The first incumbent described his post as “the most impossible job on this earth”. Trygve Lie had only 50-odd nations to wrangle, but found the combination of backroom politicking, public profile and organisational management too much. Whoever takes the reins from Ban Ki-moon as UN secretary general this year will inherit 193 member states, plus a mammoth, haphazardly evolved bureaucracy – and a poisonous schism at the heart of the security council.
That split is likely to determine who triumphs. Wednesday’s straw poll may give the first clear hint, since permanent members will use coloured ballots, indicating a likely veto, for the first time. When the race began, two criteria seemed pressing: that it was eastern Europe’s turn, and that a woman should take charge for the first time. Rotation by region is standard; one woman after eight men does not seem excessive. Backsliding on more equal representation in the ranks, after initial progress under Mr Ban, makes the issue more important. António Guterres, the former Portuguese prime minister who ticks neither box, clearly led his rivals in the indicative straw polls; but Bulgaria’s decision to switch candidates from Unesco’s Irina Bokova (acceptable to Russia, but not the UK or US) has brought EU budget chief Kristalina Georgieva into the race as an alternative female eastern European candidate.
The real question is not who but what the ninth secretary general is. The UN charter says little about the organisation’s top job, which is defined by the incumbent and circumstance. No one can meet every standard, and people often seek the qualities lacking in the last holder as well as those that seem most needed in the hour of choice. Mr Ban has been admired for his persistence in convening, prodding and cajoling governments to make progress on climate change, but there is hunger for a strong crisis negotiator or charismatic moral force. Mr Guterres and Ms Georgieva appear keen to be strong humanitarian activists – which is, of course, not endearing to Russia. Less conspicuous, but crucial, is the need to whip UN humanitarian and peacekeeping operations into shape. There is record displacement due to war and persecution globally: 65 million, equivalent to 24 people fleeing every minute. The UN has 100,000 peacekeepers worldwide, but they are stretched thin and already beset by failures to protect, abuses and cover-ups.
This demanding role has only the authority it is permitted to have by the great powers, and has always been filled by negotiations between them. Perhaps that is appropriate. Despite the job’s aura of sanctity, the secretary general requires the icy realism to make necessary compromises, as well as the most passionate idealism, to seek the best possible outcome. What no one expected was how badly relations between Russia and the west would have degenerated by this point. It will be dismaying if the appointment is made purely on the basis of who is least offensive and which favours can be traded for support.
Nonetheless, the initial push to transform the contest, by the 1 for 7 Billion grassroots campaign and others, has had real impact. They have put ordinary citizens, whom the secretary general should ultimately serve, at the heart of the process. The result has been unprecedented transparency: a public slate of candidates, who have been obliged to present a vision for the UN and engage with member states. Those changes should be valued and built upon in the next contest.
Before that, however, another of 1 for 7 Billion’s suggestions should be enacted: for the secretary general to serve a single, non-renewable term of seven years rather than, as has become routine, two terms of five years. This could be implemented immediately; no amendment to the UN charter is required. Instead of wasting one term lobbying for the second, the holder would be able to concentrate on the job. Instead of trying to avoid alienating the security council’s permanent members, he or she would be freed to act more boldly and decisively; strikingly, as he heads for the exit, Mr Ban has become increasingly outspoken in denouncing the “depravity” of much that has happened in the war in Syria.
For that very reason, one may expect resistance to the suggestion. It would also, admittedly, create the risk of a longer lame-duck period. But it would help the next leader to effect the changes needed for the UN to continue functioning in the face of mounting challenges. That is something which everyone has a stake in, and it is why the security council should step up and embrace this proposal.
