New York, 24 October 2006 – The UNSGselection.org campaign groups met on 11 October to assess the Secretary-General selection process this year and identify remaining needs for improving the process. The range of positions is shown in the Meeting Summary and Detailed Record below.

We welcome additional perspectives, comments, and insights from all observers of this process.

Summary:

• Some participants thought that the level of transparency of this year’s selection process was higher than in the past, but still not enough. Further, any further improvements can not be seen as safe or guaranteed without a binding decision about specific the elements of transparency in the process.
• Regarding regional rotation, participants discussed problems with both the principle and its implementation, the choice between automatic rotation and a less binding principle, and what to expect next time from various regions vying for a seat.
• Human rights groups shared their impressions of Ban Ki-moon. Other possible indicators of his positions as Secretary-General were also observed.
• Participants spoke of the lack of attention to gender equality in the process. A discussion followed about why this was the case and how better to address it next time.
• We reviewed the strategies of the individual candidates’ strategies, noted how they changed this year compared to in the past, and considered how they might need to change further in the future.
• We discussed possible roles for the General Assembly in ensuring long-term change, and exchanged general observations on the selection process – why the timing was rushed, whether the changes have set a precedent, the advantages and difficulties of a search committee.
• Finally, we considered possible upcoming tasks for the campaign.

Detailed Record of Discussion:

