Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

António Guterres and the role of the UN Secretary-General

What to expect from the United Nations?

Victor Angelo

 

Charles Michel has just been in Kyiv. The visit followed those of other European leaders, including the presidents of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

One of the first to make the trip to Kyiv was Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who was in the Ukrainian capital on 16 March at a time when the city was under very close threat. And Pope Francis is said to be preparing a similar trip.

Regardless of the practical results of these trips, their symbolic importance must be recognised. In a conflict situation, the symbolism of certain initiatives is fundamental to reinforce the legitimacy of the cause one of the parties is defending, as well as to underpin its narrative. Legitimacy and narrative are essential in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine, which are taking place under the watchful eye of world public opinion, thanks to the courage of many journalists, Ukrainian and foreign.

Politically, each visit seeks to show solidarity with the country that is the victim of the war of aggression. It is thus underlined that the invasion decided by Vladimir Putin is unacceptable. At the same time, it makes it possible to reaffirm the will to contribute to a political solution to a crisis which can in no way be resolved by force. The time has come to show that the use and abuse of force is no longer accepted as a source of rights on the international stage.

In Maurer's case, it was a question of highlighting the humanitarian dimension. This is the raison d'être of the International Red Cross. Maurer, who has moved on from Kyiv to Moscow, knows that leadership means being tirelessly on the front line and in contact with those in power.

For the United Nations, the humanitarian response should also be a way forward. For two reasons. First, because we are facing a major humanitarian crisis. Second, because it can open the diplomatic bridges needed to mediate the conflict. This has happened so many times without compromising the independence and neutrality of the humanitarian work, whose ultimate goal is to save lives. I have always advocated that there must be a clear separation between humanitarian action and political initiatives. But I have also always advocated that a political process can be built on humanitarian intervention.

It is in this line that the letter sent this week to António Guterres, and signed by a group of about 250 former senior UN officials, fits in. The tragedy unleashed by Putin seriously undermines the political credibility of the United Nations. Based on this concern, the main message of this letter is to call for the maximum personal and visible engagement of the Secretary-General in the search for a solution to the crisis. Given the gravity of the situation, the role gives him the moral authority to do so and requires him to be clear, objective and resolute.

In the view of the signatories, the Secretary-General must repeat loud and clear, and unceasingly, that aggression of this kind violates the international order and dangerously destabilises existing balances.  It is not just a question of condemning the actions of a permanent member of the Security Council. It is essential to express an extraordinary level of concern and, at the same time, to show an insurmountable and tireless back-and-forth dynamic between the capitals that count. Firstly, to insist on a cessation of hostilities - of Russian aggression, as it were - and then to propose a peace plan.  A plan that allows the victims to be compensated, those responsible for the aggression and war crimes to be punished and the process of reforming the Security Council to be initiated. Basically, the challenge is twofold: to promote peace and to adapt the UN to today's world.

In signing the letter, I had three questions in mind. First, about the complexity of the function of Secretary General of the United Nations, which is, above all, an eminently political task. Second, about the need to have an up-to-date global organization that corresponds to today's world and the challenges ahead. Third, about good leadership, which requires a very astute balance between prudence and courage.

PS: After receiving the message and seeing how the Russian side reacted to it, Guterres moved and wrote to Putin and Zelensky.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22 April 2022)

Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.

 

 

The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.

 

Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.

Leaders must direct based on moral values

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

This is no time for statues

Victor Angelo

A considerable number of us still see the current situation as something temporary, which scientific research, the announced financial subsidies and time will eventually resolve. I think that is a light view of the pandemic and its consequences. It does not consider the lessons learned from previous crises, which took years to overcome, even though they were not as serious as they are now.

