Notes about the election of the new United Nations Secretary-General

 

The choice of the next Secretary-General could decide the UN’s fate

The Elders Foundation

38,221 followers

May 1, 2026

Dear friends,

More than two months since the US and Israel began their illegal attacks on Iran, the fallout continues to be felt globally. As peace talks continue to stall, maritime traffic remains blocked in the Strait of Hormuz, and global energy markets show no signs of stabilising. The United Nations Secretary-General might be expected to play a critical role in resolving such a conflict, yet the diminishing scope for political leadership by the UN in recent years has made this impossible.

In January, the UN will welcome a new Secretary-General. This is not a routine appointment, but one with existential implications. Who member states choose to lead the UN will play a crucial role in shaping its future. As emerging candidates come under scrutiny following their participation in online interactive dialogues last month, we must ask: what kind of leadership does the world demand at this moment?

First and foremost, the successful candidate must possess the personal qualities needed to restore the UN’s credible leadership on the world stage. They should serve as a moral anchor, with the political courage and strategic clarity required to speak truth to power. This means acting independently – not constrained by political caution or beholden to the governments they are meant to hold to account. They must have the courage to take principled positions, even when they are unpopular.

In today’s world, this may all sound rather naïve. But a UN without an empowered Secretary-General is a UN that cannot fulfil its primary purpose: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It is a UN that becomes increasingly irrelevant in a violent and chaotic "might is right" world.

It is for all UN member states to choose a Secretary-General, not just the permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly must make full use of its leverage in the appointment of a recommended candidate, including the prerogative to reject a recommendation.

For eight decades, the office has been held by men. The gender imbalance at the top of the UN is undeniable, but addressing it must go beyond symbolism. What is needed is a transparent, merit-based process that selects a credible, independent and globally respected leader – chosen not on gender alone.

There is no escaping the scale of the task ahead. Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General, described it as ‘the most impossible job in the world’. Today, it is harder still.

As Elders, we will not intervene publicly on behalf of any individual candidate. However, we will continue to advocate for courageous leadership to address shared existential threats, and we are looking forward, as a group, to support the next Secretary-General in her work.

With thanks for your ongoing support,

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

My critique:

While Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s letter for The Elders presents itself as a clarion call for principled leadership, a severe critique reveals it to be a masterclass in "lofty impotence." It relies on a series of romanticized platitudes that ignore the brutal realpolitik of the United Nations, offering a vision that is functionally disconnected from how power is actually exercised in 2026.

Here is a my critique of the text’s core failings:

1. The Fallacy of the "Moral Anchor"

The text demands a Secretary-General (SG) who acts as a "moral anchor" with the "courage to speak truth to power."

• The Critique: This is a category error. The SG is not a secular Pope; they are the "Chief Administrative Officer" of a body composed of sovereign states. Zeid’s demand for an "independent" leader ignores the fact that any candidate who actually demonstrated the "political courage" to regularly offend the P5 (US, Russia, China, UK, France) during the selection process would be vetoed instantly. By advocating for a leader who is "not beholden to governments," The Elders are essentially advocating for a candidate who cannot be elected.

2. Strategic Naivety Regarding the P5

Zeid admits that his vision might sound "naïve," yet he proceeds to double down on that naivety.

• The Critique: The text frames the diminishing scope of UN leadership as a failure of "personal qualities." It fails to mention the structural reality: the UN’s paralysis is not a lack of SG "courage," but the result of the veto power and the active hostility of Great Powers toward multilateralism. Suggesting that a "credible leader" can simply bypass the "might is right" world through sheer force of personality is a dangerous simplification that misleads the public about where the actual bottleneck lies.

3. The Empty Threat of the General Assembly

The letter urges the General Assembly (GA) to use its "leverage" to reject a Security Council recommendation.

• The Critique: This is a hollow revolutionary posture. In the 80-year history of the UN, the GA has never rejected a Security Council nominee for SG. Why? Because the GA is not a monolith; it is composed of states that are themselves beholden to the P5 through aid, trade, and security pacts. Promoting the "prerogative to reject" without a viable strategy for how 193 disparate nations would survive the ensuing constitutional crisis is irresponsible "activism-lite."

4. Gender Symbolism vs. Reality

The text argues that addressing the gender imbalance must "go beyond symbolism" but then fails to provide any concrete mechanism for how to achieve this while maintaining a "merit-based" process.

