On 9 February 2023, states in the General Assembly met to discuss the “Selection and appointment of the Secretary-General and other executive heads” - part of the programme of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly (AHWG).

Overall, UN Member States expressed strong support for the reforms adopted in previous sessions, particularly in 2015’s resolution 69/321 which transformed the Secretary-General (SG) selection process that followed in 2016. Member States valued the cooperation between the General Assembly and the Security Council to launch the process, as well as the dialogues with candidates held in the General Assembly. For most states, these reforms were merely the start; the meeting indicated considerable interest in additional reforms.

By far the most popular theme was the notable absence of a female SG in the organization’s 77 year history. There was notable interest in formalizing the timeline for the selection process as well as interest in a single term limit for future SGs and the recommendation by the Security Council of multiple candidates for the General Assembly to choose between.

The issue of “other executive heads” was addressed in less detail, and at times was grouped with the appointment of senior staff more generally. Most statements simply encouraged regional representation (with some specifying “regional rotation”) and gender balance in UN staff appointments. The issue of linguistic diversity was also mentioned by many states. Latin American countries intentionally delivered their statements in Spanish to emphasize this point.

Between May and August this year the AHWG will negotiate a new resolution with a focus on this portfolio. Due to the biennialization of this programme of work the next time the General Assembly will enact reforms on this issue will be late in the 79th session when the next Secretary-General selection process will either be officially underway or close to. Therefore this resolution is the final opportunity to establish reforms ahead of the political jockeying around the next Secretary-General selection process.

SG Selection

Female Representation: The issue of appointing a female SG was repeatedly addressed in the debate. The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group (ACT), Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), European Union (EU), and Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) all encouraged the nomination and consideration of female candidates for the role. Costa Rica, Poland, Dominican Republic, Nepal, Guatemala, Colombia, Argentina, and Ecuador also mentioned the issue in their national statements. Costa Rica had particularly powerful language on the issue, emphasizing that the exclusion of women was “not bad luck” but “intentional” and so the appointment of a woman must also be intentional.

Start Date and Timeline: There was considerable interest in establishing a timeline for the process. ACT, NAM, EU, and CANZ, representing a large majority of the UN’s membership, all used their group statements to call for a published schedule. ACT proposed specific dates for the various phases, including: October of the year preceding appointment for the joint letter from the Presidents of the Security Council and General Assembly kicking off the official process and March of the appointment year as the deadline for the submission of candidatures. NAM, CANZ, and the EU’s statements were less specific although NAM did encourage the SG to be appointed no later than one month before the start of the SG’s term.

In addition to the group statements, Argentina, Colombia, and Nepal called for a clear timetable, while Japan and Malaysia encouraged that a “provisional timeline” be developed. Nepal proposed that the timetable be established and circulated by the PGA and PSC. Singapore highlighted the need for sufficient lead time in the appointment process.

Single Term: Several states encouraged consideration of the longer, non-renewable term proposal. NAM and ACT encouraged discussion of the proposal. Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Nepal and South Africa promoted the idea in their national capacities.

Multiple Candidates: NAM and ACT encouraged the Security Council to consider submitting multiple candidates in their group statements. Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Nepal, Malaysia and South Africa encouraged this proposal in their national capacities.

Straw Polls: In their group statements, both ACT and NAM noted that the results of any straw poll conducted in the Security Council should be shared with all states.

Interruptions to Term: Only Costa Rica mentioned the issue of interruptions to an SG’s term of office. The representative encouraged the GA to establish a process to address this possibility.

Other— Funding: ACT called for the disclosure of candidates’ funding sources as a “sine qua non” of their candidacy. We believe this is the first time this issue has ever been raised in a formal AHWG meeting. 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 scrutinize possible conflicts of interest.

Other—General Assembly Secret Ballot: NAM encouraged the appointment of the SG by secret ballot, citing rule 141 of the UN Charter. NAM members South Africa and Nepal also mentioned the issue in their own statements.

Other executive heads

Ring Fencing: ACT emphasized that no position should be reserved for any Member State. Costa Rica also emphasized this point in its national statement suggesting that the General Assembly’s provisions on this issue should be enhanced. The Russian Federation also mentioned the issue in their statement although appeared skeptical as to whether the practice occurs at all. While some Member States encouraged regional representation, others encouraged “regional rotation.” Poland explicitly called for regional rotation in Secretary-General selection as a member of the Eastern European group, but did not specify a position regarding Executive Heads.

Term Length Transparency: The issue of transparency in the length of the term of Executive Heads was not specifically mentioned. However, ACT, NAM, and CANZ all encouraged transparency in the process of appointing Executive Heads more generally. Each had different proposals. ACT emphasized transparency and ending the practice of reserving certain posts for specific Member States. NAM encouraged an open call for nominations and interactive dialogues with candidates (discussed below). CANZ encouraged formal job descriptions and the publicization of job openings.

Other—Informal Dialogues with Executive Head Candidates: There was some discussion of whether the informal dialogues adopted in the SG selection process should be applied to candidates for Executive Head roles. NAM and some of its members were particularly supportive of this idea. ACT emphasized the SG’s independence in making these appointments, and CANZ noted that politicizing these offices might do more harm than good.

CSO Engagement: Civil society engagement in the selection process for the Secretary-General was encouraged by many Member States. ACT, the EU, as well as Nepal, Poland and the United Kingdom all made supportive remarks on civil society involvement. ACT suggested that civil society involvement should be strengthened in future processes and the UK identified civil society involvement in informal dialogues as an area for further improvements. The EU and Nepal also encouraged civil society involvement in the interactive dialogues.

1 for 8 Billion proposals and the Permanent Five (P5)

Most Member States were supportive of existing reforms and open to considering further changes, even if they did not endorse specific proposals. However, two Member States stood out in their opposition: the United States and Russian Federation.

The United States expressed support for the process established in 2015, and believed woman candidates should be considered in all future SG selection processes. However, the representative explicitly opposed three 1 for 8 Billion proposals: a single non-renewable term, the possibility of more than one candidate, and strict timelines or deadlines for the process.

The Russian Federation was skeptical of the need for a woman Secretary-General, arguing that gender was “far from the most important criteria.” The representative also criticized the interactive dialogues established in 2015. She instead encouraged holding these dialogues privately within the different regional groups, reviving a proposal Russia made during the debate over resolution 69/321.

The United Kingdom’s position was more supportive, particularly on the issues of gender and civil society involvement noted above. The other members of the P5, China and France, did not make statements during the debate. However, France’s position was reflected by the statement of the European Union.

Image: Co-Facilitators Ambassadors Mitch Fifield (Australia) and Egriselda López (El Salvador)

Please note, this article is intended to give a flavor of the meeting rather than a comprehensive report of all relevant statements made.