Dear Friends,
When was the last time the words "United Nations" inspired hope, or even interest? When was the last time you even paid attention when reading about the UN?
The institution has a clear way to start changing this: by pushing a secret process into the open. It won't take it. But the media can force a real debate.
This week, the UN will hold "public hearings" for candidates seeking to become Secretary-General. It sounds transparent and the right thing to do. Don't be fooled. This is window dressing when the selection process of the world's highest diplomatic post remains closed, undemocratic, and broken. I know this firsthand — I ran for UN Chief for the last two years, not to appease the five countries who would ultimately decide, but to force the biggest challenges of our time into the open.
Here is how it actually works. Any country may put forward a candidate. Those candidates give speeches and take some questions, a process that looks participatory but changes nothing. The real decision happens behind closed doors, in the Security Council, where the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom each hold an absolute veto. All other 188 member states are locked out at this stage. The five most powerful countries simply have to agree on one name. Everyone else then votes to confirm that name with no alternative on the ballot. Five countries decide. Eight billion people watch.
Every few years this process gets a cosmetic upgrade or downgrade. For example, selected civil society organisations can submit questions. The core problem never changes: no public involvement, and five governments pick who leads the world. That man - it has been a man for 80 years - then leads without public legitimacy, credibility, and the ability to rally the world.
Hence these hearings: a way for the UN to recover a sliver of credibility without changing anything. What is the point of public hearings when the game is rigged before they begin? Sure, it’s better than nothing, but it is still fundamentally wrong.
Anyways, candidates cannot answer real questions with actual opinions without risking the anger of one of the all powerful permanent five! How would any candidate commit to phasing out fossil fuels quickly and fairly, when the US president made "drill, baby, drill" a campaign promise? How would any candidate call for mandatory jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court when Russia is actively invading Ukraine? How would any candidate advocate nuclear disarmament while France is expanding its arsenal? How would any of them propose a democratic election for Secretary-General when the P5 retain total control by keeping the current system intact? While candidates obviously should do all of this and much more - including condemning the US, UK and France for their complicity in Israel’s genocide - they decide to play by the rules of this awful game.
Read their political programme - or in UN Jargon “vision statement” - and you will find almost nothing but careful banalities. One could make a drinking game out of how many times you encounter "multilateralism matters" or "multilateralism is in crisis." In comparison, the crowdsourced political programme I’m running on proposes concrete measures, such as establishing a Citizens’ Assembly dedicated to regulating AI for the benefit of humanity; creating a UN Tax Authority to raise taxes to fund its operations and programmes, or make the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court compulsory for and enforceable on all UN member states.
But this is no laughing matter. Imagine if your head of state ran their political campaign without any campaign promises, programme, policies, accountability, and was elected by five people only. Even mad-dictators do better than this.
This is not only a procedural matter. Who becomes the next UN Chief will shape our future, either by leading the organisation toward genuine reform, or by watching it slowly crumble while calling for stability.
Obviously, this process should be reformed. At the very least, all member states should hold an equal vote in who will lead the organisation for the next five critical years. While it clearly won’t happen this time, and the UN has no intention to enable real dialogue, media platforms could play a role to ensure greater accountability. They could organise a presidential-type debate for UN Secretary General Candidates, put tough questions to them, and if they fail to join or answer, the world will know who they truly answer to: not the people, but five men.
If you know of media groups or journalists who might be interested, please forward them this email! And don't forget to endorse my campaign for UN Chief here, so that we can keep on pressuring the UN to adopt our political programme and reform the selection-process!
Onward,
Colombe
