Race for U.N. Chief an Inexact Procedure 
The Associated Press
September 17, 2006
The New York Times
Original Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-UN-Next-Boss.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The 15 ambassadors took their seats around the U.N. Security Council's horseshoe table and filled in their ballot sheets with choices on the somewhat inexact scale of one to three -- ''encourage,'' ''discourage,'' ''no opinion.''
The winner of the straw poll for one of the biggest jobs in world diplomacy? Step forward Ban Ki-Moon.
The South Korean foreign minister may not be a household name yet, but he could soon be one. The title he's after is secretary-general of the United Nations.
Then again, Thursday's vote, a sort of New Hampshire primary on a global scale, means very little at this stage. That's how opaque and baffling it gets whenever the U.N. sets out to pick a new boss.
Ban, a 62-year-old Harvard graduate and career diplomat, netted 14 ''encourage'' votes and just one ''discourage.'' India's Shashi Tharoor, a novelist who doubles as a U.N. undersecretary-general, was next, with 10 ''encourage,'' three ''discourage'' and one ''no opinion.''
The others on the ballot were Prince Zeid al Hussein, Jordan's U.N. ambassador, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and U.N. disarmament chief Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka.
It's no coincidence that all are Asian. The consensus among many member states -- though not shared by the United States -- is that after outgoing Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a Ghanaian, it is Asia's turn to occupy the hot seat.
But even after two straw polls in the Security Council, both won by Ban, new contenders could emerge before the council sends its recommendation to the 192-member General Assembly for a vote, probably in mid-October, or as early as Sept. 28, when this year's assembly finishes its session.
Tharoor, India's candidate, is making no predictions, despite his handsome showing in the straw poll.
''The conventional wisdom is always based on the previous election, and each election has turned out to be sufficiently different from the previous one that the conventional wisdom has proved more conventional than wise,'' he said.
Many diplomats and experts say it is a bad way to fill one of the highest-profile jobs on the planet -- one that requires diplomatic skills to deal with international crises, and managerial ability to carry out the sweeping reforms that most agree are badly needed for the world body, buffeted by accusations of waste, mismanagement and the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.
Critics say that if the U.N. is to become more transparent and accountable, it should start with the process of picking its boss. Right now the rules are just too vague, they say.
All the U.N. charter stipulates is: ''The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.'' Everything else is suggestions, unwritten rituals and traditions accumulated over generations.
The main hurdle is the Security Council, with its five veto-wielding permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Their rivalries have shaped the choice of secretary-general since the U.N. was created 61 years ago.
The results have been mixed.
Austrian Kurt Waldheim's tenure was darkened by allegations -- which he has always denied -- that he belonged to a German army unit that committed atrocities in the Balkans during World War II.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Egyptian diplomat who was heavily involved in Egyptian-Israeli peace efforts, was a rarity in coming to the job with a high international recognition factor.
Others came from obscurity -- Peru's Javier Perez de Cuellar, and Annan.
The model everyone claims to long for is Dag Hammarskjold, the hard-driving Swede who, in the absence of clear-cut rules, shaped the job as he went along and became a leading global troubleshooter in the 1950s.
At present, member governments nominate candidates, and they are judged more on their nationality than on their agendas, of which little is known. Some diplomats have proposed an interview process to give the candidates a forum to spell out their ideas. Others suggest a Security Council search committee invite and vet candidates.
''The existing selection process for the post of secretary-general of the United Nations has produced several distinguished secretaries-general,'' Canada's former U.N. ambassador, Allan Rock, wrote in a proposal for an overhaul.
''But the lack of transparency and inclusiveness of the exercise has become increasingly noticeable, and the U.N. process compares poorly with the practices of some other international organizations.''
Such changes would address a rift that could change the outcome of this year's race. Poor nations that comprise the majority in the General Assembly feel they have been left out of the process by the five veto-wielding members.
Traditionally, the General Assembly has rubber stamped the council's recommendations, but this time the rank and file are threatening to sink any candidate recommended to them without their input.
Some of the vagueness and secrecy is already wearing away. In the past, a candidate would be advised not to seem too eager for the job. This time the contenders have adopted a strategy rarely seen before -- they're actually campaigning publicly.
The balance of power seems to hang on China, with its demand for an Asian, and the United States, which wants someone who can manage the world body's vast bureaucracy.
''It's not enough to be a respected politician or diplomat,'' said Kristen Silverberg, assistant U.S. secretary of state for international organizations. ''Today, the secretary-general has a critical management and operational role. U.S. taxpayers contribute over $5 billion a year to the U.N. system. We'll support a candidate we trust to be a good steward of those resources.''
Some diplomats are pressing for a speedy decision. They fear a recurrence of what happened in 1996, when Annan wasn't chosen until Dec. 13 -- giving him just two weeks to prepare for his new role.