——————-

Yesterday was the deadline for nominations for Executive Director of UN Women. The candidates will succeed the organization’s first head, Michele Bachelet, who resigned suddenly in March to return home and stand for election to Chile’s presidency. 

Rebeca Grynpan

Lakshmi Puri

Radhika Coomaraswamy

Tarja Halonen

Kim Campbell

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda

At least six candidates are rumored to be under consideration.

Rebeca Grynspan is considered a strong contender and possibly the front runner for the post. Grynspan is the former Vice President of Costa Rica and currently serves as an Associate Administrator at UNDP. An elections official at the Costa Rican permanent mission in New York stated to Global Memo that the Latin American and Caribbean region is eager to keep the post. 

Lakshmi Puri is the current Acting Executive Director, stepping in shortly after Bachelet’s resignation. A source with a leading U.S. human rights group however suggests that few women’s rights groups see her as preferred successor to Bachelet. In December, her husband, Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, wrapped up his presence on the UN Security Council as India’s 2-year term on the body concluded. What impact his influence will have his wife’s candidacy and the selection is of particular interest.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the former special advisor to the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict, is looked upon more favorably by women’s groups, according to the same source. She had been under consideration in 2010. From Sri Lanka, she is currently a visiting scholar at New York University’s Center for Constitutional Transitions.

Tarja Halonen, former President of Finland, is also rumored to be a nominee. Like Coomaraswamy, she had also been nominated in 2010, but was not seriously considered as the Secretary General was reportedly seeking a woman from the Global South to head up the new agency initially.

Kim Campbell, the former and first female Prime Minister of Canada, confirmed she has been nominated by her government in mid-April after its leaked in Azerbaijani media reports. Ms. Campbell was the former board chair at the International Women’s Forum and the Council of Women World Leaders. She now sits on the board of the International Crisis Group. 

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda is currently the General Secretary of the World YWCA. She is a trained human rights lawyer from Zimbabwe with extensive experience in conflict resolution and mediation, including 20 years experience on issues of women and children’s human rights, with a special focus on crisis countries.

If the process unfolds as it did in 2010, the Secretary General’s senior appointment team will vet the nominees and present to Mr. Ban a short list of three candidates. Following interviews with each, Ban will make the final decision on whom he will appoint to take over the post. The 2010 vetting process and selection was wrapped up in 7 weeks, in part to have the first Executive Director in place before the General Assembly convened. Last month, John Hendra, Associate Executive Director at UN Women, noted that a new search could take up to three months.

But if this year’s process is less competitive, i.e. fewer than 25+ candidates as in 2010, we may see a nominee before the body’s Executive Board meets at the end of June or shortly thereafter. 

Unlike in 2010, women’s groups have been very unengaged in regards to the transparency of the Secretary General’s selection or qualifications of any of the candidates. Women Thrive is not active on the race this year, nor is the GEAR campaign, which spearheaded efforts in ensuring the 2010 candidates were highly qualified for the post.

The only NGO known to be engaging in any meaningful way this year is the Association for Women in Development (AWID), which plans to interview each candidate. William Pace, Executive Director of WFM/IGP, stated that “it would be best if the SGs process were more transparent.” 

As expected, the Secretary General’s office is officially tight-lipped on the candidates, refusing even to confirm the final number of nominees received. 

 ——————–
Receive notification of the latest Global Memo posts by email, on Facebook or via Twitter.

Azevêdo secured at least 93 votes out of the organization’s 159 member states, beating Herminio Blanco of Mexico, in the final round of consultations. He will succeed Pascal Lamy, of France, whose second term wraps up at the end of August. His selection was the culmination of a nearly 6 month process in that is remarkably transparent and accountable in comparison  to his counterparts at the World Bank and IMF.   

