On January 1st 2007, there should be a new UN Secretary-General. This position is extremely important as during the time of service of this new Secretary-General the future of the organization will have to be decided. Simply said, what was designed over sixty years ago by the small group of the alliance that believed it won in WWII does not represent the realities of today - neither in the real world nor in the Turtle Bay’s present 192 members’ club. We followed the process of selecting the new Secretary-General closely - inside and outside the UN.

Our last article on the subject, dated October 3, 2006, was titled New UN Secretary-General; Will He Be The Last Secretary-General?

On April 19, 2006, the Financial Times printed an article by our friend at the UN, the FT corespondent Mark Turner, in which he pointed out not the known unrest of developing-country delegations, the mainly post 1946 UN Members, but actually Canada and Sweden find also the selection system to be anachronistic, secretive, and we may add even conspiratorial.
The UN General Assembly wants to become more involved in the selection process, rather then continue to be called upon only as a rubber stamp to OK what was agreed by mainly the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Recognizing those stirrings among the UN Members, Ambassador Loj of Denmark, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, the President of the UN Security Council for the month of June, in one of her first actions informed Mr. Eliasson, President of the General Assembly and Foreign Minister of Sweden, that she has started the process for the selection of the next UNSG by calling upon Member States to “present candidates, nationals and/or non-nationals of that State, at any stage of the process,” the names to be registered officially starting “early July.”The fact that a national government has to propose the candidate comes here to exclude the sponsorship of candidacy by NGOs or other groups - but interestingly, she points out that a national government can also propose the candidacy of a non-national. This is an interesting possibility and some were suggesting that an enlightened State might propose Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest in Myanmar. It was generally accepted, according to UN precedent, that next UNSG will be a member of the Asian regional group, though this was contested by some members of the still existing East European and former Communist Countries regional group, that never got a shot at the UN Secretary General’s job. This old gentleman’ agreement has no standing in the UN Charter, and the US Ambassador made it clear that he does not believe in this practice, his suggestion is to look rather for the best candidate that might or might not come from Asia.
In effect several potential candidates were campaigning already by traveling to different countries and getting themselves known to various governments. it is said that the Korean Foreign Minister’s campaign started last year. Eventually by the time of the second Security Council straw poll there were five candidates and two then two new candidates joined -
Latvia’s President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the only non-Asian and the only woman, and former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani. Another woman, the President of Finland never entered the race. It was clear that when the decision is passed to the General Assembly there is no chance for a non-Asian, and at the time the Presidency of the General Assembly is in the hands of a woman, as Mr. Eliasson has been replaced in the mean-time by a woman from Bahrain, there is also no chance that a woman could win - the same goes for an Arab candidate. Also, there was much talk about a candidate from Singapore, in effect three different names were mentioned, but as long as there was a candidate from Thailand, according to an internal agreement between the ASEAN countries, no other candidate from among the members of that group could join. The fact that the Thai government was overthrown did not matter as the ruling officers declared that they continue to back the candidate and he thus did not withdraw.The fourth secretive straw poll, Monday October 2nd, under the chairmanship of the Ambassador from Japan, was decisive according to the resulting figures. Only the South Korean Foreign Minister, Ban Ki-Moon, had the minimum of nine positive recommendations and no negative votes from any of the five permanent members of the Security Council. In effect he got 14 out of the possible 15 votes. The hold out, a noncommittal but not negative vote, it is assumed came from Japan. His closest rival, Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the UN Undersecretary-General that was proposed by India, got three negative votes including one from a P5 country, and it is assumed that it came from China which most probably would have vetoed any Indian - even this mostly non-Indian Indian.Tuesday, October 3, 2006, as usual for a new Security Council President, Ambassador Kenzo Oshima from Japan, held a press briefing that started with the elections for the Secretary-General post. He said this will be one of the most important tasks awaiting Council action. “It would hold a private meeting on Monday, 9 October at 9:30 a,m. to make formal decision on the matter. That decision would then be conveyed to the General Assembly’s President and the UN membership at large.”Asked whether the Council intended to send a name to the Assembly on the same day that it formally voted, he said “it would depend on the outcome of the formal vote. As of yesterday, there were six names on the list.” This as only the withdrawal by the Government of Sri Lanka of the candidacy of Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, has reached him officially. This letter of withdrawal was made public already September 29, 2006, after the third straw poll. Asked whether there was a possibility of another candidate coming forward, he said “some candidates might decide to withdraw in light of the results, but it was up to each candidate.”

