Blair’s speech at Georgetown reitereated the UK’s support for the management reforms proposed by Kofi Annan earlier this year, but which are opposed by most developing nations as encroaching on the General Assembly’s oversight role.  (Watch the speech here.)

“We should give the UNSG new powers:  over the appointments in the Secretariat – it is absurd they have to be voted on, one by one, in the General Assembly;  and over how the resources of the UN are spent.  We should streamline radically the humanitarian and development operations so that the UN can act effectively as one agency in country:  single UN offices, with one leader, one country plan and one budget. 

Blair also called for stronger use by the Secretary General of Article 99 of the UN Charter to address global problems:

“We should also strengthen the UNSG’s powers to propose action to the Security Council for the resolution of long-standing disputes; and encourage him in doing so.”

Ambassador Allan Rock spoke to the UN Correspondents Association last week on Canada’s proposals for picking the next UNSG. He elaborated on his government’s five proposals to open up the process, including two which he feels can and should be implemented this year.

“Number one, let’s see if we can develop a consensus among member states that we should be looking for a one-term secretary-general – a single mandate.  Let’s talk about how long that mandate should be, let’s weigh the merits of that step – if it’s agreed, let’s adopt it. And number two, let’s have an open process this year, let’s encourage candidates to come forward, let’s talk about a deadline by which candidates should be identified, so we don’t have a November surprise.  Let’s have open fora with member states, meetings among candidates with regional groups, questions and answers so we can develop a feel for who these candidates are.  Let’s not keep it a secret.  Let’s not have it done in the backroom.  Let’s have it done in the open.  We believe the post is too important for us to take a different approach.”

Rock admitted that it was unlikely the world body could agree on a formal deadline this year, but that

“…if enough member states in the General Assembly make known their desire to be part of this process, to have the GA play its full role as contemplated by the Charter, I think we might politically get to the same result.”

On putting together the proposed public forums, he suggested the ease with which they could be organized within this year’s selection discussions.

“I observe just in passing that this past February, in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum managed to get persons who identify themselves as candidates onto a stage in front of an international audience to talk about their approach to the job.  Well if the World Economic Forum can do it, why can’t the General Assembly of the United Nations?  Why can’t we convene something at that lovely auditorium next door and put our candidates on the stage and have them make presentations and respond to questions?  Why can’t we have them come and visit regional groups, and develop their understanding of regional issues, and respond to sensitive questions?  Even if it’s only in private for the benefit of member states, we think that’s the way this task should be approached.  So we commend these proposals to the membership, and we very much hope that we can put at least those two in place for the current year.”

Questioned on why there appeared to be silence from other governments on Canada’s proposals, the Ambassador replied, “Canada does not intend to let this matter drop.  We intend to pursue the objectives we set for this year.” He said the government was encouraged by support it has received in closed sessions from “…very, very many states…that expressed impatience to have the General Assembly play its full role, and expressed their desire to see changes in place this year.” A recommendation from a committee discussing revitalization of the General Assembly is forthcoming, after which

“…it will be up to the PGA, the President of the General Assembly [Jan Eliasson], for example to convene or organize those public fora we’ve talked about, and engage in discussion with the Security Council about the other changes we’ve proposed.”

Rock underlined the importance of healing the divisions between states over management and other reforms that will face the next UNSG when he/she comes into office.

“…job number one for the next secretary-general commencing on January 1st will be to repair and address the cleavages that afflict this institution at this moment.  Whether in the context of management reform, mandate review, the proposed resolution on development, the spending cap on the budget, the member states are riven by divisions.  And those divisions have to be addressed if this institution is to be functional and successful.  And I believe that the first responsibility of the new secretary-general in January will be to address those divisions and bring member states together in common cause.  Not an easy task, but task number one.”

Rock noted his government’s view on other long-standing traditions, suggesting that regional rotation is “a contributing but not a controlling factor” in the selection process, and even that “if there’s a candidate from one of the P-5 countries who offers us outstanding leadership, and if it’s the will of the member states, I see no reason why that person should be barred from office.”

The last two weeks have seen a flurry of activity surrounding the selection process for the next UNSG, most of which involves a strong role for the General Assembly.