Robert Azevedo’s WTO campaign website

Nine candidates were put forward for the post, the highest number in the organization’s history, including three women from three continents. A deadline for nominations eliminated the possibility of “dark horse” candidates. Nominees met with the organization’s membership in January in an open and engaging discussion between candidate and member state, with the event webcast via the WTO website for the wider public.

The nine candidates engaged in dialogue with members for a number of months. Several launched campaign websites, Twitter feeds and Facebook pages.  All engaged with civil society as well as governments. A defined process for narrowing the field toward a consensus candidate was agreed to in March and carried out expeditiously by the governing General Council’s chair and co-facilitators. A critical element in the process involved the obligatory withdrawal of candidates who failed to secured “broad support” across the membership at large and its various categories. Though some criticism arose in some members’ participation in this aspect of the process, the objections seem more likely to result in a refinement of the process than in an obstruction of Azevêdo’s formal appointment by the General Council this month.  

Room remains for improvement, but in comparison to many other multilaterals, selection the Director General of the WTO is a model process. Since being codified in 2002, it has sustained regional challenges, competitive campaigns and disagreements on implementation, nonetheless producing a viable and respected consensus candidate in multiple elections. Arguments against reform at the IMF, the World Bank and other multilaterals for more open processes are difficult to sustain against the WTO’s record. 

Photo credit: Reuters/Luke MacGregor

Meeting of the UNESCO Executive Board

Prior to the General Conference, the 58 members of the Executive Board will meet with the three candidates and vote on a recommendation. The General Conference has always accepted the recommendation of the Executive Board in the election of the Director General.

Since the 1960s, Directors General traditionally have served two terms in office. The length of the individual term has changed over the years and is now four years. Like other organizations in the United Nations family, UNESCO seeks geographic balance in its secretariat.  It is generally accepted that the position of Director General should revolve among the regions. Moreover, the Deputy Director General and Assistant Directors General, who are contracted for terms tied to that of the Director General, are also chosen to balance representation of the various regions.

Incumbent UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova

The Executive Board is composed of members from each of six Electoral Groups, and each member of the Executive Board is thus to represent not only his own country but the countries of the corresponding Electoral Group. The following shows the Electoral Groups from which the Directors General have been elected:

• Group I (Western European and North American States): Federico Mayor (Spain, 1987-1999); René Maheu (France, 1962 – 1974 (acting DG 1959, 1961-1962)); Vittorino Veronese (Italy, 1958 – 1961); Luther Evans (United States, 1953 – 1958); John W. Taylor (United States, 1952 – 1953 (acting DG)); Julian Huxley (United Kingdom, 1946 – 1948)
• Group II (Eastern European States): Irina Bokova (Bulgaria, 2009 to present)
• Group III (Latin-American and Caribbean States): Jaime Torres Bodet (Mexico, 1948 – 1952)
• Group IV (Asian and Pacific States): Koïchiro Matsuura (Japan, 1999-2009)
• Group Va (African States): Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow (Senegal, 1974-1987)
• Group Vb (Arab States): none The candidate chosen this year will be expected to serve through 2017.

Will Bokova keep the post for Group II for the traditional second term, or could Maila or Farah steal it away for their respective regions?

Rachad Farah, Nominee for UNESCO DG

The Executive Board will apparently follow the same procedures in this election as it did in 2009. Members will vote by secret ballot. The first candidate to receive a majority of the votes will be chosen; if no candidate obtains a majority in the first four ballots, the fifth vote will be limited to the two candidates who received most votes in the fourth ballot.

While elections in UNESCO are always one country-one vote, the assessed contributions of member states differ greatly. (They are based on ratios defined by the United Nations General Assembly.) Countries have assessments based on GDP and per capita GDP; thus the United States is assessed 22% of the regular budget, Japan 12.5%, Germany 8%, the United Kingdom 6.6% and France 6.1%. At the other extreme, countries such as Belize, Bhutan and Vanuatu are assessed 0.001% of the regular budget. The wealthier member states may have more influence than their single electoral votes might suggest, if only because they can afford to assign more staff to UNESCO affairs.

