here are some suggestions which, if applied, could both strengthen the office of the secretary-general and ensure that the present impetus for reform is carried forward into the new term.

First, there should be no regional or gender pre-emption at the outset. All the main regions of the world have now occupied the post for two or more terms. It is the right moment to break out of the system of rotation and choose the best candidate for the job, irrespective of origin.

Second, all candidates should be asked to circulate publicly a platform which would set out briefly and in general terms what they saw as the main challenges of the office and how they would set about dealing with them. Not only would this counter the past tendency for candidates to whisper in the ear of the world leaders what they wanted to hear but it would give the candidates chosen a real mandate vis-à-vis the member states and the UN bureaucracy.

Third, the new secretary-general should be appointed to a single, seven-year, non-renewable term. That is probably about the right duration for the tenure of what is a punishing office; and it would do away with the mid-course temptation to curry favour in the attempt to secure a second five-year term.

Fourth, the appointment of a new secretary-general and that of his deputy should be seen as a single ticket, even if the procedures for appointment remain, as they should do, quite separate. Far more important than achieving regional or gender balance between the two (although those considerations will surely play a part) will be to achieve a functional balance, with complementary skills and experience and, as the present secretary-general has just proposed, clear allocation of responsibilities to the deputy.

Fifth, the programme for reform of the secretariat recently tabled by Kofi Annan, the current secretary- general, should be enacted before the end of this year, giving his replacement a solid basis from which to begin. And all candidates should be asked to commit themselves in advance to the full implementation of those reforms.

Finally, the five permanent members of the Security Council should let it be known that they do not contemplate the use, or the threat of the use, of the veto on the nomination of the next secretary-general; and that they would accept the views of the majority both in the Security Council and, later, in the General Assembly.

None of these suggestions requires any change to the UN charter itself. None would create an irreversible precedent that could not subsequently be changed if experience proved other approaches made more sense. Taken together they would send a clear signal that the membership wanted a strong, competent and effective secretary-general capable of adapting his office to the requirements of the situation.

Is that too much to ask?

Lord Hannay of Chiswick is a former British ambassador to the UN, a member of the UN secretary-general’s high-level panel for threats, challenges and change and currently chairman of the UN Association of the UK