Security Council Report, which publishs in-depth monthly analyses on issues before the UN Security Council, has released a special research report on the appointment of the UNSG. The report is an informative introduction for those new to the topic but substantive enough for those with a strong familiarity with the process. It provides an oversight of the history, process and procedures surrounding the selection, including a history of past SG’s selections and terms, recent GA resolutions that could play out this year and the weakness of “traditions” such as regional rotation and the five-year term. (Trivia question: What does a red ballot signal during straw votes?)

For ease of understanding, the report is divided in seven sections, addressing the following core questions:

1) Who actually decides the appointment?
2) What is the selection process?
3) How important is the veto?
4) Can the length of the term of office be varied?
5) Are there any requirements relating to the timing of the decision?
6) Is there a requirement for regional rotation?
7) What is the status of the Deputy Secretary-General position and is it linked to the Secretary-General’s position?

The report is available in HTML, MS Word and Adobe PDF formats.

An observant reader reported (hat tip, db!) that the Canadian Permanent Mission to the UN today released a non-paper suggesting that a “more open and rigourous” selection process for the UNSG could involve changes this year, as well as discussions on later reforms. It was reportedly shared with other missions in New York this week.

At a time when member states are discussing the reform and renewal of so many aspects of the UN, it seems entirely appropriate that we should critically examine the way in which we choose the person who will serve as the organisation’s leader. This non-paper offers preliminary suggestions for a more transparent and open selection process aimed at ensuring that individuals with the right temperament, talents and judgment are identified and submitted to the General Assembly for consideration.

The non-paper recommends that the UNSG selection process could adopt practices currently used in the selection of the OECD Secretary General and the WTO Director General – processes that are “consultative, transparent and merit-based.”

Noting the recent World Economic Forum roundtable with Ban, Dhanapala, and Vīķe-Freiberga, the proposal concludes that “it would be regrettable if the WEF could organize such an event but we found ourselves unable to do the same here at the UN for the benefit of the very people who will make the selection.” It strongly recommends that this year’s selection process could involve

“…roundtables or public briefings…to provide a setting in which current and emerging candidates might introduce themselves to the UN community, discuss their experience and their achievements and explain their viewpoints and vision concerning the office of Secretary-General and the role of the UN in the years ahead. Such informal events might be convened under the joint auspices of the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, under circumstances that will encourage an informative but respectful exploration of the perspectives and positions of the candidates.”

Though the proposal stresses the authority and role of the Security Council in the selection process, there is an underlying insistence that the General Assembly’s role in the process be likewise respected, and that the larger body carefully

“…exercise its judgment in concluding that the person recommended by the Security Council merits appointment. The current practice does not provide for any means—formal or informal—by which the General Assembly can develop knowledge about the candidate(s) sufficient to allow it to exercise that judgment in an informed and responsible way. One of the key objectives of the changes we propose is to enable the General Assembly to make a decision based on relevant and reliable information.”

More substantive improvements, to be established later the paper suggests, should include a formal search committee to identify candidates, agreed upon qualifications, and informal sessions of the GA or regional groups to evaluate “the relative merits of the candidates, their approach to the office and their vision of the UN.”

Update: U.S. Ambassador John Bolton was asked about the Canadian proposals outside the Security Council chambers today:

Reporter: (inaudible) circulated yesterday, a proposal for changing the method for how the next Secretary General will be chosen. They’re basically proposing more active involvement with the General Assembly and there are other specific proposals out there. I wonder if the US government had a chance to review this document and if you had any initial reactions to it?

Ambassador Bolton (in his national capacity): We are reviewing it now. We certainly welcome constructive suggestions. We have already begun consultations in the Security Council this month on the selection of the next Secretary General. As you know, the Charter of the United Nations specifies that the Security Council takes the first action; and we have begun those consultations.

A short note… The New York Times and the Asian Age are reporting that Ban Ki Moon will formally announce his candidacy on Tuesday. More to come…

Update: The Korean government made its official announcement this morning, February 14^th:

“The government of the Republic of Korea has decided to present Mr. Ban Ki-moon, minister of foreign affairs and trade, as a candidate for the post of the next secretary-general of the United Nations. We will notify the Security Council of his candidacy, through a letter addressed to its President, once the Council officially commences the election process. “

According to the Korea Times, the Korean government decided last October to nominate Ban, “[b]ut the government has been conducting a ‘low-key’ campaigning as an early announcement of its candidate could trigger mudslinging and harsh media scrutiny.”