Joseph Maila, Nominee for UNESCO DG

UNESCO rules deny voting privileges to countries that are two years or more in arrears of their assessed contributions. The United States has been withholding contributions to UNESCO since 2011. (A provision of U.S. law required this because UNESCO had accepted Palestine as a member state.) Therefore, unless the United States pays its assessed some or all of its assessed contributions before this year’s General Conference, its voting privileges will be revoked. It can be expected that its influence on the election of Director General would thereby be reduced.

Joseph Maila has been nominated for UNESCO Director General by Lebanon

A third candidate has recently been nominated for the post of UNESCO Director-General  in addition to incumbent Irina Bokova and Djibouti’s nominee Rachad Farah.

He is Joseph Maila, who is currently the Director of the Centre de Recherche pour la Paix (CRP) of the Institute Catholique de Paris. A native of Lebanon, he was nominated by the government of Lebanon. He has participated from time to time in UNESCO events, including in the Roundtable on Democracy and Renewal in the Arab World in 2011 and the Dialog of Cultures for Peace in 2003.

The nominations should now be closed.

In the meantime, the press continues to focus coverage of the election on Djibouti’s nominee, Rachad Farah. Here are some recent articles:

• “Unesco: Rachad Farah, un Djibutien en lice,” Juene Afrique, 22/01/2013.
• “Arab League endorses Rachad Farah bid for UNESCO Director General<.a<,” Mareeg, 7 March 2013.
• “La Ligue Arabe soutient la candidature de Rachad Farah à la Direction Générale de l’UNESCO,” Atlas Info., 20 Mars 2013.
• “Unesco : Irina Bokova compte sur l’Afrique pour assurer sa réélection,” Afrique Education, Numéro 363 (16 au 31 mars 2013)
  • Unfortunately, this article does not seem available for download. It suggests that current UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova has made decisions that are unpopular with some African leaders, and as a result will have difficulty obtaining African votes.
• “La candidature de Djibouti pour diriger l’Unesco? Une «indécence»,” Mediapart, 08 avril 2013.
• “Unesco: la France soutient Bokova,” La Figero, 16/04/2013
• “Rachad Farah en tournée en Asie dans le cadre de sa candidature à la direction de l’UNESCO,” Agence Djiboutienne d’information 07/05/2013

Photo credit: Jean-Christophe MARMARA/Le Figaro; Tom Heneghan/Reuters

Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil)

Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo, of Brazil, and Herminio Blanco, of Mexico, will compete for votes in the final round of consultations, which begin Wednesday. 

Having received the least support from across the WTO membership during the second round of consultations, Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia), Tim Groser (New Zealand) and Taeho Bark (Republic of Korea) were asked to withdraw. Candidates from Ghana, Kenya, Costa Rica and Jordan has been eliminated from consideration during an earlier round. 

The Chair’s report noted that the results of the second round were “clear and unambiguous” as to the members’ preference, and that even the few members who deviated from the two-preferences rule did not impact the final tally. 

Herminio Blanco (Mexico)

Azevêdo is the favored frontrunner, expected to pick up most of the developing states in African, Latin America and Asia. Blanco is expected to secure the votes of the United States, European members and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. Blanco spent the past weekend in Indonesia at the APEC forum. The failure to date of the Doha talks has prompted a number of alternative trading agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, which will impact the outcome. While most African states will likely tilt toward Azevêdo, the Asian and Latin American votes will split along these alternative arrangement and between the developed and developing economies in each region. 

The next round of consultations — taking place 1 to 7 May – will following the same procedure as the first two rounds. The facilitators will report whether Azevêdo or Blanco received the broadest support among regional groups and WTO categories of membership and be most likely to gain consensus. It is difficult to envision that such broad support will be as ”unambiguous” as in earlier rounds, and the recommended candidate may come out on top by only a handful of votes in one or two regions.  