In addition to the economic and social impact, major political fractures may arise. Confusion, uncertainty, and fears are fertile ground from which authoritarian politicians often sprout, painted as megalomaniac messiahs, with ultra-nationalist, populist and bizarrely dangerous ideas. The democratic space is under threat. Miniature copies of Donald Trump and company are beginning to appear. People who, coming from outside the political practice and without the experience of the functioning of institutions, think they have the simple and ready to cook solution that will solve all the evils of today. But, in reality, the shrewdest populists are waiting for the opportunity, which will arise, in their opinion, with the exhaustion of the response capacity of the existing social systems. 

In such a context, we need leaders who are enlightened, courageous, and capable of giving meaning to the transformations that are to come. It happens that people look around them and do not see such leaders. There is no new Nelson Mandela, no new Kofi Annan or a modern version of Jacques Delors. Immediatism and materialism have replaced the struggle for human values. The moral leadership that Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, and others could exercise is missing. They have stopped appearing or, when they do, they come late and talk about vague things. No one takes note.

Some people would say that only those who exaggerate are heard. I do not think so. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is a moderate leader whom everyone admires. She is not particularly active on the international scene because she is above all focused on her country's issues. Yet she is often quoted. Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai can be mentioned as other examples of international leadership. These are respected voices that mark the global agenda. The reason, I would say in a simplified way, is because they go straight to the point, without diplomacy, nor personal fears or ambitions. They are perceived as genuine and combative. And with clear ideas. That is what is expected of those who lead.

On the other side of the coin, look at the United Nations. The last ten years have been a disaster for its credibility. The lack of authority at global level worsened after the crisis in Libya in 2011 and it experienced clear moments of deterioration in the following years. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine, all done with impunity, the impasse in Syria, with repeated vetoes, the silence and inaction in the face of mass migration in 2015, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a politician who does not accept the values of international cooperation, the lack of political response to the genocide of the Rohingyas in 2017, the exclusion of the Security Council from issues relating to Palestine, the attacks against UNESCO and WHO, are some of the milestones in the process of marginalization of the UN. Others could be mentioned, in a list that reminds us that the global institutional framework needs to be rethought. I would just add that there is no greater frustration in international life than being at the head of an institution that hardly anyone listens to.

In these things, I like to suggest we follow the example of that holy man, described in a famous sermon preaching to the fish, because people did not want to listen to him. In other words, this is by no means the time to remain silent, without drawing the lessons that the crisis puts before our eyes. A silent leader is just a statue, which these days is a danger, because the statues are being torn down.

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

First step, to stop the escalation

The UN Secretary-General made a brief statement today about the current situation in the Gulf. I see the statement as important. We have reached a very dangerous crossroads. António Guterres’s message was about restraint, the exercise of maximum restraint. My call, following his appeal, is for countries such as Russia, China, Japan and the EU to seize Guterres’s words and repeat them loud and clear. They should also launch an initiative that would aim at freezing the situation as it is and, from there, try to establish a dialogue platform. I know it is not easy. But these are exceptional times. Those countries have the historical responsibility of making use of their influence. They should try to get both parties to the conflict to put a stop to escalation. That would be a first but important step. A most urgent step, for sure.

The forthcoming G7 Summit

This year’s G7 summit will take place at the end of the week in Biarritz, France. President Macron, the host, has now decided that there will be no final communiqué at the end of the meeting. He said a communiqué takes a lot of the participants’ time to be approved and ends up by distracting them from the substantive discussions. In the end, the final text is bland and means little.

I agree with him. It is better to spend time on the issues and to make the event as informal as possible. It is a serious opportunity for exchanges among the leaders and it should be focused on that. Particularly at a time when we see significant differences of opinion about key matters. It would be unrealistic to try to get a consensus during the summit. But it is not unrealistic to debate them and make one’s points known to the rest of the group.

I also appreciate the fact that the UN Secretary-General has been invited to address the meeting and be around for the discussions. His authority must be re-established. President Macron understands this point.