• The first speaker described this year’s process as having been more open than in the past. Notable examples of transparency were the communication between the President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly, the revealing of straw poll scores, and the early date at which the leading candidate presented himself, allowing for better evaluation of his qualifications and background.
• The next speaker noted that Shashi Tharoor entered the race relatively late, and Prince Zeid and others came out even later. This raises the question, what was their strategy?
• Another doubt about this year’s transparency was voiced: Does the Council’s secrecy about who voted for whom, and what deals were made, help anybody? Why does it need to continue?
• A representative from a human rights group mentioned a meeting with Ban at which he spoke in very general terms about human rights issues. For example, while he spoke in favor of the Responsibility to Protect, he did not have plans or suggestions for specific action on Darfur.
• Another participant commented that the selection process is confusing, and therefore it is hard to tell what the candidates’ strategies should be.
• This was a frustrating process, said another participant, especially regarding gender equality and women’s human rights. This person asked, how can people be mobilized to feel a sense of engagement in this process? How can we “crack it open” for popular access to the process?
• Another participant thought that this year’s selection was “just as bad” as in the past, in terms of transparency. When we really needed information, it was just as closed as it has always been.
• A related comment was that this year’s process was developed and managed through informal consultations, which effectively meant that each country had a veto. Informality, then, was an obstacle to a strong process.
• The next participant suggested that this was the first time that there was no apparent conflict among the Permanent Five on the Security Council over the candidate. The eventual nominee was always in the race and always in the lead. If the very first straw poll had used colored ballots, it would have been over then. But the process was extended, the person said, because France and the UK wanted a bigger pool of candidates. This is not necessarily because they didn’t like the leading candidate – and indeed, apparently he is acceptable to them, since he has now been nominated.
• Why did Ban do so well? One participant’s opinion is that he succeeded because the Korean government started actively campaigning late in 2005; their diplomatic machinery was mobilized heavily. This could mean that they made various promises, but it’s not necessarily true.
• Another participant said of regional rotation, that in general, it can be incorporated into the selection process in one of two ways – either there is automatic rotation from region to region in a prescribed order, or drawing from only one region is an option each time, but the pool is always open to candidates from any region. This speaker observed that as soon as a non-Asian (Vike-Freiberga) entered the pool this year, the Council members turned immediately to supporting Ban. This indicates that the U.S. priority was to have a non-Asian.
• It seems that Latvia made its decision to enter at the last minute, said the same speaker, while Zeid, on the other hand, had a strategy to let the dust settle after the first batch of candidates. But the old truism that he followed was disproved – it’s not always the last viable candidate in the ring who wins. These are some new lessons.
• This speaker also thought that the Security Council could claim credit for publicizing the process for the first time. But there still could have been more interaction between the President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly, and this was more the fault of the General Assembly and GA President (who was largely absent due to his other job) than the Security Council.
• Returning to the issue of regional rotation, a participant observed that until two years ago, regional rotation was expected to turn to Eastern Europe. But that group never presented a credible candidate, due largely to Russia’s threat of the veto. This is a big problem since an entire group of countries is eliminated.
• Another participant wondered why the Council decided to stick with an unusually early timeline for the straw polls and final decision, and why Bolton seemed insistent on moving quickly even though he also indicated that he had hoped for a better pool.
• The step taken this year of the Security Council requiring Member State nominations, needs to be reaffirmed, commented another participant.
• Taking a broader view, one participant suggested that the changes mentioned so far may not show an evolution of a process all; instead, it is possible that there is no process in place. Each time the selection happens, it is distinct, this participant noted, and thus any improvements in this year’s process do not necessarily amount to a precedent being set.
• The next person responded to this suggestion: I don’t think it’s possible to go back to a process in which nobody knew the candidates ahead of time.
• Another participant added, technically, it is true that there is nothing binding these steps into a continuous process or preventing them from reverting to the older way. However, it is unlikely that the Council will revert to that, due to the sensitivity that has evolved about Security Council legitimacy more generally.
• Someone else commented on the candidate pool: the difficulty of the job probably had the effect of discouraging the best people from putting their names forward.
• Another participant suggested that the Working Group on Revitalization of the General Assembly could be a good structure for the campaign to work within, in order to make some of the changes binding.
• If the GA wants to affect the process, said another participant, it needs to set a date a year ahead of time.
• Someone else responded that change via the GA would require establishing a Search Committee, and that it would need to start a couple of years ahead of time. We had constant feedback on the importance of not embarrassing a good candidate, so people prefer the secretive approach.
• The conversation turned back to regional rotation, with one person commented that it is not a real principle, because it skips Eastern Europe. This happened because China said it wanted an Asian and Russia supported that. But the E.E. group exists – it has seats on the Human Rights Council, etc. It was skipped only because of politics.
• Another lesson participants extracted was about the candidate strategy of denying interest in the position, avoiding the perception of being ambitious for it. Kemal Dervis, for example, insisted that he wanted to stay in his job at UNDP, and the Turkish government failed to nominate him formally.
• A further comment on Ban’s positions: Ban has said the right things on human rights, e.g. that he wants to build on Kofi’s legacy. The big question is the extent to which he’ll be willing to speak out when he needs to.
• Participants then began to consider actions that the campaign could take before Ban assumes office in January, including to address his term length. It was agreed by three people that a single term would afford him much greater independence while in office. When the GA makes its decision about approving Ban, it could approve him for only five years with the possibility of extending the term to six or seven at a later date. Participants considered whether to push for this with GA members; one person pointed out that China’s interests would need to be considered.
• Another near-future task for the campaign could be encouraging Ban to follow certain criteria in selecting a Deputy. Another person suggested that the campaign monitor the high-level posts that were rumored as trades for Ban’s nomination – whether or not they are filled by highly qualified people. Campaign groups could begin asking Ban about these posts after his confirmation.
• A further suggestion for the campaign was to ask Member States to make statements at his confirmation; the time before that meeting (two days away) is too short, however.
• One participant thought that the General Assembly should impose a waiting period of a few weeks before it made its decision, for a final opportunity to examine the candidate; this would allow for greater transparency in the GA’s decision-making.
• Another participant commented that South Korea’s campaign for Ban was unprecedented – that not even Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s campaign was of a comparable scale. It is interesting that the government of Korea maintained its independence on Security Council issues throughout the process, however, including opposition to membership expansion.
• The next speaker noted that when Ban was asked recently whether he anticipated taking the role of a secretary, or a general, he responded that Article 99 of the UN Charter requires the Secretary-General to be a leader.
• Another person commented on the reporting after the 1996 selection process, comparing the terminology describing Kofi Annan upon his appointment with how Ban is described now. It was very similar, saying that Annan needed to prove himself, that he was unlikely to take strong positions, etc. And yet he has become very outspoken on certain issues.
• Our position as a campaign, said the next speaker, should be in favor of the best-qualified person, not a certain region.
• Another person said, this time, there has been no deal for the next region. With Boutros-Ghali, there was an agreement on Asia for next time. This time, there has been no such thing, and we can’t predict what will happen. But politically, Latin America will want to push. Eastern Europe could also be viable.
• Russia would need to make political reforms in order for an Eastern European candidate to be possible, said another participant.
• It was announced that WFM-IGP would maintain the UNSGselection.org website, and welcomed cooperation with the broader campaign groups on archiving the events of the past year. The next area of focus for WFM-IGP itself will be the selection of the next President of the GA, which may be possible to influence based on the predicted regional rotation.
• Next time, said another participant, we should pay more attention to the gender issue. The goal should be to elevate gender equity to a higher issue at an earlier stage of the process. If we always talk about regional rotation, instead of gender rotation, inevitably tradition will trump change.
• What is to be done now, another speaker asked? Let’s not leave the gender aspect alone. Perhaps WEDO, Equality Now, and others with expertise on gender equality could hold a meeting on this issue.
• The final comment before concluding the meeting: the need to raise up gender equality in Secretary-General selection is all the more reason to set up a search committee.