A correspondent asked: “What message would it send for advocates of transparency and United Nations reform that the UN would be given a SG chosen in a closed room club with no public discussion?” Responding, the SC President said he was aware of the criticism but “this year the candidates had gone out to regional group meetings at their invitation and had met in other forums, both in and out of the UN Headquarters.”

Asked to comment on the timing of North Korea’s announcement about a nuclear test following Japan’s ascension to the Presidency of the Security Council and a South Korean’ likelihood to assume the Secretary-General position, he noted that speaking as Japan’s Ambassador that the fact Japan and other governments had taken measures to implement UN Resolution 1625 sent a message to North Korea and that “today’s statement was not a proper response to language of resolution 1625.”

The following day it became known that Jordan recalled its envoy to Doha because it was offended that Qatar, the only Arab member of the Security Council chose the South Korean candidate over the Jordanian candidate.

Above gives us by the way an example of the intensity with which some countries pursue their goals to ascend to the 38th floor in the UN building and it makes it imperative to have more transparency if the process. In this respect the Asia Society Headquarters in New York City should be praised for entering this breach. As it seems that indeed it will be an Asian to head the UN - possibly for the next very important years, the Asia Society has made itself home to some of the contenders and we had the possibility to listen to three of the candidates:
to Mr. Sashi Taroor, to Mr. Ban Ki Moon, and to Mr. Ashraf Ghani, former Finance Minister of Afghanistan and presently head of the University of Kabul.From having listened to above three we are in the position to remark that while Sashi Tharoor and Ashraf Ghani were ready to volunteer visions of the future and came through as campaigners hoping to explain where they will want to lead the organization. Mr. Ashraf Ghani, the real outsider and latecomer to the process, was eager to show that he is thankful for this opportunity to bring his ideas and himself before an audience. He did not come from no-where. As an official at the World Bank he dealt with many countries and I learned that in effect China and Russia should be thankful to him for having helped them in their needs as he did to many developing countries. He was very well received by the Asia Society audience, and though we had the feeling that the job may have already been taken, nevertheless everybody in the room is rooting that his talents be used by next UN administration in some form. From the World Bank he went back to Afghanistan to help build his country, he made it clear that education should be the highest priority of the developing countries in order to help them enter the small leading group of developed countries. Without a strong education system he said, that while advancing economically, developing countries fall in effect back compared to countries of higher educational standing and the gasp for the majority of their people widens. That is why he spends his time now building the University, interestingly he said that he sends students rather to universities in the south, and binds them to contracts such as having to return one year service to the country for each year they studies. He wants to make sure they indeed come back and help their country. I had the feeling that he could have been an excellent UNSG for those interested in Sustainable Development.Sashi Tharoor is a very good blend of insider-outsider, though clearly a UN insider he nevertheless could take the UN achievements and build on them when trying to improve the organization. He does know the problems and needs of Sustainable Development and the fact that establishing this way of thinking is an imperative for sanity and the long term future of the world. He also would have been a good choice for UNSG and he was the preferred choice of SustainabiliTank.infoThe following Photos of Sashi Tarror and Ashraf Ghani were taken by Pincas Jawetz at the Asia Society in New York City.

