Source: – HYPERLINK http://www.international.gc.ca/canada_un/new_york/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=6278&content_type=2 http://www.international.gc.ca/canada_un/new_york/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=6278&content_type=2
Date: April 19, 2006

19/04/2006
Statement to the General Assembly on the selection of the Secretary-General
Statement by Ambassador Allan Rock
Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations
to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the revitalization of the General Assembly
on the role of the General Assembly in the selection of the Secretary-General
New York, April 19, 2006
Introduction
Canada is grateful to the President of the General Assembly and to the Co-chairs of this process for devoting time at this stage of your work to the important subject we will discuss today.
The selection of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is one of the most significant collective decisions made by its member states.  Those who have occupied that unique office over the last 60 years have played a role far beyond the deceptively modest description found in Article 97 of the United Nations’ Charter, where the Secretary-General is described only as “the chief administrative officer of the Organization”.  In fact, Secretaries-General have been much more than that: they have been at once the world’s most senior diplomats and its most conspicuous crisis managers. In the words of Sir Brian Urquhart,  they have served as “both symbol and guardian of the original vision of the organization”.
But the process by which member states select the person to fill that singular role has always been ill-defined and has usually been opaque.  No list of qualifications is agreed.  No formal screening takes place.  The General Assembly is asked to declare itself on the nominated candidate without the benefit of relevant information or even informal consultations.  The candidates’ vision for the UN’s future remains unexamined, and there is no established way for member states to develop a sense of the candidates’ skills in key areas like communication and political leadership.  And the General Assembly does little more than politely ratify a decision effectively made by the Security Council, leaving little scope for a considered decision whether or not the candidate should be appointed.
During this season of change, when member states are discussing the reform and renewal of so many aspects of the United Nations, it seems entirely appropriate that we should critically examine the way in which we choose the person who will serve as this organization’s leader.  Canada welcomes this opportunity to offer suggestions for a more transparent and open selection process, aimed at ensuring that individuals with the right aptitude, talents and judgment are identified and submitted to the General Assembly for consideration.
Canada believes that a transparent process would not only reflect the importance of the selection, it would also serve to engender the widest possible support for the new Secretary-General among member states - support that will indeed be needed as our new leader addresses the many complex and controversial challenges facing our institution.
In Resolution 51/241, the General Assembly in 1997 decided the following:
56. The process of selection of the Secretary-General shall be made more transparent.
Surely the time has come to make that declaration a reality.  We acknowledge at the outset that it will not be possible to implement this year all of the proposals we will make.  But Canada believes that the time has come to make a start, and before I conclude, I will identify specific steps that we would like to see taken right away, to make the current selection process more open and effective.
Past Secretaries-General
We hasten at the outset to emphasize that our proposals are not in any way a criticism of those who have held the position of Secretary-General in the past.  The United Nations and the world have been well served by those persons and, if we may say so, particularly by the incumbent, Kofi Annan.  Rather, our focus is on improving the process of selection, on rendering it more transparent and systematic, so that we will not have to rely merely on chance or good fortune in seeing that the high standards established by Kofi Annan and his predecessors are continued.  Canada believes that by identifying the principles that should guide a responsible and effective selection process, and then by adopting procedures that reflect those principles, member states can enhance the prospect that future Secretaries-General will fulfill our high expectations and furnish the leadership that our institution requires.
The Role of the Security Council
Nor must these proposals be seen as an effort to change or diminish in any way the crucial role to be played by the Security Council in the selection process.  Under the provisions of Article 97 of the Charter, it is the Security Council that recommends the candidate to be appointed.  The Security Council therefore plays an eliminatory role in the process.  That is as it should be.  Only those in whom the Security Council has confidence -- only those with whom the Council can work effectively -- should be recommended for appointment.  The power and prerogative of the Council in arriving at its recommendation must be respected and upheld.
At the same time, the General Assembly has an important role to play in the selection process, one that must be equally respected -- not only as a formality, but in practical terms.  While the Security Council recommends, the General Assembly actually appoints.  The Council proposes, and the Assembly disposes.  Rule 141 of our own Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly provides that: 
When the Security Council has submitted its recommendation on the appointment of the Secretary-General, the General Assembly shall consider the recommendation and vote upon it by secret ballot in private meeting.