This year’s selection will be shaped more by calls for greater GA involvement than any other proposed change. The regional rotation tradition will be maintained either by intentional choice or by the fact that an Asian happens to be nominated for other reasons. And, unfortunately, despite governments’ commitment to gender equity, no one of the several proposed female nominees has yet to gain an endorsement from their or any other government. But the well-publicized consultations taking place between the rotating Security Council presidents and General Assembly President Jan Eliasson have already sustained the GA’s role in the selection process and the strong positions taken by India, Canada and other middle powers will strengthen it. 

In an op/ed piece, philanthropist and Open Society Institute founder George Soros backed GA involvement which others have advocated for reasons of fairness and democratic legitimacy, but on more practical grounds. Soros suggests that proposed administrative reforms, necessary in many observers’ minds but strongly criticized by developing countries, would be facilitated if the next UNSG could claim stronger backing by a GA more involved from the beginning.

The Secretary General has submitted a reasonable reform plan, but a majority of UN member states, acting together as the so-called G-77…object to the plan’s proposal to give increased powers and responsibilities to the Secretary General, whose selection is effectively in the hands of the Security Council’s five permanent members, which wield veto power.

The path to a satisfactory resolution is clear: give the General Assembly a greater role in the selection of the Secretary General so that members would be delegating powers to an authority of their own choosing. This solution would not only permit the much-needed administrative reforms to be implemented; it would also bring clarity and transparency to a process that is in great need of improvement.

Last week, Canada’s Ambassador Allan Rock stated that two key reforms – a single term of 5 or 7 years, and forums between candidates and regional representatives – could be implemented this year. Rock noted that “Canada will press for significant changes to the method of selecting the UN chief” and dismissed U.S. Ambassador John Bolton‘s suggestion of a Security Council monopoly of the process. 

“The General Assembly is the master of its own processes, and the General Assembly can make decisions, and ultimately makes the decision whether to appoint the candidate identified by the Security Council,” Rock said. 

Canada however has rejected calls by India and other developing countries for multiple nominees, as was circulated week, fearing it would split the membership and weaken the UNSG’s authority. A proposal under consideration by the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement at India’s initiative would call on the Security Council to present the General Assembly with a slate of three nominees for UNSG. U.S. Ambassdor John Bolton did not mince words in discouraging India from pursuing the proposal, suggesting it

“…would provoke a Charter crisis if they proceeded with that since obviously the General Assembly can’t tell the Security Council how to proceed.”

Update: I’m following up on a report by Mark Turner in today’s Financial Times that

“Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council yesterday rejected an Indian proposal to give more power to the General Assembly over the choice of the next secretary-general.

The UN’s top diplomat has traditionally been decided behind closed doors effectively by the permanent five council members, but India is seeking a resolution that would require them to offer the General Assembly a choice of names, rather than a fait accompli.”

Update II: Mark Leon Goldberg points out in the TPM Cafe that the Security Council’s rejection of the Indian proposal could intensify the animosity between wealthy and less-wealthy countries and make a financial crisis more likely this June.

Update III: The June financial crisis appears to be on hold – at least until September 30.

The East European challenge to Asia’s “turn” in the regional rotation appears to have lost steam.

Both Poland’s Aleksander Kwasniewski and Latvia’s Vaira Vike-Freiberg have pubicly acknowledged that their chances of getting a Security Council nomination are slim. Both were rumored to be supported strongly by the U.S. Unfortunately, while the U.S. was backing East Europeans as deserving of a shot in the regional rotation, it was, in the same breath, denouncing the system of rotation. Perhaps not the best strategy for advancing your preferred candidates’ chances.

Kwasniewski, who led Poland during the country’s support of the U.S. war in Iraq, suggested that “wavering White House support” could be due to the U.S. government’s difficulties there and falling approval ratings at home. “This (candidature) has turned into a shambles due to the situation in the White House,” Kwasniewski was quoted as saying by Poland’s PAP news agency.

During a visit last month by President Vike-Freiberg to Finland to discuss economic ties with her counterpart President Tarja Halonen – herself recommended for the top post – both recognized the virtual certainty that the next UNSG would be an Asian national.

A reporter asked the presidents whether they had decided which of them would be the next UN secretary general. Both replied by saying that it would be good if the next secretary general was a woman, but pointed out that Kofi Annan’s successor would probably hail from Asia.