Still on who should be in the room, I am against inviting back President Vladimir Putin. The Russian role in the Ukrainian issue is not resolved. And democracy is deteriorating in Russia, under the direct supervision of the President. Those are two strong arguments to keep Putin out. G7 meetings are not for dictators and autocratic leaders. They have their seat in the G20. Moreover, they can be engaged through other mechanisms, and there are plenty of them.  

Europe and the Iranian situation

Iran announced yesterday it intends surpass the uranium stockpile limit set under the 2005 nuclear agreement. They want to do it by 27 June.

Obviously, this is no good news. It brings the region to a new level of tension. For Europe, it makes the EU’s political position on Iran untenable.

Actually, the European position had already reached a dead end. Now, that is indisputable.  

Today, Federica Mogherini is on her way to Washington. I do not know what she will bring to the discussions with Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, the trusted son-in-law of President Trump. But she has no room left. On one side, she is confronted with an Administration that is determined to further tighten the sanctions already in place against Iran. Not to mention, of course, the additional military deployments to the Gulf region. On the other side, she sees a regime and a leadership that are placing themselves against the wall, when the wise move would have been to remain committed to the implementation of the nuclear agreement.

In my opinion, Mogherini, on behalf of the EU, has no choice but to be frank and direct. Direct means diplomacy with clear words. Here, the message should be that all sides must show restraint and accept to return to the negotiating table. EU and China, with the support of Russia, could be the conveners of such a negotiation.

On her return from Washington, Mogherini should also travel to Beijing and Moscow. Before that, she could meet the UN Secretary-General. That would send an appropriate signal. And it is something the UN needs.

Venezuela: mediation, mediation, mediation

Today’s situation in Venezuela moved a step closer to national tragedy.

Very concerned, the UN Secretary-General called for both Government and opposition forces to exercise “maximum restraint”. That is a necessary call.

But certainly not enough.

It is a passive reaction to a major development in the Venezuelan crisis. Antonio Guterres should also be offering his mediation authority. Mediation between both sides remains the only peaceful opening, the only hope to avoid additional loss of life and humanitarian suffering.

 I know the big bosses in Washington do not want to hear that word, mediation. They are simply betting on Maduro’s total defeat. But the Secretary-General cannot just pay attention to Washington. He is the voice of the world and the standard-bearer of common sense. His duty is to be at the service of peace. For that, he must underline in very clear terms that the UN good offices are the most reasonable way forward as far as Venezuela’s future is concerned.  

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.

UN is deeply divided

Syria has deeply fractured the UN Security Council. Today´s accusations of war crimes thrown at Russia are a very serious development. They will not be forgotten easily. The divisions will continue for a long time. That will have an impact on the work of the Council, including the selection of the new Secretary-General. It will be more difficult to reach an agreement, maybe for a very unreasonable motive: just for the sake of opposing the other side.

A divided Council is not good for the image of the UN. The organisation will be a key casualty. But more importantly, there will be no diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria. 

UN deals

I was trying to explain to a friend that when it comes to the selection of the new Secretary-General of the UN, it is ultimately the agreement reached by the Permanent 5 within the Security Council that matters.

It is true that this year the process has been more visible and that the candidates had a chance to speak out and make their views known. But this is not a regular election. It is not about the one that manages to get more votes. Moreover, it is not about professional and political competency. It is about geopolitical interests, as they are perceived by the “big five”.

And the negotiations among them are about to start. The General Assembly – its annual meeting started today – provides a good opportunity for a series of side meetings, where the key leaders do some trading. It will be hard bargaining. And not just about positions those five countries will take once the new boss is in place. This year the trade-offs could be about sanctions, Syria, the new management positions in the World Bank, trade agreements, Ukraine, and so on. There is enough on the international crisis plate for tough deals to be sought.  

