inside the glass house

Asian rivalry reinvents race for UN top post
NEW YORK - The hottest seat in the United Nations these days is perhaps not in the 38th floor offices of the Secretary-General but in the ornate chamber of the Security Council: the only body in the Organisation exercising the right to declare war and peace, and also impose crippling mandatory sanctions on member states.

Theoretically, the Secretary-General is only the servant of the 15-member Security Council and the 191-member General Assembly, and most of the time, called upon to do their bidding. The restrained powers are best reflected — but still overexaggerated — in the oft-quoted cliche that the UN Secretary-General is more a secretary than a five-star general.
But even within the Security Council, the power structure is politically uneven. The powers of the 10 rotating, non-permanent members, elected for two-year terms, are completely overshadowed by the five permanent members (P-5), namely the US, France, Britain, China and Russia, which are armed with veto powers.

But four member states — India, Japan, Brazil and Germany — have been knocking at the Security Council door to claim a seat each to join the existing P-5. But they have remained so close — and yet so far — from their political goal. The 191 member states are so sharply divided on who should, and who shouldn't, get a permanent seat that the whole process of restructuring the Security Council has come to a virtual dead halt.
So, what do you do when that covetous permanent seat in the Security Council remains elusive? The two Asian contenders for that seat – namely India and Japan — may be looking for a seat elsewhere: a seat now held by outgoing Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Publicly, the Japanese have said they are not interested in the job despite the fact that Asia's regional claim to the job has been endorsed by three powerful groups at the UN: the 53-member African Group, the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the 54-member Asian Group. Unless the veto-powered Americans keep pushing for an Eastern European, the next Secretary-General should be from Asia, a claim also endorsed by the veto-wielding Chinese.

The Japanese are still focused on a permanent seat in the Security Council and are hopeful they can pull it off — if not in the company of India, Germany and Brazil, at least on their own political steam. But if they do eventually give up hopes for a Security Council seat before the end of the year, will they decide to stake their claims for the job of Secretary-General?
According to a time-honoured tradition-- but not reflected in the UN charter — the job of Secretary-General should not be held by any of the world's major political or economic powers ruling out countries such as the US, Japan, China, Germany, France, Russia and Britain. As a result, former incumbents have come from Norway, Sweden, Austria, Peru, Egypt and Ghana.

But that tradition can be broken because it is not cast in stone. Japan, which is the second largest contributor to the UN's regular budget accounting for about 20 percent of the funds, has been exceptionally aggressive in demanding high level jobs in a donor-driven world body. But the Japanese are also conscious of the fact that if China has plans to veto Japan's permanent membership in the Security Council, the Chinese can also wield that same veto against a Japanese becoming Secretary-General.
If Japan is ruled out, what of India? The first shot was fired last week by a former Indian diplomat who has served both in New York and Washington DC. In an article in an Indian newspaper, ex-Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan laid out a possible scenario, perhaps reflecting the unannounced views of the upper echelons of the Indian foreign service.

In testing the political waters, he singled out current Under-Secretary-General for Public Information, Shashi Tharoor, the highest-ranking Indian in the Secretariat, as a possible candidate. So far, India has not publicly committed itself to any of the three declared Asian candidates running for the job: former Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka; Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.

"The dilemma for India is not about finding a suitable candidate to put forward," writes Sreenivasan. "It is about the incompatibility between seeking a candidature and aspiring to become a permanent member". In its quest for a permanent seat, India's major problem is to secure a two-thirds majority in the 191-member General Assembly. "But since that does not seem to be in the realm of possibility", argues Sreenivasan, "we should not give up the option of putting up a candidate for the post of secretary-general".

Since India has been cozying up to the Americans with its nuclear deal — and more importantly with its open criticism of Iran's nuclear ambitions — "the US is not likely to veto an Indian," predicts Sreenivasan. "A good Indian candidate, with the firm backing of the government, may become an irresistible choice. The time has come for us to test the waters," writes Sreenivasn.

But the unknown factor is the Chinese veto. Although China has continuously re-affirmed its support for an Asian as the next UN chief, it may have second thoughts about an Indian Secretary-General, particularly at a time when the US is strengthening its political and military relationship with India as a counterweight to China.

At the same time, China has also suggested that the Security Council should perhaps provide a slate of Asian candidates — not just one candidate as in the past — so that the General Assembly will decide who the next Secretary-General should be.

Coincidentally, or perhaps with deliberate intention, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Nirupam Sen, argued last week that the selection process is far too important to be left entirely to the Security Council.
Sen, the former Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, has proposed that "it would be desirable for the Security Council to proffer a panel of at least three candidates for the consideration of the General Assembly."

It is not for the General Assembly to send any names to the Security Council, he said. It is for the Security Council to send a panel of names to the General Assembly which is the deciding authority, as clearly mandated by the UN Charter.

If the proposal is accepted, the three Asian candidates currently in the running will have a formidable task before them: the arduous job of canvassing, not just the 15 members of the Security Council, but all 191 members in the General Assembly. And if the voting is by secret ballot, it would be anybody's guess as to who will be the next Secretary General.

Back to Columns