An international election that Canada can help to fix: Opinion
Canada is ideally suited to lead an effort to reform the way the United Nations chooses its secretary-general.
MANDEL NGAN / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: his term expires next year.
The emergence of potential candidates reminds
us that the 2016 race for the White House has already begun. Canadians
will watch the American contest in fascination and frustration, aware
that although the choice has momentous consequences for Canada, we are
mere spectators.
There is another important “foreign” election
in 2016, campaigning for which is also getting underway. But in this
one, Canadian leadership could have a profound impact on the result.
In 2016 Ban Ki-moon will complete his term as secretary-general of the United Nations.
At some point next year – no one knows when – a new secretary-general
will be nominated by the Security Council for approval by the UN General
Assembly. Canada could make a real difference, not by backing a
particular candidate, but rather by leading an effort now to reform the
flawed process by which that person is being selected.
At present, the secretary-general selection is
rather informal. There is no fixed procedure. There is no search
committee to identify promising candidates and encourage them to come
forward. There is no agreed list of required qualifications, nor is
there an opportunity for member states to ask questions of the
candidates. Any one of the Permanent Five (P5) members of the Security
Council can veto a candidate; hence their views on candidates matter
most. This leads to a good deal of backroom negotiation among the P5,
and it is in these negotiations that the real decision is made.
The only certainty is that at the beginning of 2017 a new secretary-general will be in place.
The Security Council will, when it chooses, put forward a candidate’s
name for a largely pro forma majority vote in the general assembly. Only
one name has ever gone forward to the general assembly – mocking the
notion that an “election” is taking place.
Such an opaque process is hardly guaranteed to
deliver the best candidate. It is, however, likely to produce someone
unduly beholden to the P5, which suits their purposes well. It has never
led to a woman being nominated.
An open process, engaging all member states
and offering a real choice, would strengthen the legitimacy of the next
secretary-general and make more probable the election of a person
qualified for one of the world’s most demanding – and important – jobs. A
fair and transparent process would also enhance the UN’s authority and
appeal, both of which are only undermined by the current, secretive
approach.
The good news is that a sizeable majority of
UN member states has voted in favour of change. The UN’s own review body
has joined those calls. Furthermore, a global campaign is forming,
under the moniker “1 for 7 Billion,” to push for choice and transparency
in the secretary-general election.
But while public pressure helps, only member
states can effect change. Canada is ideally suited to lead that effort.
One of the top contributors to the UN budget, Canada has a legitimate
stake in the issue. Although the current government has not always
appeared as enamored of the UN as its predecessors, both Prime Minister
Stephen Harper and former Foreign Minister John Baird have urged greater
transparency and the reform of outdated practices.
The precise elements of a new process will, of course, need to be worked out.
At a minimum, there should be clear,
merit-based selection criteria and an open call for nominations,
permitting member states and civil society to put forward names by an
established deadline. Both the general assembly and the Security Council
should then publish a list of candidates under consideration. The
candidates should make public their vision and priorities, and face
scrutiny in open sessions of the assembly. The Security Council should
be required to submit at least two names to the assembly for the vote
that will determine the next secretary-general.
Finally, the secretary-general should be
offered a single, non-renewable term of, say, seven years. This would
remove the need to campaign for re-election, and permit the
secretary-general to focus from the outset on implementing her or his
vision and plans.
Meanwhile, in New York, one can already see
the shadowy, secretive signs of the current, flawed process. Names are
being whispered. Would-be candidates are visiting P5 capitals to test
the waters. Their efforts will only accelerate during the year ahead, as
they curry favour with the five leaders who will choose our next
secretary-general.
Prime Minister Harper could speak out now to
demand a better, fairer process. He could put Canada’s name and
reputation behind the movement for change, and rally other nations to
the cause. And whether or not he wins re-election this year at home,
successfully bringing transparency and democracy to the election of a
new UN chief would be a legacy of which any politician could be proud.
David Petrasek
is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs, University of Ottawa. He was formerly Senior
Policy Director and Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of Amnesty
International.
Allan Rock is President of the University of Ottawa and a former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations.
