Members of the United Nations and students at UCLA have achieved
a strange parallel in recent months.
Both institutions are in the midst of choosing new leadership,
one searching for a new secretary-general and the other a new
chancellor. Yet in both cases, people have been left clueless in
the waiting room, straining to hear the newborn wails of their
future leader.
The search for a new secretary-general began informally in April
in preparation for Kofi Annan’s last day in office on Dec.
31.
One of the world’s highest-profile jobs, with control over
and funding from some of the most powerful nations, it is
imperative that the position be filled painstakingly well.
The search involves the U.N.’s five permanent members
““ the United States, China, Russia, France and the United
Kingdom ““ each with the right to veto if unsatisfied with a
candidate. However, that candidate cannot be a citizen of any of
these countries.
Those are the only clear directions in the procedure to elect a
new secretary-general. According to Allan Rock, Canada’s
former ambassador to the U.N., the entire process has little
definition or transparency. Few people know anything of the exact
process involved in electing a new U.N. secretary-general.
Adding to the uncertainties of the procedure is the fact that on
the eve of Annan’s re-election five years ago, the Security
Council decided that it might be Asia’s turn at the top of
the U.N. when Annan’s term expired.
Although it is understandable that U.N. leaders shouldn’t
always come from the same region or be controlled by a major world
power, this doesn’t warrant the immediate handing of the
baton to Asia.
Citing turns as criteria for leadership leads to more
controversy. A woman has never held the top office (another
similarity with UCLA). Shouldn’t that be considered too?
Countries in South America and Eastern Europe have yet to be
tested. Although no major candidate has surfaced in the former
region, the latter has been enthusiastic about the process, even
nominating the president of Latvia for the position
This process not only occupies a very high level of secrecy, but
it is also somewhat bizarre. The 15 members of the Security Council
are each given ballot sheets that include the voting options
“encourage,” “discourage” and “no
opinion.” Even the ballot is vague.
In response to the hidden nature of proceedings, Canada has
launched protests in the form of “The Canadian Non-Paper on
the Process for the Selection of the Next Secretary-General”
which argues for a more transparent manner of proceedings.
It suggests consultation and interviews with all member states,
a search committee to uncover all possible candidates, and speeches
by the top candidates highlighting their goals for the position and
the U.N.
Since the heads of state of the member nations are often
compelled to involve their militaries or their national treasuries
in the U.N.’s decisions, it makes perfect sense to have them
be more involved in choosing the secretary-general.
Currently, the nations are squeezed onto the sidelines of this
election, having no clear idea of the backgrounds or the goals of
the candidates.
The lack of involvement of the member nations doesn’t
really surprise the cynic in me because at least at UCLA we are
somewhat used to having our leader chosen behind doors.
All we really know about the selection of Interim Chancellor
Norman Abrams is that he was appointed in consultation with the UC
Regents and in full accordance with UC policy.
But as an omnipotent reply to all questions and testy behavior,
we are assured that the hunt is still very much ongoing.
There it is ““ the extent of UCLA students’ knowledge
of the election of the new leader of their university.
While both elections need to be made available to the masses,
the one concerning the secretary-general needs further
alteration.
In a shrinking world, the antiquated concept of an oligarchy
seems not only backward but also a danger to the foundation of its
organization.
Mountie jokes aside, I suppose we should be on the lookout for
Canada ““ they do have a point.
If you’ve been shafted by a selection committee,
e-mail Joshi at rjoshi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.