Almost invisible to the general public, a major international election campaign is underway. It is the equivalent of primary time now, and candidates are flying quietly into New York, Washington, Beijing, Paris, Moscow and London, meeting with foreign ministers and other officials with little or no fanfare, and slipping out of town again, often denying they are running for anything at all. The job they are running for is, of course, secretary general of the UN; Kofi Annan’s term ends December 31. Historically, the job rotates by region, and by tradition it is Asia’s turn. But things are never simple at the UN, and other regions and nations are disputing Asia’s claim to the next ‘‘S-G’’. Eastern Europe, in particular, says that it now constitutes a separate regional grouping that emerged after the Cold War, and two people greatly popular in Washington, former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski and Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, have tossed their hats into the ring. But any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto the choice of secretary general (it was this power that President Bill Clinton wisely used in 1996 to block a second term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali), and Russia seems certain to oppose any candidate from what it still regards as its former ‘‘space’’.The US ambassador to the UN has said that the world body should not be bound by the rotation system; let the best man or woman be chosen. Nothing wrong with that theory, but, as with our own election system, certain traditions are difficult to discard. I seriously doubt that the Asians, having allowed Africa to hold the position for 15 straight years, and not having had an Asian secretary general for almost 40 years (since U. Thant of Burma in the 1960s), will allow the brass ring to pass them by again. Especially for China, the next S-G — who would be the first Asian in the post since Beijing took over the Chinese seat in 1972 — offers a major opportunity that coincides with their newly assertive diplomacy. And remember: no one who’s not acceptable to both Beijing and Washington can get this job, and the two countries have significantly different views of what the role of the UN should be. The Americans will presumably want a more assertive, reform-minded and interventionist secretary general.Bear in mind also that at the UN, Asia may not be what you think. It includes most of the Arab world and even Turkey, which has, in Kemal Dervis, currently head of the UNDP, an excellent dark-horse candidate respected by all.A handful of other names have begun to emerge. They include:— Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand’s deputy PM, has been running openly since last year and has visited dozens of capitals around the world. He has the formal endorsement of Asean, a solid base from which to launch a candidacy.— Ban Ki Moon, South Korea’s foreign minister, has excellent relations with Washington and Beijing. But would China accept someone from a treaty ally of the US, and a diplomat deeply engaged in six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear programmes?— Jose Ramos-Horta is foreign minister of East Timor — the newest nation in the world. Ramos-Horta is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and is well known internationally, but his country is tiny, with only 800,000 people.— Jayantha Dhanapala, a respected Sri Lankan, served as UN undersecretary general for disarmament and as ambassador to the US. He has been openly campaigning for over a year, but some question the selection of another UN bureaucrat right after Annan.The next S-G may not be on this list at all. The former PM of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, could, for example, emerge at the very end. Prince Zeid Raed Hussein, Jordanian ambassador to the UN, also deserves closer scrutiny. My guess is the final decision will not come until at least the end of September, during the annual convention of foreign leaders at the General Assembly. Then, with a deadline staring them in the face, the leaders of the Big Five and other major powers, including India and Japan, will get down to it. It is not coincidence that all secretaries general since the first (from Norway, but pre-NATO) have come from nonaligned countries (Sweden, Burma, Austria, Peru, Egypt, and Ghana). Big aligned countries tend to cancel each other out.The job does matter. A weak S-G means a weaker UN, and although that may please some die-hard UN-haters, the UN has been an important part of US foreign policy on many issues since the end of the Cold War. Right now, the Security Council is about to become a major focal point for the Iranian nuclear issue. The S-G can play an important role on such issues, and it is in the American interest, more often than not, to have a strong secretary general exerting pressure on reluctant or rogue states. The same may not be true of China. The drama coming up, especially between Beijing and Washington, will be interesting to follow, and will tell us a lot about both the future of the UN and the long-term intentions of China on the world stage.Richard Holbrooke was ambassador to the United Nations LA Times-Washington Post