Mr. Ban Ki-Moon was presented to the Asia Society in the format of a discussion with excellent UN New York Times and International Herald Tribune UN office chief Warren Hoge, followed by questions from the audience. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon came through as a clear diplomat who is not out to win points but rather to make sure he does not make enemies.
He seemed to be the person who stands to lose so he will offer now very little. He may be the ideal candidate from the US point of view, but on the other hand he promises that everything under his leadership will tend to be done by consensus. Is this just an appearance at the time of the election campaign? We tend to think that this is rather the man. His self description is that he is a different kind of leader who may seem soft but is inside tough. Will he be able to solve the world’s problems by talking them into submission? We wish he succeeds but we know that the likes of Darfur in Sudan will not be dealt with fast enough so the people do not die before action is started - but is this any different from what goes on at this time?To my question about what he will do with the short time problem of Islamic backed terrorism, and the long range problem of Global Warming, he answered that we should not define the first problem the way I did it, and so far as the long range problem he addressed as a question of development leaving me wondering about Sustainable Development. When I continued to talk with Mr. Ban Ki-Moon after the meeting was over I felt that he will be ready to look at this later on. In a span of ten years - there is no way that this subject will not sit on the desktop.
Having watched the process of selecting the UNSG, I could not hold back from not adding to my photos here also the picture I took on the Dag Hammarskjold Plaza on the Wednesday before the third straw poll at the SC - the neatly organized bundles.
So where do we stand now?At this moment there are three candidates left. Sashi Tharoor, Prince Zeid Bin Hussain, the descendent of Muhammad, Ambassador to the UN from Jordan, and Surakiart Sathirathai of Thailand have withdrawn, and only Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and the two late entrants are still left.

“Tharoor bowed out with enhanced prestige for himself and India”
writes the REDIFF India Abroad.
October 04, 2006, with an interesting list of related articles and a view of what went on.

Related Articles:

• The lesson from New York
• Moon shines at UN, Tharoor quits race
• ‘I entered the race because of my devotion to UN’
• Coverage: Tharoor’s race for the UN Secretary General
• The man who will be secretary general

More than a year ago, a seasoned Indian diplomat, with vast experience of the UN, told me that the entry of the South Korean foreign minister in the race for the UN secretary general meant that a deal was already struck on the next chief of the UN.

His logic was that, for political reasons, the US would be happy with a South Korean secretary general and that South Korea would pursue the candidature with dogged determination and achieve its goal with all the resources at its disposal.

At that time, two other formidable candidates, one from Thailand and another from Sri Lanka, were already in the field. It was also known that several others, including the Latvian president and a Jordanian prince were waiting in the wings.

Shashi Tharoor’s candidature, in these circumstances, appeared unviable, particularly since there was no great enthusiasm for a member of the Kofi Annan team, which was under the shadow of the oil-for-food scandal. The general understanding that the secretary general should come from small, neutral, non-controversial and non-nuclear weapon states was yet another hurdle. India was also not keen to detract from its pursuit of the permanent membership of the Security Council by starting another campaign.

The compelling factor for India’s candidature was the availability of an exceptional candidate in the person of Shashi Tharoor. His impeccable reputation as an international civil servant, his stature as a thinker and writer, his deep commitment to UN reforms, his care and concern for his motherland, despite his long residence abroad made him an ideal candidate.

Many members of the UN, including some permanent members, encouraged him to enter the race. It would have been unconscionable for India not to offer such a candidate, when it was Asia’s turn to provide the next secretary general. Clearly, it was a gamble, but it was worth the risk. India entered the race with no illusions either about its own acceptability or Tharoor’s chances.

Tharoor bowed out of the race on October 2 with enhanced prestige for himself and for India. India and Tharoor played the game by the rules, with a dignified campaign. The results revealed the reality of the system, which ensures that only a person, who is acceptable primarily to the United States and then to the other permanent members, can become the UN chief.

Ban Ki-Moon, who had endeared himself to the US, first as South Korea’s ambassador in Washington, DC, and later as a competent participant in the six-nation conference on North Korea, had a clear edge over the others.