• The Critique: By stating the leader should be "chosen not on gender alone," while simultaneously noting that the office has only been held by men, the text enters a rhetorical loop. It avoids taking a hard stand (e.g., "The next SG must be a woman") to remain "principled," yet by doing so, it effectively permits the status quo to continue under the guise of "merit," which has historically been defined by the very male-dominated governments the text claims to hold to account.

5. Institutional Paternalism

As a group of "former" leaders, The Elders occupy a position of consequence-free moralizing.

• The Critique: The letter is steeped in the paternalistic tone of retired elites. Zeid writes that The Elders will "support the next Secretary-General in her work" (notably using the feminine pronoun to signal virtue), yet they refuse to "intervene publicly on behalf of any individual." This allows the group to maintain its "moral high ground" without actually expending any political capital or taking the risk of backing a specific reformer who might actually change the system.

---

The text is a diplomatic comfort blanket. It makes the reader feel that "principled leadership" is just one good appointment away, while carefully avoiding the "holy cows" of the UN Charter (like the Veto) that are the true source of the organization's existential threat. It is a document that demands everything and risks nothing.

How do you think a candidate would react to being told they must be a "moral anchor" while simultaneously needing to secure the vote of a Trump-led US or a Xi-led China?

Some comments regarding my text about Guterres's succession

A World Adrift: The UN’s Leadership Crisis and the Fragmentation of Global Order

The debate over António Guterres’s successor as Secretary‑General of the United Nations unfolds at a moment when the international system is experiencing its deepest crisis of coherence since the end of the Cold War. 

My column of yesterday in Diário de Notícias (1)—a sober reflection on the “impossible job” awaiting the next UN leader—captures the structural paralysis of multilateralism. Yet when juxtaposed with the rest of the day’s DN coverage, a broader picture emerges: the UN’s leadership vacuum is only one manifestation of a world in which state‑centric power politics have decisively eclipsed institutional governance.

This contrast between my institutional lens and DN’s event‑driven reporting reveals a deeper truth. The crises dominating the headlines—Middle Eastern escalation, energy insecurity, and domestic political fragmentation—are precisely the types of challenges the UN was designed to manage. Their prominence, coupled with the near‑absence of UN‑related coverage outside my column, underscores the organization’s declining relevance in shaping global outcomes.

---

The Candidates and the Constraints

My analysis of the four declared candidates—Michelle Bachelet, Rafael Grossi, Rebeca Grynspan, and Macky Sall—highlights a paradox at the heart of the UN system. Each contender brings a distinct diplomatic pedigree, yet all are constrained by the same immutable forces: the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members, the unwritten rule of regional rotation, and the political preferences of Washington, Beijing, and Moscow.

• Bachelet, arguably the most experienced, is penalized by her human‑rights professional record—an asset in normative terms but a liability in a system where major powers increasingly reject scrutiny.
• Grossi carries the weight of nuclear diplomacy, but his candidacy is entangled in the triangular dynamics among the U.S., Russia, and Argentina’s unpredictable foreign policy under Javier Milei.
• Grynspan, whom I see as the frontrunner, benefits from geopolitical neutrality of her country of origin (Costa Rica) and gender‑representation momentum.
• Sall embodies the aspirations of the Global South but is constrained by the Latin America–Caribbean rotation expectation. It is almost impossible to have an African candidate as the winner of this year's race.

The common thread is clear: the next Secretary‑General will be selected not for their capacity to lead but for their acceptability to the powers most responsible for the UN’s paralysis.

---

A System Under Strain

While I emphasize the current institutional fragility, DN’s broader news cycle paints the operational landscape in which the next Secretary‑General must operate.

Middle East Escalation

DN’s coverage of ceasefire negotiations, U.S.–Iran mediation, and the risk of regional spillover illustrates the erosion of diplomatic norms. These crises unfold largely outside UN frameworks, with major powers preferring ad hoc coalitions and bilateral channels. The UN’s role is reactive at best, symbolic at worst.

Energy Insecurity

Reports on Europe’s jet‑fuel shortages and declining U.S. reserves highlight the geopolitical weaponization of energy. These dynamics—once central to UN‑led discussions on global economic stability—now play out in markets and national capitals, not in multilateral forums.