Update: The response reported above did not reflect entirely the actual answer given by President Vike-Freiberg, according to her Press Secretary, Ms. Aiva Rozenberga. In a personal email, Ms. Rozenberga noted that, : 

“When asked about the possible next UNSG, President of FINLAND gave an aswer that is quoted in your web. President of LATVIA from her side said that she would like to see that a possible candidate of UNSG have to be seen first and foremost as to his/her`s personal qualities are and not the regional rotation aspect as the first principle. On the gender issue both presidents agreed that it is a time for a women at this high post as 60 years have passed without one and women are representing a half of a globe.”

Jose Ramos-Horta’s recent visit to Australia sparked heavy discussion on his possible candidacy. As reported here back in February, the East Timorese Foreign Minister is on the U.S. short list. Ramos-Horta noted that his meetings with U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and other U.S. State Department officials on the possibility have been positive, and that he has been approached by European governments about his candidancy.

Ramos-Horta has responded to questions about standing for office citing the demands of the office and his political obligations at home. He has also stated that, should he be asked, he would prefer to stand for election to the Presidency of East Timor than be UNSG and that East Timor would favor the ASEAN-endorsed candidate, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai. Should he throw his hat in the ring, he would be the fourth Asian to do so, and may soon be joined by others, including Indonesian Foreign Minister Noer Hassan Wirajuda.

But, while he may be backed by the U.S. and some European governments, a respected colleague suggests his chances of being accepted as Asia’s candidate is slim. Apparently, he is more widely perceived as an “European” than an “Asian.”

“I know from spending time in Asia in recent months that he is not taken seriously, nor considered an Asian. ASEAN has reservations about him generally — the not-unfamiliar story of a rebel spokesman who cannot translate easily to a government official [or so I’m told]. Timor Leste is also considered to be too insignificant and still too troubled to produce a world leader.”

ASEAN has been reluctant to admit East Timor as a member since the country’s independence, and Ramos-Horta was on the defensive while seeking continued UN police support regarding the recent riots there.

All this suggests either 1) a continued, entrenched inability of the region to come together on political questions, 2) a not-so-pretty prejudice within the Asian community over the candidate’s background, or 3) both.

Last month, Shashi Tharoor, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, opened the Committee on Information meeting at the UN urging reforms to restore public trust in the world body’s ideals and its actions. 

“One of our key challenges, therefore, is to close this gap and once again make the UN not only a symbol of our collective hope, but also a powerful instrument for translating that hope into everyday reality.”

Last week, Mr. Tharoor offered a penetrating look inside the UN that helps close the gap between the “ideal” and the “reality” of the office of the UNSG.  Tharoor’s acclaimed eloquence was undiminished in his bestowal of “the most impossible job on earth” – the reality part – with a sense of glory and reverence – the ideal.

“True, the secretary general has an unparalleled agenda-shaping authority. But he does not have the power to execute all his ideas, and he articulates a vision that only governments can fulfill. He moves the world, but he cannot direct it.”

As he described in each paragraph one impossible challenge after another, he yet left the reader inspired by those willing and entrusted to hold the office.

“The secretary general knows he can accomplish little without the support of members whose inaction on one issue or another he might otherwise want to denounce. He cannot afford to allow any frustration on any one issue to affect his ability to elicit cooperation from governments on a range of others.”

With three declared candidates and several potential but unannounced others (including Tharoor?), a number of reformers have lamented the lack of a formal job description for the UN’s top post. In closing, Tharoor offered a list of qualifications which makes any further effort pointless. 

“To be effective, [the UNSG] must be skilled at managing staff and budgets, gifted at public diplomacy (and its behind-the-scenes variant), and able to engage the loyalties of a wide array of external actors, including non-governmental organizations, business groups, and journalists.

He also must convince the nations of the poor and conflict-ridden South that their interests are uppermost in his mind while ensuring that he can work effectively with the wealthy and powerful North. He must recognize the power and the prerogatives of the Security Council, especially its five permanent members, while staying attentive to the priorities and passions of the General Assembly. And he must present member states with politically achievable proposals and implement his mandates within the means they provide him.

Above all, the secretary general needs a vision of the higher purpose of his office and an awareness of its potential and limitations. In other words, to be successful, he must conceive and project a vision of the UN as it should be, while administering and defending the organization as it is.

Truly an impossible job.”

Wow.

An open thread for readers: Which of the declared or undeclared candidates reflect these qualities or skills? Any? None?  

