Thalif Deen:

Almost 23 months before a new secretary-general takes office at the UN, there is already a vibrant debate on who should succeed incumbent Kofi Annan when he completes his second five-year term in Dec. 2006.

“The selection of the secretary-general is always important — as much for what the selection process says about the state of multilateralism and how major powers see the potential for the United Nations, as for who ends up getting selected,” says Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Don Kraus, executive director of the Campaign for UN Reform, told IPS that the US, like any permanent member of the UN Security Council, “should be more concerned about ensuring that whoever follows in the footsteps of the current secretary-general is able to command the trust and respect that this position requires.” So far, there are two declared candidates for the job — both with strong backing from their respective governments: Thai Foreign Minister Surakiat Sathirathai, who is relatively unknown and untested, and former UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, who has worked with the UN for over 10 years.

Since Asia hasn’t had a secretary-general for nearly 34 years, since Burma’s U Thant, Asian countries believe that one of their own should be elected as chief administrative officer of the world body when the final decision is made next year. Annan, who is from Ghana, has been serving as UN chief since Jan. 1997. But Bennis says she has her reservations on the issue of geography versus competency. “The notion that ‘the best man or woman’ should get the job, ignoring regional considerations, is an ideal, but one unlikely to be reflected in the real world.” The secretary-general has an enormous set of conflicting tasks, the most important of which is to shape the UN’s role in challenging the threats of war, often by the most powerful countries, she added.

Given the disparities of power and interest in the organisation, the willingness to make opposition to such war threats the centrepiece of UN policy should be the most important criteria for the secretary-general, wherever she or he may come from. “But given the realities of that same power, finding that individual may be difficult, but getting her or him approved by the US and its veto-wielding allies is likely to be virtually impossible,” said Bennis. The debate over the next secretary-general also comes at a time when the UN is at a crossroads facing charges of waste and mismanagement over the UN’s oil-for-food programme in Iraq and over its failure to resolve some of the ongoing crises in Africa.

Meanwhile, the UN is also debating a key report on UN reform on how best to restructure the world body to meet the needs of the 21st century. “So the next UN secretary-general will inherit monumental challenges. What the world needs is a secretary-general with experience who can command global respect. Most importantly, he or she must be of great stature and moral character, willing and able to show leadership in navigating the decade ahead. A person with vision,” Neuer said.

Neuer said the Bush administration will examine the person and also, especially as both candidates are closely tied to their capitals, the sponsoring country. One US official, he pointed out, has already been quoted as saying there was no way Washington would support Surakiat because Thailand is perceived as “a Chinese stooge”. Though Thailand did send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Thais made a point of disassociating themselves from US, asserting that the troops were being sent strictly under a UN mandate, he added. Kraus said that it is vital for the US to support Annan in his attempts to pursue the reform agenda and move into the 21st century.

The next UN chief, he said, must continue a process that addresses global poverty, rampant terrorism and growing nuclear proliferation. Bennis noted that it is a well-documented fact that every US administration has played a major role in imposing the candidate of its choice on the UN. She pointed out that the first Bush administration supported Boutros-Ghali, believing that the close US ties to Egypt would insure a malleable secretary-general. Several years later, when US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was lobbying to become secretary of state, she launched a hardball campaign against the prickly Boutros-Ghali — who had carried out virtually every “reform” demanded by Washington despite his tendency to talk back while doing so, Bennis said.

Annan was anointed by the US, and became secretary-general with the fear of many that he would be Washington’s man. “As it turned out, his tenure turned out to be more independent than many expected — somewhat the opposite from Boutros-Ghali. Annan was courtly and diplomatic with his and the UN’s worst enemies on Capitol Hill even while challenging much of their unilateralist tendencies,” Bennis added. Neuer said that if it is Asia’s turn for the next secretary-general it should perhaps consider gender-equality as well: “Why not choose Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi? Whatever she lacks in experience is more than compensated by her moral courage. Repressive Myanmar would never sponsor Suu Kyi, but what is to stop a neighbouring state from doing so? We need to start thinking out of the box,” Neuer added. — IPS