Negotiations kicked off this month on the biennial General Assembly resolution focusing on the selection and appointment of the Secretary-General and other executive heads.

The negotiations are taking place under the auspices of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (AHWG).

This opportunity to improve appointment processes at the UN must be seized since this year’s resolution could well be the final opportunity to establish reforms ahead of the political hurly-burly of the next Secretary-General selection process. The expectation is that the next time the AHWG negotiates a resolution on this issue, the Secretary-General selection process will either be officially underway or be on the brink of being underway - either way, the atmosphere will not be conducive to the sober consideration of new reforms.

The resolution is an important opportunity to make progress on outstanding 1 for 8 Billion proposals including:

a longer, non-renewable term of office
the Security Council to recommend multiple candidates for the General Assembly to choose between
a more structured process with a clear time line
strengthened involvement by civil society and other stakeholders
enhanced transparency in the Security Council

A detailed round-up of the 9 February AHWG debate published by 1 for 8 Billion shows that there is considerable appetite to make progress on these reforms in the General Assembly.

One of the organisations that co-founded 1 for 8 Billion - UNA-UK - has put together a briefing covering these proposals along with other proposals in support of open, fair inclusive appointments at the UN. The headlines from the briefing have been reproduced below. Please contact Ben Donaldson on donaldson@una.org.uk to request a full copy of the briefing:

1. SG Selection: a call for transparent campaign financing

The GA should call for all SG candidates to disclose their campaign funding sources as a prerequisite of their candidacy along with a commitment to declare any further funding as the process develops. During the 2016 selection process, following requests to all candidates from 1 for 8 Billion, some candidates voluntarily disclosed this information. This information is crucial to enhance transparency and scrutinise possible conflicts of interest.

The ACT group called for voluntary disclosure of this information by candidates as a “sine qua non” of their candidacy in the Feb 2023 AHWG debate - this should be enshrined in the AHWG resolution as a vital addition to a healthy and credible SG selection process. The resolution should ask the PGA’s office to collect this information and publish it alongside candidates’ vision statements and CVs on the PGA’s website.

2. SG Selection: discussion on single term and multiple candidates

While there is clearly not yet consensus on the desirability of the Secretary-General being appointed for a single, longer term or on a call for the Security Council to recommend multiple candidates for the General Assembly to choose between, it is also clear that they merit further discussion. The AHWG resolution should support the development of this discussion.

A large majority of states have supported a call for formal discussion on the desirability of both the single term and multiple candidates proposals, with many states vocally supporting them outright. The only states to actively speak out against these reforms have been the P5 plus one or two outliers. Multiple state representatives have reportedly claimed that the P5 states are willing to use their influence to stop these issues from even being debated.

3. SG Selection: schedule a start date for the next SG process

NAM and ACT have both called for a more structured process including a clear timetable for the different stages. The EU has also called for a well-structured process. The most achievable reform in this regard is to enshrine the date on which the joint letter should be sent out. This is supported by NAM and ACT and a host of other states. According to ACT’s suggested timetable this should be no later than October of the year preceding the appointment.

A more predictable and transparent timeline is highly desirable and the timing of the joint letter to ensure sufficient time to incorporate the new phase agreed in General Assembly resolution (75/325): “[The General Assembly] Recommends that the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, in future joint letters on the Secretary-General selection process, encourage Member States to publicize the call for nominations, including with civil society and other stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential candidates;”

4. SG Selection: A call for states to nominate female candidates and to jointly nominate

The next SG must be a woman. To start to unpick the discrimination that pervades the international system and to inspire gender equality around the world, the 80 year spell of male leadership must be broken. The GA should call for states to only consider nominating qualified female candidates.

As well as collaborating with civil society to identify potential candidates, states should cooperate to consider jointly nominating a candidate. Not only could this be a positive way to demonstrate the breadth of support for a candidate coming into the race, but also a way to dispel the unhelpful misconception that states should only nominate their own nationals. The wording of resolution 75/325 already provides for this:

“nominations of candidates must be submitted by at least one Member State, in accordance with the ongoing practice”

Additional language should be added in this year’s AHWG resolution to explicitly call for states to only consider nominating qualified female candidates and to encourage states to work together, cross region, to submit nominations.

5. SG Selection: transparency in the SC

The GA should call for the Security Council to enhance transparency during its deliberations on candidates. In particular, the practice of straw polls whose results are not officially disclosed casts a shadow over the process and should be curtailed.

This year’s AHWG resolution should call on the President of the Security Council to keep all Member States and the public well informed at all stages of the SG selection process, including by circulating the results of any straw poll or similar deliberative mechanism to promote principles of transparency and inclusivity.

6. SG selection: interruptions to term of office

It is long overdue that measures be put in place and clearly communicated to ensure the smooth running of the organization should the hypothetical situation arise whereby a Secretary-General becomes unable to discharge their duties. The process to govern such circumstances should be transparent, predictable and geared towards returning to standard operating practices as soon as possible.

Awareness should be raised of Res 52/12 B, which establishes the role of the Deputy Secretary General, and enables the postholder to receive the delegated powers of the Secretary General under certain conditions. Interim arrangements should be utilised only for as long as is necessary to carry out a robust selection process and appoint a new Secretary-General.

7. Executive Heads: much stronger language on ringfencing

Ringfencing - the continued practice of appointing individuals from specific states to specific roles - damages the credibility of the United Nations, severely limits the pool of talent available, and fuels ongoing resentments from many nations that the organisation only represents powerful states. It is also in clear contravention of both the general provisions of the UN Charter and specific decisions of the General Assembly.

This year’s Ad Hoc Working Group resolution is a golden opportunity to address the issue more forcefully. States wanting to push this issue should include specific demands: for states to refrain from lobbying for their nationals to receive specific senior roles, and for the Secretary-General to explain, publicly and promptly, each and every time there is a deviation from the General Assembly’s clear position on this issue as laid out in a host of resolutions, including 46/232 which states that “as a general rule, no national of a Member State succeeded a national of that State in a senior post.”

This provision is intimately linked to the SG Selection process owing to the widely documented practice of states using their influence in the process to extract promises from candidates in return for their support. A call for all states to desist from such practices and all candidates not to engage with any such arrangement should be included in this year’s resolution.

A specific briefing by 1 for 8 Billion on this issue: “No backroom deals, an end to monopoly” is available here.

8. Executive Heads: transparency on term lengths of all senior officials

The absence of transparency surrounding senior appointments is damaging to the UN’s credibility and to the quality of its senior leadership. Without clear timelines for recruitment, global leaders of the calibre the UN needs cannot plan their potential candidacy.

In 2011 the JIU recommended that Secretaries-General make information on term limits public and in response Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted the argument in principle by declaring “The five-year rule will be applied across the board” - in other words that all subsequent appointments would be for a five-year term. However this has not been evident in subsequent practice.

The AHWG should push for transparency on term lengths of all senior officials.