The US still tested the waters about Jordan and Latvia, its other favorites, but found that they were non-starters and quickly joined the other permanent members in backing Moon. South Korea’s aggressive campaign, allegedly with multi-million dollar trade and aid deals, guaranteed the support of most of the non-permanent members. There was nothing that India or Tharoor could do to counter the trend.

Apart from mustering more than the required majority with a single veto, the Tharoor quest contributed to a certain extent to the transparency of the election process. He articulated his vision of the UN with consummate skill and defended the organization with exceptional enthusiasm. He drove home the point that he was in the race not as a saviour of the UN, but as an admirer of its achievements, who felt that it needed to be supported and nurtured by reforming and invigorating it. His ideas for reform will outlast his campaign and help the new dispensation to shape the UN of the future.

Strictly in terms of votes, Tharoor did much better than the others, including a serving president, a former deputy prime minister, a popular prince and a seasoned diplomat, all of whom fulfilled the established criteria and even enjoyed the backing of the permanent members.

No one can say definitely who vetoed him, but the intelligent guess is that it was the United States, which had never been inclined towards Tharoor, even though he had his supporters in the US Congress, the intelligentsia and the press. Some of them had made representations to the Bush administration in his favor. The new warmth in India-US relations did not permeate to the election process.

China, on the other hand, made it known that it would vote for all Asian candidates at the straw poll stage. It did not have to take the painful decision of favoring one Asian candidate, as the US was quite willing to bell the cat.

If anything went wrong about India’s quest for the post of UN secretary general, it was the undue expectations that the candidature raised in the minds of the Indian people, leading to charges of illusions of grandeur, wrong policy and inefficacy of our diplomatic machinery. The media lapped up the ebullient, media savvy, articulate and photogenic Tharoor and declared him the winner.

If his candidature was projected as India’s offer to the world as the best candidate it had, without making it appear as though India had a great stake in his success, Tharoor’s performance in the elections would have come more as a welcome surprise rather than as a disappointing setback. India rose solidly to support him, but it did not have even one vote.

Happily, the Tharoor candidature will have no adverse impact either on India’s aspiration to become a permanent member or on India’s relations with the United States. On the other hand, the race has demonstrated India’s potential as a major player in any arena. As for Tharoor himself, with his added stature as the runner-up to the highest position in the United Nations, the sky is the limit, whether he stays in the UN or not.

It was said of Pandit Nehru, the hero of Tharoor’s only biographical work that if he had not become prime minister of India, he would have won the Nobel Prize for literature. Perhaps, his present situation is a blessing in disguise for Tharoor himself and the world of literature.

Tharoor wrote to me soon after he withdrew from the race that he had no regrets. India too should have no regrets for having backed one of its eminent sons.

T P Sreenivasan, who recently retired from the Indian Foreign Service, was India’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Vienna, and former governor for India, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

After the straw poll, China’s Permanent Representative Wang Guangya said, ‘It is quite clear from Monday’s straw poll that Minister Ban Ki-Moon is the candidate the Security Council will recommend to the General Assembly.’

A new candidate can still come forward. But nobody expects such a move. United States Ambassador John Bolton noted that new candidates could still come forward but said he would be surprised if any did before Monday.

Now, with the withdrawal of the Thai candidate, will Singapore make their move? In our opinion this is still a viable question even as we see that the US and China are quite happy with the outlook of having a Ban Ki-Moon UN Administration. We are not sure that this is also the case for the UK and France - will they encourage now Singapore to make the move?

Looking at South Korea’s reaction:

Will the developing countries be happy with the above? Can one be assured that when the name comes before the UNGA that this time, like in previous years, they will rubber stamp the UNSC submission? Is there going to be a debate and new names suggested at the GA? It does not seem likely but let us not forget - IT IS POSSIBLE.