On Thursday 20 February states in the General Assembly called for significant improvements to the upcoming Secretary-General (SG) selection process. This meeting, under the auspices of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly, was the last formal member state discussion on this subject before negotiations on a resolution. The resolution is expected to be adopted in time to improve the upcoming SG selection process, expected to kick off in the final quarter of 2025.
Ahead of the meeting, 1 for 8 Billion circulated a discussion paper to UN member states suggesting the General Assembly reassert its primacy in the process through a range of reforms. We also advocated for a feminist woman SG, a more structured process and advanced planning around what to do if the Security Council cannot agree on a candidate (or cannot agree on a candidate that is acceptable to the General Assembly), and what to do in the instance of an interruption to an Secretary-General’s term of office.
During the member state discussion, five groups of states and 30 states in their national capacity delivered statements. The meeting was co-chaired by Ambassador Mathu Joyini and Ambassador Cornel Feruță, the Permanent Representatives of South Africa and Romania respectively. They will also co-facilitate the negotiations of the upcoming resolution.
Please find a readout of the 20 February meeting below.
Time for Madame Secretary-General
The most consistently raised issue was the need for a woman SG. After 80 years of male leadership there is overwhelming consensus that this needs to change with the upcoming appointment.
The emergent group of states coordinated by Mexico, Slovenia and Spain calling for improved representation of women in senior appointments made a strong statement focusing on the need for change in the two highest offices of the UN - the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General - describing the record as “dismal”. The statement, endorsed by 64 states (down from 78 states who endorsed their initial statement), included a reference to CEDAW General Recommendation 40, which, the group reminded delegates, “states that women must hold an equal number of senior and decision-making roles with the same influence across all sectors”.
On the issue of a woman SG, ASEAN used more emphatic language than in previous discussions, stating that the absence of a woman SG in the UN’s 80 year history is “a significant gap” and advising member states to “take practical steps to actively promote and nominate qualified women candidates, to foster a more inclusive and diverse leadership at the helm of the UN”.
But the most concrete call for a woman SG came from the 27-state-strong ACT Group, who matched forceful rhetoric in favour of a woman SG with a concrete proposal: “The ACT Group calls on Member States to consider only nominating women candidates” [emphasis added].
This is significant because it goes further than the consensus position, as seen in the Pact for the Future and elsewhere, which merely “encourages” states to “consider” nominating women candidates. Instead, the ACT Group suggests there should be an all-woman field of candidates - perhaps the simplest way to guarantee the appointment of a woman. Their statement went on to reference the aforementioned CEDAW guidance and ask that the joint letter from the Presidents of the Security Council and General Assembly (which triggers the beginning of the process) includes “an encouragement of women candidates”. Furthermore, to supplement their statement, ACT launched their 2025 Non-Paper, which elaborates on their reform agenda and includes a call “on members of the Security Council to prioritize the recommendation of women candidates to the General Assembly.”.
The EU highlighted the “highly regrettable” absence of a woman SG but made a less compelling policy suggestion in merely calling on states to “consider nominating women candidates”. The NAM statement did not raise the issue of a woman SG.
Notable national statements include Costa Rica, who said the election of a woman SG would “create a powerful opportunity to advance gender equality worldwide”; France, who said that the “selection and appointment process of the next mandate holder, based on the individual skills of each candidate, should give the rightful place to female candidates” and Kuwait, who said:
“It is unacceptable for the UN, which always calls for gender parity, remains to this very day without a woman Secretary-General thus we call on member states to nominate women candidates and promote their leadership positions - it is not just a priority for the organisation, it is a necessity, to ensure its leadership reflects its principles”.
The only country to question the validity of the push for a woman SG in this discussion was Russia. Their statement said “gender is one of the criteria, but it should not play a decisive role. If, for instance, there is only one woman on the list of candidates, then neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly would have a choice." This builds on previous Russian statements which cast the encouragement of women candidates as discriminatory against men.
The elephant in the room was the US, who did not speak in this meeting but whose new administration has been turning its attacks on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) into the UN sphere, demanding that UN bodies drop policies relating to DEI. Soon after taking office US President Trump fired the first female US Coast Guard chief, citing an “excessive” focus on DEI. It remains to be seen how this dynamic affects the upcoming selection process, however, it’s clear that, for the moment, a large swathe of member states continue to show vocal support for a woman SG.