With the formal annoucement, Ban responded “I humbly accepted the government’s decision to field me as the candidate for the secretary-general in order to make available South Korea’s services to the development of the United Nations.”

Ban’s candidacy could be seen as a referendum on the international importance of continued negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. Ban has been heavily involved with the six-party talks and is seen as a keen moderator.

On whether a national from a divided nation would be seen as a qualified candidate, Ban responded, “Some people have even told me that it would be better to have somebody who has been in the middle of those kinds of complex issues, who will have to deal with the complex issues that the United Nations is facing.”

ABC Asia Pacific is confirming, as reported on this blog last week, that José Ramos-Horta, Foreign Minister of East Timor, is on the “short-list” of UNSG candidates.

Portuguese Foreign Minister Diogo Freitas do Amaral says he has been told by Portugal’s ambassador to the UN that Mr Horta’s name was on the shortlist.

Could Ambassador João Salgueiro be the colleague with whom U.S. Ambassador Bolton reportedly spoke about Ramos-Horta being the United States’ fall-back candidate?

What would you like to ask Surakiart Sathirathai, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga or José Ramos-Horta?

As candidates speak on the issues currently facing the UN, including reform challenges, development goals and terrorism, this is your chance to submit a question for UN beat reporters and civil society groups to pose to the candidates.

Questions could include:

Other questions remain, of course, and we invite you to help us ask them. Post here questions and issues you’d like see addressed by the candidates.

In this morning’s Washington Post, Richard Holbrooke summarizes the past few month’s events in the virtually unfollowed UNSG campaigns.

Almost invisible to the general public, a major international election campaign is underway. It is the equivalent of primary time now, and candidates are flying quietly into New York, Washington, Beijing, Paris, Moscow and London, meeting with foreign ministers and other officials with little or no fanfare, and slipping out of town again, often denying they are running for anything at all. Although most Americans have not yet heard of any of the candidates, the winner will instantly become a major world figure.

The job they are running for is, of course, secretary general of the United Nations…

Holbrooke provides the necessary emphasis on the challenge arising to Asia’s turn in the regional rotation from Eastern Europe, and expertly underscores it in terms of Chinese foreign policy.

I seriously doubt that the Asians, having allowed Africa to hold the position for 15 straight years (Boutros-Ghali and two terms for Kofi Annan), and not having had an Asian secretary general for almost 40 years (since U Thant of Burma in the 1960s), will allow the brass ring to pass them by again. Especially for China, the next S-G — who would be the first Asian in the post since Beijing took over the Chinese seat in 1972 — offers a major opportunity that coincides with their newly assertive diplomacy throughout the world. And remember: No one who is not acceptable to both Beijing and Washington can get this job…

Holbrooke reminds us of dark horse candidate Kemal Dervis (from Turkey), head of the UNDP since August, in the context of the Asia’s geographic reach. Well respected by all, his candidacy may provide an out to those who have committed to an Asian candidate (Turkey is technically in Asia) as well as the East Europeans (of which Turkey desparately wants to be the newest member). Of course, Mr. Dervis’s spokesman is making it known that his boss is not a candidate for the post.

Joining the no-longer-whispering crowds, Holbrooke also suggests that the selection of Annan’s succesor will take place much earlier than in previous turnovers, perhaps conveniently at the start of the UN General Assembly 61st session in September.

Though profiling the broadly known “front-runners,” Holbrooke reminds readers not to assume one of these will be The One. As mentioned elsewhere, he suggests that either Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore, or Prince Zeid Raed Hussein — “the deft and elegant young Jordanian ambassador to the UN” — may emerge as the compromise candidate. (Both Asian by the way!)

In the next day or two, UNSG.org will launch a new page that will track each Security Council member’s position on the selection process and rumored candidates.

