The hunt for the next UNSG and what it means for the world

Although overshadowed to a large extent by the US presidential race 2016, the selection process for the next UNSG is well underway, having already completed one round of informal dialogues between the candidates and the UN member states on the 29th March 2016 and a subsequent round scheduled for the 7th June. As opposed to the hitherto archaic closed-door selection process, primarily by the P5 of the Security Council, this year marks a democratic shift by opening up the selection ritual to the UN member states and civil societies. It is indeed heartening to see 9 year old kids pose questions to the candidates in the fray for the UN top job.

It is common knowledge that the US is the biggest donor to the UN, [~22% of the UN regular budget] so much so that the US features as a separate category in itself among “Other major contributors”, “Middle contributors” and “Rest of the Membership” in the UN budget contribution chart. Given this leverage Washington holds on the UN, it is imperative that there exist a cordial relationship between the two. But Beltway’s apathy towards the UN has largely remained a fact, given the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2011 incursion in Libya to name a few. It is coincidental that the US Presidential elections and the UNSG elections fall just 2 months apart this year. The consequences of the outcomes of these two elections would probably fall at the two extreme ends of the black-white spectrum, leaving very little gray area in the middle. The upshot of these elections could be as far reaching as to threaten the very existence of the UN, or to strip away the last vestiges of power it possesses, if it does manage to survive. On the flip side, it could bring about an evolutionary change vis-à-vis women’s empowerment and probably a little more authority to the UN. As is always the case, the benedictions and the maledictions balance each other out and ultimately, one prevails over the other.

Let’s analyze a few important combinations of outcomes surrounding the UNSG and the US Presidential election. First one, to start off on a pleasant note, a Democratic President or the first woman POTUS [read Hillary Clinton] and a woman UNSG, another first of its kind, would probably be the most desirable outcome for two reasons – women at the helm of an international organization and a powerful country would truly be a hallmark of how far we have, as a civilization, progressed in promoting women’s rights and gender equality. Also, that the US would choose a woman president following its first ever black President would strongly signify that discrimination basis gender and colour is a relic of a bygone age. This would set a huge precedent to the rest of the democratic countries around the world, and India could certainly take a leaf out of such an outcome to encourage women’s participation in contemporary politics and policymaking even further. To that extent, there have already been 5 women nominees out of 11 for the post of UNSG, 3 of whom are from the Eastern Europe since it’s their turn to nominate a UNSG in the informal cycle that the UN maintains and it also happens to be a region that has never produced a UNSG.

The second combination, a Republican President [read Trump Presidency] and a woman/man UNSG – the isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric that has prevailed Trump’s campaign, not to mention the Republican tendency to flaunt the country’s military prowess, are antithetical to the UN values. When Ted Cruz, a former 2016 Republican Party presidential candidate, wanted to nominate someone like John Bolton to be his Secretary of the State, that should have sent alarm bells ringing at Turtle Bay. Bolton, a former USUN [The US Permanent Representative to the UN], is famous to have remarked, “If you lopped off the top 10 floors of the UN, you would not see a difference in the world policy”. I will leave it to your imagination as to how a Trump Secretary of State’s interests would align with the UN.

The UN might face its toughest moments under a Trump Presidency. His isolationist rhetoric, if implemented, is capable of creating power vacuums in regions with heavy US military presence. Now it would be left to the UN to forfend any internal strife or conflicts in those sensitive areas. It is indeed ironic that the UN would be deprived of key resources just when it would need them the most.

P.S : A global campaign, 1 for 7 billion[www.1for7billion.org], supported by various NGO’s and individuals across the world is campaigning to get the best UN Secretary General. Their mission has found acceptance among the likes of Kofi Annan and several other international organizations like Amnesty International etc.