Read the recent blog on the new CEDAW guidance by 1 for 8 Billion co-founder Natalie Samarasinghe
Regional competition heats up
Attempts to promote the case for the next SG to come from a particular region were in full swing. Latin American countries including Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay and Peru all made the case for their region providing the next Secretary-General, with many pointing out their region had only had one mandate holder while firmly suggesting that it was their region’s turn. Paraguay elaborated by suggesting that its region’s claim was elevated because the region is a “zone of peace and we have a history of being committed to peace dialogue, diversity and multilateralism and consensus”. While some Latin American countries spoke in favour of the next SG being from the wider GRULAC region, which includes Caribbean countries, no Caribbean member state spoke in the discussion. There has never been a Caribbean Secretary-General.
Members of the Eastern European Group (EEG) saw things differently. Latvia also promoted the need for regional rotation while Poland went further by reminding delegates that “there has never been an SG from the EEG” and stated that “candidates from the EEG including female candidates, should be given special consideration”. The diplomat further remarked: “In 2016, 9 EEG candidates including four female candidates were submitted for consideration[...]; none of them were selected”
1 for 8 Billion supports an open field of candidates from all regions, including candidates nominated jointly by countries from different regions, in order to build a strong and diverse field of candidates.
A more assertive General Assembly
The appetite for a stronger role for the General Assembly was widespread during the discussion. NAM raised the prospect of multiple candidates being recommended to the General Assembly to give the wider membership a meaningful choice, as well as a discussion about the desirability of a single non-renewable term of office for future Secretaries-General. NAM also insisted that the candidate hearings in the General Assembly were an “essential” part of the upcoming process which must be conducted irrespective of when the candidate is nominated - a statement surely intended to safeguard against the possibility of a candidate swooping in at the last minute and attempting to by-pass the formal process. NAM further made a distinction between the General Assembly informal dialogues and “Town Halls” suggesting that both of these were essential elements of the forthcoming process. The reference to townhalls could refer to the style of joint candidate hustings that were organised by the PGA in 2016 in partnership with Al Jazeera, or civil society hustings that were organised outside of the UN process.
ACT said the General Assembly should exert a “decisive” role in the upcoming process, while “strongly encouraging” the Security Council to recommend two or more candidates for the GA to choose between in their Non-Paper. Another concrete proposal was ACT’s suggestion that the General Assembly hold “secret advisory votes or a similar quantifiable mechanism” to give a clear assessment of the General Assembly’s views on each candidate before the Security Council begins its deliberations. ACT elaborated:
“The votes should be held by secret ballot, but the outcomes should be made public. This would ensure critical alignment between the two principal UN organs, and enhance the complementary roles assigned to both forums in the Charter.”
ACT also proposed that a new phase of “additional hearings with candidates” be scheduled in the General Assembly once the Security Council has made its recommendation.
1 for 8 Billion is calling for straw polls on candidates in the General Assembly before Security Council deliberations, and a vote by secret ballot on any recommendation(s) from the Security Council.
Transparency in the Security Council
NAM, ACT and a host of countries in their national capacity called for the Security Council to publish the results of straw polls or other deliberative mechanisms. Japan recalled their lessons learned during the 2016 deliberations and suggested that straw polls should be replaced with official votes at a private meetings of the Security Council. In contrast to straw polls, this would make it known to Security Council members who casts each vote. There is a strong likelihood that the results of either votes or straw polls would be leaked to the public. 1 for 8 Billion believe the results of any deliberative mechanism in the Security Council should be transparent to the wider UN membership and the public.
Transparency on candidate financing
A wide swathe of countries also called for a much stronger stance on disclosures around candidate financing, including ACT, which stated that it “expects all candidates to disclose any funding sources relating to their candidature”; and ASEAN, who described the disclosure of this information as “imperative”. The previous General Assembly resolution on this issue, adopted in 2023, asked for voluntary disclosures of candidature finances.
A more predictable, structured process
Many states, including NAM, ACT and the EU, all called for a clear timetable for the upcoming process. ACT called for October 2025 to be agreed as the month for sending out the joint letter which starts the process, while NAM also called for agreement on a start date.
Bracing for an anti-UN candidate?
States including Cuba and Poland explicitly identified support the objects and principles of the as key criteria for the next selection process. Kuwait talked about the need for the UN’s leadership to reflect its principles and Chile stated that it is a crucial decision as the UN’s leadership reflects the values and principles of the UN. ASEAN reiterated the requirement that the Secretary-General-designate takes an oath of office to ensure “that the individual entrusted with this important leadership role upholds the interests of the UN”.
While subtle, statements of this kind point towards states taking steps to safeguard against the prospect of an anti-UN candidate; someone predisposed against the organisation who may not be motivated to serve the interests of the UN Charter and the whole UN membership.
Read our briefing for more on 1 for 8 Billion’s policy positions
Image: Mathu Joyini, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations, co-chairs the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the General Assembly on 20 February 2025. © UN WebTV