A meeting of the General Council will be called before the end of May to formally select the new Director General. If the facilitators are able to recommend one of the two finalists as likely to secure support across the membership, the remaining candidate is expected — though not required — to withdraw. The General Council will then ratify the recommendation of the facilitation committee.  

Should the candidate with least support choose not to withdraw, a formal vote will need to be taken. There are no explicit rules for conducting a vote. The 2002 reforms note that the decision to elect the new Director General “shall be understood to be an exceptional departure from the customary practice of decision-making by consensus, and shall not establish any precedent…”  Such an action is unlikely however, given that political disaster it would mean for the WTO agenda and the consequent blowback it would have for the losing candidate. 

The two remaining candidates can be followed on Twitter at @AzevedoWTO and MXcandidacyWTO.

——————–
Receive notification of the latest Global Memo posts by email, on Facebook or via Twitter.

The WTO process has been praised as one of the most open and transparent selections of any major multilateral, following significant reforms made after the abrasive 1999 contest. Even Pascal Lamy’s selection in 2005, which handed all three international financial institutions to developed states, did not dissuade members of the process’s preferability to that of other major multilaterals. The process was cited by the Canadian government in 2006 as a model process with mechanisms that should be implemented for selection of the UN Secretary General.

“Efforts to propose a more open and rigorous approach to the selection of the Secretary-General can draw inspiration from similarly evolving processes within the OECD and the WTO. Both organizations have established selection mechanisms that are consultative, transparent and merit-based—aimed at ensuring that the most qualified and suitable person is selected for the job. In both cases, the position is advertised, a series of consultations with member states is held, the results are made public and are then used to narrow the field of candidates…”

However, a core mechanism that drives the process may be challenged this year, creating challenges for the organization.

This year’s contest opened on 1 December, 2012, nine months prior to the incumbent’s end of term, as triggered by the 2002 reforms. Nine candidates were put forward by member states over the defined 1-month nomination period, and were publicly announced upon their receipt by the Chair of the organization’s general Council. The nominees included the following:

Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo
(Brazil)

Mari Elka Pangestu
(Indonesia)

Amina C. Mohamed
(Kenya)

Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen
(Ghana)

Herminio Blanco
(Mexico)

Anabel González
(Costa Rica)

Tim Groser
(New Zealand)

Ahmad Thougan Hindawi
(Jordan)

Taeho Bark
(Republic of Korea)

This number of nominees was the highest since the organization’s creation in 1995. The nominations were heavily tilted toward developing economies, signifying the intense interest among those states in recapturing at least one of the major financial institutions. (All but one of the previous Directors General had been from developed economies.) Three of the nine nominees were women, each from a different region, perhaps reflecting growing awareness of the critical role which women play in local economic development.

Consensus around a single candidate is the preferred goal for most intergovernmental selections and the WTO is not different in this regard. Following the close of the nominations at the end of December, the process this year has provided for a number of opportunities to narrow the field toward this goal. And this is where possible problems may emerge in the selection. But let’s first note the positive aspects of the process to date.

At the end of January, each of the nine nominees were invited to make a presentation before the full membership and engage in a question-and-answer session. Though other multilaterals usually include a round of such “interviews,” the WTO process is far more transparent in this aspect. The presentations included an opening statement by each candidate, followed by a question-and-answer period. Afterwards, each nominee hosted a press conference and commented further on their credentials as a candidate. The full statement and audio of each candidate’s “interview” and press conference was made available on the WTO website. This degree of openness, allowing information on candidates to be equally and publicly accessible to all stakeholders, helps confirm that the eventual consensus is the result of an open and fair competition among candidates. The FAO implemented a similar process for putting candidates before the full membership in selecting its Director-General in 2011 and posting their statements on its website.

