A MONTH ago, The New York Times reported that jockeying for the selection of the next secretary-general of the United Nations had begun. The term of the present incumbent expires in 2016.

Diplomatic processes are notoriously slow.

The new momentum to open the process has begun. A coalition of nongovernmental organisations, supported by some former United Nations diplomats, is calling for a formal application process, including transparent selection criteria, an official shortlist of contenders, and a chance for all member states to evaluate the candidates.

Article 97 of UN's Charter says: 'The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organisation'.

Thus each of the P5 has a veto in the matter. This was a significant departure from Article 6 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provided that 'the Secretary General shall be appointed by the Council with the approval of the majority of the Assembly'.

It is true that, if he is to act as the CEO of the UN and perform the tasks conferred on him by the Security Council as also by the other organs of the UN, he must command the confidence of the P5, which is why Article 97 lays down that the Security Council must recommend the name to the General Assembly which then proceeds to appoint him.

The language used in Article 97 has given rise to a dispute. One view is that, the terminology notwithstanding, the Security Council's 'recommendation' is binding on the assembly.

This reduces its explicit power to appoint the secretary-general to a mere formality.

The other view is that while the assembly considers the Security Council's 'recommendation', the secretary-general is then 'appointed' by the Assembly.

A commentary on the UN Charter by two English barristers, Norman Bentwich and Andrew Martin in 1950 opined that the 'General Assembly is not bound by the Council's recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the Assembly must wait for a fresh recommendation; it cannot act on its own'.

This respects the authority of both organs, the Security Council as well as the General Assembly and, by clear implication, binds both to act cooperatively.

The coalition of NGOs rightly criticises the current practice as being 'significantly outdated'. It `falls far short of modern recruitment practices for high-level international appointments, as well as of the UN's own standards and ideals', the group said in a letter that it sent to heads of all 193 member states.

It added: 'A more open and inclusive selection process engaging all UN member states will also help to revitalise the UN and enhance its global authority'.

Unfortunately, the General Assembly cut its own hands early just after the Second World War.

On Jan 24, 1946 the assembly adopted Resolution 11(1) which said, "It would be desirable for the Security Council to proffer one candidate only for the consideration of the General Assembly, and for debate on the nomination in the General Assembly to be avoided. Both nomination and appointment should be discussed at private meetings, and a vote in either the Security Council or the General Assembly, if taken, should be by secret ballot".

The logic is impeccable. Public debate might impair the prestige of the person who is appointed. But it is unsound to stretch the logic to require the Council to 'proffer one candidate only' and thus reduce the assembly to a formal ratifying body. That resolution can be rescinded by another. It merely said that it was 'desirable', not mandatory, for the Council 'to proffer one candidate only'.

In 2001 there was a strong demand for amendment of resolution. As the chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, Malaysia circulated a draft amending the resolution which required the Security Council to recommend a panel of names to the General Assembly.

Canada tabled a similar paper. Sadly, the move did not go far enough.

Time has amply proved the damage which the assembly`s resolution of 1946 implicated on the United Nations. The Third World must join hands for its amendment.

As Dag Hammarskjold told the General Assembly in 1960, 'It is not the Soviet Union or indeed any other big powers who need the United Nations for their protection; it is all the others'.

He stood up for the right of the Third World and was killed, according to a book published in London, by the British government.

No secretary-general since has lived up to the standards which Dag Hammarskjold had set. The UN has changed a lot; its membership has expanded but its relevance has declined. It is for the Third World to restore the lost relevance.
by A.G. Noorani. The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
Published in the Dawn on Dec 06, 2014. http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailNews.ph...2_2014_009_013