Domestic Political Fragmentation

DN’s focus on Portuguese political tensions, IMF warnings, and governance challenges mirrors a global trend: domestic politics increasingly dominate foreign‑policy bandwidth. As states turn inward, multilateral commitments weaken.

Together, these stories reinforce my thesis: the UN is being marginalized not by irrelevance but by the deliberate choices of states that no longer see multilateralism as a vehicle for advancing their interests.

---

The Return of Pre‑1945 Politics

My most striking argument is that the world is reverting to a pre‑1945 logic—one in which power, not principle, determines outcomes. DN’s coverage supports this view. Whether in the Middle East, energy markets, or domestic politics, the pattern is consistent: states act unilaterally, institutions react belatedly, and norms erode quietly.

The UN’s predicament is therefore structural. It is not merely that the organization lacks tools; it is that the geopolitical environment no longer rewards cooperation. The next Secretary‑General will inherit a system in which the Charter’s foundational assumptions—collective security, sovereign equality, and the primacy of law—are openly contested.

---

The Secretary‑General as “Peregrino da Paz”

My metaphor of the Secretary‑General as a “tartaruga em movimento”—a turtle in constant motion—captures the essence of the role in the current era. The next leader will need to be:

• perpetually itinerant, engaging directly with capitals rather than relying on institutional authority
• politically agile, navigating great‑power rivalries without becoming their instrument
• symbolically resilient, embodying the UN’s normative aspirations even when its operational capacity is limited

This is not the Secretary‑General envisioned in 1945. It is a diplomatic pilgrim, operating in the interstices of a fragmented order - that is what is required today. 

---

Conclusion: A Leadership Contest That Mirrors a Systemic Crisis

The juxtaposition of my column with the day’s DN coverage (2) reveals a world in which the UN’s leadership transition is both crucial and curiously peripheral. Crucial because global crises demand coordinated responses; peripheral because states increasingly bypass the very institution designed to provide them.

The next Secretary‑General will not reverse this trend alone. But the selection process—shaped by geopolitical bargaining, regional expectations, and normative pressures—will signal whether the international community still believes in the possibility of collective governance.

In that sense, the succession to Guterres is more than a personnel decision. It is a referendum on the future of multilateralism itself.

---

(1) https://www.dn.pt/opiniao-dn/um-cargo-impossvel-a-sucesso-de-guterres-num-mundo-deriva
      The English translation will be available soon.
(2) 17 April 2026

Nihilism or optimism: the global disorder

 The International Disorder: Nihilism or Optimism?

Victor Ângelo

“God is dead,” proclaimed the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche at the close of the nineteenth century. Fundamentally, this phrase signified that religion—particularly Christianity—had ceased to serve as the principal source of traditional values, and that a new era demanded a different moral framework. Nietzsche’s intent was to draw attention to the necessity of transcending the phase of disorientation that invariably accompanies a paradigm shift, and to encourage reflection upon the future.

Were Nietzsche alive today, he might well have his protagonist declare, “the international order is dead.” Such a statement would imply that the global legal and institutional architecture, which fell into a coma in February 2022, has now, at the dawn of this year, finally expired following recent events and proclamations that have shaken the international stage.

Following this line of thought, one might assert that we are presently living through a period of political and moral nihilism. That is to say, the fundamental norms governing relations between states—such as the inviolable sovereignty of all, the prohibition of force in resolving disputes, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of others—are being openly flouted by global powers. As was recently remarked in an interview with the New York Times, the only moral framework that appears to prevail is that defined by those who wield power. This is the essence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are regarded as obsolete, ineffective, and thus to be disregarded. Such is the case, among others, with the United Nations system, which has been progressively marginalised by the leaders of the major powers.

It is within this confused and uncertain context that this year’s Davos gathering will take place, from 19 to 23 January. Hundreds of leaders from across the globe, representing government, business, and civil society, will convene in the Swiss town in a “spirit of dialogue”—the event’s guiding theme. It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so sorely needed. Above all, it is vital to resist fatigue and cynicism in the face of the complexity of new realities. The current challenges demand courage, candour, and greater diplomatic skill. Dialogue, indeed.

For the first time, a large-scale participation from the Global South is anticipated. This reminds us that the future must take into account the interests and concerns of those countries excluded from the old, developed West. The Global South also seeks to remind us of the need to reconstruct the multilateral system, integrate emerging economies into a balanced framework of global trade, and address issues of development, excessive sovereign debt, health, and climate.