During the following months, the nine candidates were encouraged to engage with individual member states, regional groups and members of WTO categories to present their credentials in open campaigns. Following a quickly growing trend in intergovernmental races, a number of the nominees launched campaign websites (see here and here) and posted updates to Facebook and Twitter. As in 2005, many traveled to each region to garner support. A number were interviewed by interested development groups or responded to questionnaires about their views and priorities. The WTO itself posted photos on its Flickr account of the candidates during the General Council meeting. The Washington Post, The Hindu and other publications noted the odds for this year’s candidates from online betting forums, but jokingly cautioned that, in 2005, Pascal Lamy had not been the front runner on such sites until the very end of the race.

There is of course a downside to such campaigns. Terence Stewart, a Washington trade attorney who has closely monitored the selection, noted earlier this year that “reports have suggested horse trading going on between some candidates’ host countries and other WTO members.” (The same suspicion arose during the last month of the 2006 Secretary-General’s race.) While open campaigns are far preferred to the closed-door selections of the past, they do present their own problems. The unevenness of the playing field between richer and poorer countries, the potential for corruption and the desirability for global campaign rules is an area that deserves further study.

The process move to narrowing the field through facilitated consultations in April by an ad hoc committee that consisted of the Chair of the General Council and two Facilitators.  The Chair laid out the process for narrowing the field in a memo issued in March. Each of the 159 WTO member states were consulted individually by the committee and asked a single question – “What are your preferences?” Each was requested to name the four candidates they preferred over the others. No negative preferences were allowed, noted Stewart.

“Thus, at no time are members indicating “I can’t support candidate X” – from my discussions in Geneva, an important element to keeping the process positive as viewed both by the Secretariat and by the members.”

In the facilitation committee’s report following the first round, the Chair noted that five candidates emerged as the most likely to attract a breath of support, both across regional groups and the categories of membership in the WTO (LDCs, developing countries and developed countries). The committee notified the four candidates which received the least support and their state sponsors prior to informing the full membership and reminded them of the expectation of their withdrawal from the contest.

The field now consists of Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia), Tim Groser (New Zealand), Herminio Blanco (Mexico), Taeho Bark (Republic of Korea) and Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil).

Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil)

Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia)

Herminio Blanco (Mexico)

Tim Groser (New Zealand)

Taeho Bark (Republic of Korea)

The African, Latin American and the Asia-Pacific regions each put forward multiple nominees. Both candidates from Africa were eliminated, with one analyst suggesting it was the lack of consensus on a single candidate that cost the region. The membership was also split on the multiple nominees from the Asia-Pacific and the Latin American regions, but two nominees from those succeeded in garnering sufficient support to continue, as did Tim Grosner, the sole candidate from a developed economy.

Early speculation suggested that it was widely accepted among members that the post should go to a a developing economy. As the last such state to hold it had been Asian, the assumption was that the post would go to an African state this year. (This was also the favored outcome by the online betting forums mentioned above.) With the two African candidates eliminated this month, such speculation would now suggest that Brazil’s Azevêdo or Mexico’s Blanco are the best bets. Latin America’s advantage is supported by the post having been previously held by nationals from each of the  contending regions still in the race (and in Grosner’s case, by his sponsoring state New Zealand).

Here’s where the potential challenge to the otherwise spot-on process arises. After the results of the first round were announced, statements by the governments of Ghana and Kenya suggested that their nominees would not automatically withdraw despite their poor showing. This poor sportsmanship was a key factor in the 1999 selection and contributed to reforms for which the WTO has been praised. Nonetheless, analysts such as Terence Stewart suggest the possible political fall-out from challenging the broadly supported process will convince Mohamed and Kyerematen to eventually withdraw rather than force a vote which could be disastrous for the organization and the process.