Guterres has become stronger

At the end of today´s round in the UN Security Council, António Guterres came out on top as it had occurred during the past three votes. He is now by far the strongest candidate for the job of UN Secretary-General. Out of the 15 countries in the Council, we see that 12 member states do encourage him to remain on the race. Only 2 countries discourage him. One of these is certainly New Zealand, as they have their one candidate on the race. It is impossible to guess which other country is discouraging him. At this stage, the key votes are very tactical and they can easily change as the diplomatic relations move forward,

Actually, a lot of diplomatic moves can be expected in the next two weeks. From all of the candidates, with the exception of last two in today´s poll -- Christiana Figueres and Natalia Gherman. They seem to be out of this race. And the horse trading has already started with Susana Malcorra. She has just promised the British she will be accommodating their views regarding the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. She announced that commercial flights will be reestablished between Argentina, her country, and the Islands. And that her government is ready to join the British in the offshore oil exploration in the area.

All that is fair game. But there is no doubt that for her and for the other candidates to compete against Guterres is an uphill struggle. 

The UN race is moving on

Today´s straw poll in the Security Council should be seen as an important step towards the election of the next UN Secretary-General. One should see several candidates leaving the race in the very near future. Those with a good number of “discourage” votes have very few motives to stay on. Some of those negative votes might come from permanent members and that would mean no, later in the day.

In the circumstances, Antonio Guterres seems to be a solid contender. He got 12 votes of encouragement and no vote advising him to go. That would make it less tempting for new names to step in. It´s getting a bit late, after today´s results. That´s the message those supporting Guterres´s candidacy should keep stressing. They have to discourage others from joining the race. 

But he also needs to watch carefully two existing candidates: Danilo Turk, the former President of Slovenia, and Irina Bokova, the Bulgarian that heads UNESCO. She remains the woman that can make it. That is a good rallying point in her favour. And Turk has some serious support within the Council.

But both Turk and Bokova have adverse votes. And that might be too difficult for them to overcome. That´s their major unknown at this stage. 

The candidates and the Security Council

Tomorrow the UN Security Council will be voting for the first time this year on the matter of the next Secretary-general. This initial round is just to clean the list of candidates a bit. As a result, a few will get an indication that their candidature cannot fly. They will withdraw silently and the process would move on.

My reading is that the geopolitical considerations will matter considerably. The Council will certainly look at the Eastern European candidates with greater attention. And then, at the gender issue.

Boutros-Ghali: a diplomat with strong views

Boutros Boutros-Ghali passed away early in the day. And I feel compelled to say a few words of homage about my former boss. I served as his representative in The Gambia and later in Tanzania. And I want to remember him as a man of courage. He was not afraid of speaking up to the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Actually, he said one day, after he had left the UN, that he regretted not having been aggressive enough with the members of Security Council. In his opinion, the Council had not responded appropriately to the major crises of the time, Rwanda and the Balkans. But we cannot say it was his fault. He was very clear in his messages. In the case of the US, he had some difficult encounters with President Bill Clinton and his senior officers. He insisted but failed to convince Clinton that the situation in Rwanda was extremely serious. Clinton did not appreciate Boutros-Ghali´s critiques. And the mandate was not renewed. The power of the veto did the job

The Syrian negotiations should go ahead

The negotiations on Syria are scheduled for next week in Geneva. The formal leadership of the process rests with the UN. And it is in the interest of the UN to have a diverse representation of the factions that are engaged in the conflict, with the exception of the most extreme, such as the so-called Islamic State and the al-Qaeda inspired Jabhat al-Nusra. Everybody else who is prepared to discuss should be around the place. Not necessarily, at the beginning, around the same table, but part of the process for sure.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia and other countries are trying to prevent some movements from being invited. We could expect that. It´s consistent with their interests. But it´s up to the UN to say no to that kind of pressure.

There are no saints in the Syria disaster. This is a tragedy of devils. But those among them that believe they can negotiate, give and take, should be in. In these matters you confront and discuss with your enemies, including the worst among them. And you appreciate their willingness to be around. That´s actually the difference between them and the terrorists. A terrorist is a criminal that accepts no room for a compromise.