Co-Chairs, Canada listened with interest to your report of meetings between the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council. We are encouraged by the tone and the substance of those discussion. We believe they represent a very good start of the kind of collaboration that we favor. But Canada wants to see procedures in place that will enable the General Assembly on a consistent basis to play its important role effectively, and allow it to exercise the judgment required of it in an informed and responsible manner -- not simply as a question of informal arrangement, but as a process that is understood and agreed.
 
Proposals
What, then, do we propose in order to achieve the purposes that we have set forth?  How can the selection of the Secretary-General be carried out in a more transparent and systematic way?  By what means can we develop the broadest possible support among member states for the new Secretary-General?
Our position can be expressed in five points, all of which we respectfully commend to member states for consideration.
1. The qualities we seek in a Secretary-General should be articulated.  The very process of considering, discussing and identifying the characteristics we are looking for will establish a useful framework for member states as they evaluate and decide whether (in the case of the Security Council) to recommend and whether (in the case of the General Assembly) to appoint a given individual.  It would also surely be of assistance to those who are considering seeking the office to know the qualifications and attributes that member states are looking for.  Finally, such an exercise in definition, repeated periodically, would also serve as a valuable indication of how member states see the role of Secretary-General in a changing political landscape and in a reforming United Nations.
2. We propose that a systematic means should be put in place by which potential candidates can be identified.  This might take the form of a search committee, appointed jointly by the President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly, that advertises the position, publishes the desired attributes, and even pro-actively encourages specific individuals to become candidates.
There are of course other steps that can be taken to encourage qualified people to come forward.  And reference may be made in this regard to one of the conclusions expressed in Resolution 51/241 of 1997:
60. Without prejudice to the prerogatives of the Security Council, the President of the General Assembly may consult with member states to identify potential candidates endorsed by a member state and, upon informing all member states of the results, may forward those results to the Security Council.
By one means or another, or perhaps by a combination of means undertaken at the same time, we propose that the widest possible search be conducted, so that the selection is made from among the most attractive and best qualified candidates that the world has to offer.
3. Means should be devised to allow member states to hear from candidates well before recommendation and appointment, under circumstances that will permit us to assess their qualities, evaluate their aptitude and gain a sense of their vision for the office they seek and for the United Nations itself.  These open sessions might be organized by the President of the General Assembly for member states in formal or informal plenary.  They might also be conducted in the regional groups.  In any case, they should permit not only presentations by the candidates, but also (perhaps in private sessions with the regional groups) interaction with member states, all in a manner consistent with utmost respect for the candidates, and the for dignity and significance of the office they seek.  Member states would then be able to make known to the Security Council their views with respect to the various candidates.
4. Member states should consider establishing a date by which persons must declare their interest in the position of Secretary-General in order to be considered as candidates.  The advantages of an orderly and systematic process (and the opportunity for member states to learn about candidates, their qualities and their vision) would be lost if we permit the emergence at the eleventh hour of candidates that have not earlier been identified.  If our purpose is to create conditions in which the successful candidate can build broad support among member states based on an open and systematic process, that purpose would be defeated by allowing the recommendation at the last minute of a person not previously considered by member states as a candidate.  One method of ensuring that both the Security Council and the General Assembly consider candidates about whom they have had the opportunity to gather information and informally exchange views, is to establish such a deadline.  
5. Member states should consider limiting the candidate to a single term in office as Secretary-General, whether for five or seven years.  By ruling out a second term, member states would remove any basis for suggestion that the Secretary-General’s conduct was influenced by expectations of re-appointment.  Such a measure would also require more frequent use of the selection process, thereby creating the possibility of more regular distribution among regions and between genders.  As you know, this change was highlighted in the 1997 Resolution, in the following terms:
The duration of the term or terms of appointment, including the option of a single term, shall be considered before the appointment of the next Secretary-General.
Other Considerations
Before concluding, let me touch upon just four additional matters. 
i) Should the Security Council Recommend More Than One Name?
By our Resolution 11(1) in 1946, the General Assembly decided that the Security Council should recommend a single name for appointment as Secretary-General.  It has since been suggested that one way of opening the process is to amend or revoke that Resolution in that respect, so that two (or more) names are forwarded by the Security Council to the General Assembly.
Canada has given this question careful consideration, and, on balance, we have concluded that the General Assembly ought not to change the current practice.  We arrive at that conclusion for two reasons.