“Thus, arguably Kenya (and Ghana and possibly others) could refuse to agree to a consensus finding in the hope that they could generate sufficient votes to win a vote at the General Council for a candidate not still in the process being run by the Chair. While such an option certainly exists (and is intended to provide a road forward where the membership is deadlocked), few countries have been willing to place the organization in the situation of forcing such a procedure where it flows from the discontent of one or two with the agreed procedures being followed. Thus, it seems unlikely that Kenya and Ms. Mohamed will create a crisis out of her elimination in the process.”

…

If there are delays or a major challenge to the procedures at the end requiring a vote, it is likely that the WTO members would lose focus and any chance for a successful Bali Ministerial would be significantly reduced. In the past, when the process has not worked as intended, the conflict between Members has put overall progress at the WTO on hold for some extended period of time. Thus, for the health of the organization, already faced with daunting problems in maintaining its relevance and advancing an agreed upon agenda, let us hope that the initial reactions by some of the candidates and their Members prove to be a temporary disagreement with the system rather than the basis for a challenge to the ongoing selection process.”

The second round of consultations is currently underway and will conclude next Wednesday. Each member state will be asked for their top two preferences. The two who receive the broadest support across regions and categories will continue and the remaining three will be eliminated from the final round.

Despite – or perhaps due to — the elimination of the region’s two nominees, African governments will play a critical role in the next round. Support from African states will be highly sought now that they have no valid candidate of their own in the race. While the bloc’s 42 votes alone will not guarantee another region’s candidate moving to the next round, no candidate can move forward without adding a large number of them to the “breadth of support” needed to do so.  Playing this role rather than undermining confidence in the process could be beneficial to African states in the form of a valuable “consolation prize” – the top post at UNCTAD, the UN’s trade and development body, which also come available this year, top choices in the Deputy Directors General selections or one of any other soon-to-be-filled intergovernmental posts.

Even with the challenges from Mohamed and Kyerematen, the WTO process will continue to be seen as a model for other multilaterals. By setting nomination deadlines, providing opportunities for engagement between governments and candidates, and conducting a transparent consultations process that fairly narrows the field to consensus, the WTO process includes many of the necessary mechanisms for improving senior leadership selection in major multilaterals and is generally met with satisfaction in comparison to other contests.

As noted in the Chair’s report following the first round, “Let me reiterate that this process is your process: the decision to appoint the new Director-General is yours to make.”

Secretary-General Kofi Annan congratulates his successor Ban Ki-moon in December 2006. UNPhoto/Mark Garten

Ban Ki-moon has almost four years remaining in his second term. His successor will be chosen by the General Assembly in October 2016 upon nomination by the Security Council. In this regard, historical precedent will hold sway. That is about all that will.  A number of other questions – several of which first emerged in the 2006 selection – will make blogging about this process again very exciting.

The first question that will be asked by anyone remotely familiar with the UNSG selection is which region’s “turn” is it now to hold the post. For those less familiar, UN member states are informally and somewhat clumsily divided into five historically based regional groups – Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe and Others (WEOG). (Yes, more than two decades after the end of the Cold War, Europe is still divided along East and West, while Asia spans from Cyprus to Samoa.) Traditionally each region has rotated into the post for two five-year terms. Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan held it for the African region from 1995-2006, and Ban Ki-moon has since held it for Asia’s two terms.

So whose turn will it be in 2016? The answer is not entirely obvious as the rotation scheme has been an historically imperfect but important geopolitical matter.  Unanimity against the U.S. over renewing Boutros-Ghali’s term in 2000 was overcome when the U.S. agreed to support another African, maintaining the rotation. In 2006, China made it clear that only an Asian would receive its support despite cries for ending the practice.  The three remaining regions are the Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Latin America.

Due to the preponderance of WEOG states in the UN membership during its early years, three of the first four Secretaries General were from that region. The last, Kurt Waldheim, served from 1972-1981. Each other region has held the post since, save Eastern Europe. Colin Lynch has suggested the next round would go to WEOG, naming Helen Clark as a likely candidate. (Clark’s second term at UNDP is scheduled to conclude less than six months after the next Secretary General is selected.)  The UNElections Campaign speculated that WEOG governments will argue for a renewed rotation, with a Western Secretary General again following an Asian incumbent, and preceding in turn a Latin American and African office-holder. Lynch’s speculation on Michele Bachelet as a future Secretary General suggested this possibility as well.