Unlike perhaps most diplomatic events, the discussion during the April 19th session on revitalizing the GA had its moments. Canada reaffirmed its leadership on the issue by elaborating on possible reform and urging practical action. The statement opposed amending Resolution 11/1, suggesting that doing so could divide the membership and weaken the next UNSG’s legitimacy.

But India disagreed forcefully, stating

“Resolution 11/1 of 1^st February, 1946 belongs to the past. Let the dead bury the dead…[W]hile the Canadian proposal is undoubtedly fruitful for the future, it is a blind alley for the present.”

The Indian ambassador, Nirupam Sen, suggested that Resolution 11/1 gave undue authority to the Security Council to pick a single nominee for the GA to consider, an authority which compromised the officeholder’s responsibility to a “broader UN membership.” Only through discarding Resolution 11/1 and allowing for multiple nominees presented for “direct and actual election” by the GA could a candidate “have the moral courage to resist pressures” from the P5.

Forceful, indeed. Inspirational even. But changes to Resolution 11/1 are not likely to be welcomed by a majority of the GA this year, let alone acted on by the Security Council.

Regardless of this divisive point, there is no disagreement that the wider process is “very confusing and unclear” (U.S. Ambassador John Bolton) or that the issue is “a matter of concern to many delegations” (Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima). 

As discussions get more firmly underway in June or July, the respective presidencies – France and Denmark – may be in a place to implement modest steps forward, such as informal discussions between candidates and regional groups. This single engagement could be implemented this summer with significant impact on the legitimacy of the selection process and of the next UNSG. 

The selection process would have been good when it was enunciated in 1945, Sen said. “Today the secretary general has to do much more…and therefore there is a need for a wider base of legitimacy.”

Mark Turner with the Financial Times writes today on the challenge being posed to the Security Council – and particularly to the P5 members – on their virtual monopoly in the UNSG selection process.

“At a General Assembly meeting, disgruntled second-tier nations will ask why the 15-member Council – and in particular the US, China, France, Russia and Britain – should secretly control the most important decision the organisation faces this year.”

Turner points out that Canada, with its “non-paper,” is driving this discussion. Michael Kovrig with the Canadian Permanent Mission alerted UNSG.org readers yesterday to Canada’s scheduled statement to the GA today, formally outlining specific proposals for improving the selection process. The text of the statement will be available on the mission’s website, www.canada-un.org.

Turner notes several proposed reforms that would enhance GA involvement in the process, including briefings by candidates to regional groups, multiple Security Council nominees and the possibility of the GA sending the nomination back to the Security Council and requesting an alternative candidate. He cautions that, “[p]rivately, many diplomats fear that it may already be too late to introduce any real change this time round, and that genuine reform will need to wait until 2011.” But the concern over the closed nature of the process is gaining voice.

“Jan Eliasson, president of the UN General Assembly and the incoming Swedish foreign minister, told the FT there was a ‘strong sense’ that the General Assembly’s role should become ‘more meaningful and more substantial than in earlier elections… I find it in the interests of the UN, and the next secretary-general, [that he or she] be appointed with as much legitimacy as possible,’ he said.”

The Ad Hoc Working Group on GA Revitalization will be meeting at 10:00am on Wednesday morning, April 19th, in closed session. On the agenda is the specific discussion of the General Assembly’s role in the selection of the Secretary-General.

The topic gained renewed interest with the Canadian “non-paper” and is reportedly an important principle under discussion within the Non-Aligned Movement.  

Thailand’s ETNA News and The Nation are reporting that the ASEAN endorsement for Surakiart’s UNSG candidacy is a key issue on the agenda for the organization’s retreat in Bali, Indonesia this week.

Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon will seek reassurance of ASEAN support for the Thai candidate vying for the UN Secretary-General post. Thai Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kitti Wasinondh said the issue is high on the agenda…

This is not unexpected, of course, given Thailand’s domestic political upheaval, but it may also be reflective of Surakiart’s struggling campaign outside the region. The government is hopeful that the ASEAN endorsement is reaffirmed. But the scheduled discussion may signal interest in reconsidering the endorsement. If so, it may be presented as a willingness to allow Surakiart to re-focus his energies on domestic partisan concerns, and consequently, as flexibility for ASEAN governments to consider other candidates. South Korea’s recent overtures to Indonesia on nuclear power may be one such interest.