First, if the proposals we have made are adopted, Canada believes that the rationale for multiple candidates will largely disappear. In the current system, it is entirely possible that the General Assembly could receive a single recommendation at the last minute naming a candidate about whom we know little. Requiring more than one name is a strategy for dealing with that situation, and perhaps provides some leverage to discourage the Council from putting us in that position.
But if the General Assembly and the Security Council work together from the outset in an open way, informally sharing information and views -- it is far more likely that the General Assembly will receive a timely recommendation naming a candidate with whom we would by then be familiar. In short, our proposals are intended to encourage the emergence of a consensus.
Second, if one of our objectives here is to devise a process likely to result in broader support for a new Secretary-General, then asking the Security-Council to forward multiple recommendations will not serve that purpose.  In fact, it would more likely divide the General Assembly, and could lead to questions about the breadth and legitimacy of the mandate of a Secretary-General elected only by a segment of the membership.
For those reasons, and on the assumption that the process overall will be opend up along the lines that we propose, Canada does not believe that Resolution 11(1) should be amended or revoked.
ii)  Regional Distribution and Gender Equality
A second concluding comment has to do with regional distribution and gender equality.  Here, we must surely strive to balance and to honour a number of important principles all at once.
The starting point is that we want the best possible person for the pivotal, crucial role that the Secretary-General will play in our institution and for the world.  Unbending adherence to an artificial requirement of regional origin or gender is inconsistent with that principle.
At the same time, just as the Charter requires (in Article 101(3)) that “Due regard shall be paid to recruiting the [UN] staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible”, regional distribution is surely a factor to be taken into account in selecting the Secretary-General.  None of the world’s regions should feel that they are ineligible for this most important position.  And the legitimacy of the institution will be enhanced by demonstrating that its most senior officer -- its only elected official -- can emerge from any region of the globe.
Similarly, gender equality requires that we include both men and women among the outstanding individuals considered for the post. Our collective record on gender equality in senior appointments is woeful and must be improved.
Canada suggests that the General Assembly Resolution of 1997 comes as close as possible to the ideal expression of the merged principles that are at work in this context.  Paragraph 59 of that Resolution said the following:
59.  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.
iii)  The Deputy Secretary-General
My third concluding comment has to do with the important office of Deputy Secretary-General, created in 1998 by this General Assembly. The nature of the position, and its authority and role, were the subject of observations by the Secretary-General in his recent report entitled “Investing in the United Nations: for a Stronger Organization World Wide” (A/60/251).
Given the growing significance of the position of Deputy Secretary-General and the importance of the UN’s two most senior officers working effectively together, member states should encourage candidates for the post of Secretary-General to identify publicly, when they declare their willingness to be considered as candidates, the person they would, if appointed, appoint as their Deputy.  This additional openness would serve to further increase the confidence of member states in the process, and to broaden the support for this senior “team”, once in office.
iv)  Changes in the Short Term
Finally, a comment about what might be achieved this year.  Canada understands that it would be difficult if not impossible to implement this year all of the changes we have proposed.   But we believe it is very important that we make a start.  Past discussions about changes in the process have produced very little progress.  We believe that is because the process of change was never really begun in concrete ways.  Let us signal our resolve to improve the process by adopting as many of the desirable changes as possible now.  Let us create a momentum toward improvement that will be strong enough to carry forward into the next selection cycle, where the balance of the changes that member states approve can be implemented.
In particular, Canada believes that it is both possible and desirable to take two steps toward these reforms during the present process of selection:  the imposition of a single term of fixed length, and the convening of public fora for candidates, perhaps followed by private interactive sessions with each regional group.
We would respectfully suggest that the Co-chairs report to the President of the General Assembly by letter following today’s session that this is the wish of member states, and ask him to provide for the adoption of those measures as soon as practicable.
*     *     *
Co-chairs, our shared purpose here this morning is to speak about ways in which we can revitalize the General Assembly.  What better way of doing so than to give this body a real and an effective role in finding, meeting and appointing the next leader of our institution.
We sincerely believe that the office of Secretary-General, the quality of leadership at the United Nations and the strength of our institution itself can all be served by the proposals we bring forward today.  We commend them to the member states, and we respectfully ask that they be considered on their merits as part of the current deliberations.
Thank you, Co-chairs.