The UN Security Council will nominate a candidate for Secretary General for approval by the General Assembly
Photo credit: Brendan McDermid/Reuters

This of course again ignores Eastern Europe as a region for the purposes of filling the office. But Richard Gowan, in World Politics Review, isn’t so ready to write them off. He suggests that “there seems to be a general diplomatic consensus that in 2017, Eastern Europe’s turn will come at last.”  He does not elaborate on that, but short lists three East Europeans for the post: former Slovene president Danilo Türk, Slovak diplomat Jan Kubiš, and current UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova from Bulgaria. The fight, he says, will come down to two questions: whether Russia will support a candidate from its former sphere of influence, and the impact that geopolitical tensions, such as those surrounding Syria, will have on the selection.

Eastern Europe’s chances of securing the post improve dramatically if the regional members get behind a single viable candidate, and do so early on. But the cost may be excessive. Unlike in previous selections where candidates were selected from middle to weak economic powers, the top two vote-getters in the 2006 selection came from the 11^th and 12^th largest economies. There is no reason to believe that this shift will reverse itself in 2016. If Western Europe decides to pursue the post, it could easily outspend its Eastern neighbors in outreach (and potential bargaining chips) with other states.

An inter-European competition could result in a number of scenarios. The worse situation for the Europeans would be the emergence of a compromise candidate from Latin America to whom the Asian and African blocs switch their support. A Latin American bid might argue against the viability of East European candidates and against the dominance of Western Europe in the post previously, on the Security Council and in other intergovernmental institutions currently. To avoid this, either the East and West will need to put forward an impeccable candidate, reach a compromise to rotate the two European terms this round and/or support the other’s candidate in another organization.

Other questions will soon arise in discussions on the selection. Should the next Secretary General be a woman, regardless of region? Will candidates publicize their interest as in 2006, and if so, what role could social media play in their campaigns? These and other questions should be explored and will be in future posts.

Watch this space.

——————–
Receive notification of the latest Global Memo posts by email, on Facebook or via Twitter.

Lakshmi Puri, Acting Head of UN Women

UN Women announced yesterday that Lakshmi Puri, the Deputy Executive Director under Michelle Bachelet, assumed the top post as acting head on 26 March.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon designated Ms. Puri (biography) as the acting head of the organization, until further notice.  Ban also released the note verbal which invites nominations for candidates to head the still-new organization. Bachelet’s resignation mid-term last month came as a surprise and her successor will likely be chosen by mid-summer. The Secretary-General described his ideal candidate as having

• Demonstrated knowledge of the issues and challenges in the areas of gender equality, women’s empowerment and challenges, needs, and women’s rights, including the ability to be a powerful and convincing advocate on all aspects of these issues, within the United Nations system, with Governments, and with civil society organizations, as well as the wider public;
• Impeccable personal and professional integrity, with unimpeachable interpersonal and political skills;
• Demonstrated leadership experience with strategic vision and proven skills to manage a complex organization, as well the ability to mobilise various forms of support from multi-stakeholders and partners;
• A good understanding of the United Nations system and ability to lead efforts for a more effective and coherent United Nations response at all levels.

Nominations are to be sent to the Secretary General’s senior appointments team by 13 May 2013. The narrowing of candidates during the search for the agency’s founding Executive Director lasted approximately 7 weeks, and Bachelet initially resisted encouragements to accept the post. This year’s selection will almost certainly move more swiftly, and the process may be close to an end by the annual meeting of the UN Women Executive Board, 24-28 June — six weeks after nominations close.