On this note, I offer a sample… A colleague engaged in the ongoing UN reform discussions has shared the insider news that U.S. Ambassador John Bolton informed a fellow ambassador that, failing a viable East European bid for the post, the U.S. fall-back candidate could be José Ramos-Horta, currently the East Timorese Minister for Foreign Affairs & Cooperation. This could be the the first glimpse into where P5 governments may end up.

Look in tomorrow’s New York Sun for an article by Benny Avni on the UNSG race for which I just gave a brief interview.

Update: Here is the link to the February 3^rd article (hat tip to Rik). The article profiles this blog and includes a brief quote at the end on its contrast with the race’s usually opaque selection process.

I think it is fair to say that Ban is clearly in the running.

Although “[n]o official announcement had been made by the Korean government nominating Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon for the position of UN Secretary General” (email from ROK Embassy in Washington), the Minister’s diplomatic rounds apparently includes discussions of his prospective nomination.

Yesterday, Ghanan Minister for Foreign Affairs Nana Akufo-Addo discussed Ban’s candidacy over lunch with his Korean counterpart.

“We are aware that your excellency is a candidate for the position of secretary-general of the UN in succession to our illustrious compatriot, Kofi Annan,” Akufo-Addo told Ban. However, he said, Ghana would take a decision in concert with members of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and African Union. “We will keep your candidature under close scrutiny and continue to consult within the wider West African family, so that we can support a common candidate who will enjoy our common support for the good of the organization.”

A Korea Times article – while wrongly suggesting Ban would be the first Asian to head the UN if chosen – reports that the day after participating on a Davos panel with fellow candidates Vīķe-Freiberga and Dhanapala, Ban suggested his experience in inter-Korean negotiations “will help (me) perform in the U.N. secretary general post and become a good asset.”

(What the “(me)” originally was is unknown. The interview has not been reported elsewhere and an email inquiry to the paper bounced.)

More: During the January 17th press conference, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton noted that, during Minister Ban’s visit to New York, he and the Minister discusses a number of issues, his candidacy being one of them.

The audience at the Davos panel listened attentively to yesterday’s panel describing the UN’s numerous successes over the past decade and looming reform challenges, while patiently waiting to get to the crux of the event. The sole question from the audience – on what the three potential SG candidates participating would consider their top priorities if chosen as the next SG – is excerpted here from the full podcast. Speaking of the ongoing reforms, Kofi Annan remarked that, “…my successor — since I understand several members of this panel may be interested in the position — need not worry. Changing the mindset of the United Nations, so that it can both reflect and influence the temper of the times, is a never-ending challenge. There will plenty more work to do in the years and decades to come.”

Each candidate – in alphabetical order, as Minister Ban affably pointed out to the audience’s amusement – gave a brief response that emphasized the current UN reform efforts. While President Zedillo moderated expertly, one had to wonder whether Jim Lehrer simply wasn’t available for the international version of a campaign “debate”.

Minister Ban stressed the need for a cultural change in the management of the UN system, a responsiblity of both the Secretariat and member states. He suggested that the UN’s body of resolutions should be reviewed and reaffirmed according to today’s priorities, and that a high standard pf service and professionalism should be set for the UN civil service, emphasizing the desirability of introducing practices from the private sector.

Ambassador Dhanapala concured with Ban on the practicality of adopting some business practices, specifically citing the Gingrich-Mitchell report on UN reform, suggesting “there is a lot in that that could be looked at.” He emphasized the ownership of member states in making the institutional and necessary program reforms, which were to then be implemented by the SG. He also noted the threat of a North-South hiatus replacing the Cold War’s East-West divide, and the importance of addressing not just threats to the North, but also mobilizing resources to address poverty, disease and famine affecting developing countries.

President Vīķe-Freiberga noted the main responsibility of the UN in intervening in humanitarian crises as rapidly and efficiently as possible. She proscribed this responsibility not only in response to natural disasters but also to man-made tragedies, noting specifically the continuing massacre taking place in Darfur. The UN’s capabily to mobilize national resources in response is crucial, she stated. She emphasized the importance of meeting the Millenium Development Goals, which, in her opinion, would lessen the scale of other problems. Lastly, she called for improvement in the coordination among UN bodies, civil society and donors in development efforts.