The President of the United States will be present in Davos. It is expected that there will be a meeting with President Zelensky and those European leaders willing to support the implementation of the peace plan for Ukraine. This is an important development, although I remain convinced that we are still far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept the plan in its current form. In recent times, Putin has intensified his aggression and war crimes against Ukraine, thereby signalling his reliance above all on war and the violence of force. For him, the international order that has been law for decades is, in fact, dead.

Europeans must prepare to confront the consequences of this new paradigm, and in particular, the threat now emanating from the Kremlin and other sources. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to the execution of a possible, albeit distant, peace plan, it is essential to accelerate cooperation among European states and invest in a coordinated manner in the autonomy of defence within our geopolitical space. In doing so, we demonstrate our understanding that the world has changed and is, for now, a perilous place in which to live.

Simultaneously, Europe should, in alliance with the democracies of the Global South, play a more active role in reforming the multilateral system, especially the United Nations. This is a task that will enable us to face the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message here is clear: Europe believes in the importance of international law and stands ready to contribute to a fairer rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement, which will take place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path that ought to be followed. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an agreement that has taken decades to reach fruition largely contradicts the thesis that the international order is dead. I hope that Davos will also reveal that, in these uncertain times, there remains space for imagination and the will to approach the future with optimism.

_________________________________________________________

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-desordem-internacional-niilismo-ou-otimismo

Mahatma Gandhi´s position about the world order: an imaginary letter

 

If Nietzsche represents the Will to Power, Mahatma Gandhi represents the Will to Truth. Gandhi would likely view my letter as a honest diagnosis of a sick patient (the world), but he would find Nietzsche’s "nihilism" to be deeply misguided.

Here is Mahatma Gandhi's imaginary but well-grounded response:

---

Wardha, India (In the Eternal Present)

My Dear Friend Victor,

I have read your letter to the German philosopher with a heavy heart, though not a surprised one. You speak of the "death of the international order" as if a grand cathedral has collapsed. But I must ask you: was this cathedral ever built upon the solid rock of Truth, or was it merely a house of cards held together by the glue of mutual fear and the greed of empires?

You and your friend Friedrich speak much of Nihilism. He sees it as a vacuum of power; you see it as a loss of rules. I see it as a simple, tragic forgetting. You have forgotten that the only "order" that can endure is not one written in treaties by men in expensive suits in Davos, but the one written in the human heart. When you say the "international order is dead," you are merely admitting that a peace maintained by the sword has finally—and inevitably—perished by the sword.

You look to Davos and the Mercosur agreement as signs of hope. I look at them and ask: “Where is the last man?” Does this trade pact serve the weaver in a village in Paraguay or the farmer in the Alentejo, or does it merely grease the wheels of a global machinery that consumes the soul to produce a profit? A bridge built of gold and paper will always buckle under the weight of human suffering.

My friend, you call for "European Defence Autonomy." You say the world is a perilous place and that you must arm yourselves to survive the "Kremlin’s brute force as well as others'." This is the oldest trap in human history. To arm yourself against the brute is to admit that the brute's way is the only way. You seek to become a "Geopolitical Power," but in doing so, you risk losing your soul. True autonomy—what I call Swaraj—is not the ability to destroy your enemy; it is the courage to remain unmoved by his violence.

Nietzsche tells you to seek Strength. I tell you to seek Gentleness. He tells you to look into the Abyss. I tell you to look into the Eyes of your Oppressor until he sees his own reflection and is ashamed.

The "Order" is not dying because Putin and others are strong or because the UN is weak. It is dying because the West tried to build a "Rules-Based Order" without a "Moral-Based Life." You cannot have peace in the world if there is a war in your lifestyle.

Do not waste your breath trying to "reconstruct" the old institutions. They were top-heavy and soulless. Instead, build from the ground up. Let the Global South not bring "interests" to your table, but a new simplicity. If Europe wants to lead, let it lead not by the thickness of its armour, but by the depth of its sacrifice for the planetary good.

The order has not perished, Victor. Only the illusion has. Now, for the first time, you are free to build a peace that does not require an army to defend it.

Yours in the service of Truth,

Mahatma K. Gandhi