Photo Credits: UN Women Gallery; UN Photo/Ryan Brown

Michelle Bachelet, the first Executive Director, of UN Women, announced her sudden resignation Friday at the close of the 57th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Identifying her successor will be a “very crucial phase” for the new gender agency which only became operational in 2010, noted a UN spokesperson yesterday, and that the process will begin “very soon.”

Ms. Bachelet served as Chile’s president prior to her appointment, and is returning to her country by the end of this month. She is expected to be nominated for a second term as President next month and is a strong favorite to win the election in November.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and UN Women Executive Director Michelle Bachelet. Photo Credit: UN Women/Catianne Tijerina

The head of the agency holds the rank of Under Secretary General  and is appointed directly by the UN Secretary General. Possible successors to Bachelet will be identified by a senior appointment team, which is expected to shortlist three final candidates for the Secretary-General’s consideration. In 2009, Bachelet was chosen from among 26 candidates nominated by member states and civil society groups.

The post is nominally filled for a four-year term, though Bachelet’s immediate successor will likely receive a slightly truncated appointment. As a member of the Secretary General’s cabinet, she will likely step aside at the conclusion of Ban’s second term on 31 December 2016 or offer her resignation to his successor in early January as part of the transition.

Names of possible successors have yet to emerge, given Ms. Bachelet’s unexpected announcement last Friday. A UN spokesperson noted that Ban intends to seek out a successor capable of “carry[ing] on the work” initiated by Bachelet. A note verbale laying out the terms of reference and inviting nominations will likely be released within a few weeks (see 2010 note), with the selection process tacking closely to the 2010 timeline.  Ban’s invitation to member states in April that year preceded even the General Assembly formal approval of the new agency in July in order to facilitate its operational launch. Candidates were vetted by the senior appointment team and the Deputy Secretary General over the summer, with Bachelet’s appointment announced in mid-September prior to the incoming General Assembly session.

Ban is likely to enjoy greater leeway from civil society groups this year than in 2009. A number of groups expressed concern before and during the selection regarding its lack of transparency, but enthusiastically welcomed Bachelet’s eventual appointment. Savi Bisnath, with the Center for Women’s Global Leadership, in an interview with Devex, noted that civil society is currently less concerned with “pinpointing individuals and circulating names” but rather on defining the qualifications of nominees:

“We need someone who is an incredibly strong advocate for women’s rights, someone who is going to take on leadership of this organization at this moment when we are facing a financial crisis and when the gains that we have made in so many countries are at risk of being eroded, in part because of the financial crisis,” Bisnath told Devex.

The 3rd Africa-South America Summit held on 22 February 2013 in Malabo (Equatorial Guinea) supported the candidature of Rachad Farah, Djibouti’s Ambassador to France, for the position of Director General of UNESCO. A motion of support adopted by the leaders from both continents agreed that they would work together in favour of Ambassador Farah’s candidature.

This 3rd Africa and South American Summit convened by the African Union (AU) focused on “Strategies and mechanisms to strengthen South-South Cooperation”. The core objective of this gathering of Heads of State and Governments was to improve the cooperation between the two continents, especially in the area of socio-economique development of African and South American Countries.

The ASA endorsement comes briefly after the African Union Heads of States supported Rachad Farah at the recent AU summit in Addis Abeba. This summit called for “a mobilisation of all countries on the Continent to support and strengthen Rachad Farah’s campaign.” Farah also received the support from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Only last week, the Community of Sahel States (CEN-SAD) endorsed Farah’s candidature.

Note also these recent articles:

• “Q&A: Rachad Farah outlines his vision for UNESCO” by Yojana Sharma, SciDev.Net, 20 February 2013
• “Candidature de Djibouti à l’UNESCO – Les dix engagements de Rachad Farah” by La Nation via Djibnet, 20 February 2013
• “L’ambassadeur de Djibouti en France en visite à Berlin pour la promotion de sa candidature au poste de directeur général de l’UNESCO“, RTO, 19 Février 2013