Next UNSG: Ghani Out, Ban In; India Wins Most

Ban emerges as the next UNSG it is clear from last night's straw poll at the UN in New York. Ghani pulled four 'encourage' and no less than 11 'discourage' votes (including three vetos), making him the sole candidate without a 'no opinion' vote. Ghani's candidature, it appears, suffered from entering the race at a late date, little time before the US called for the process to be sped up. The campaign nevertheless had quite impressive press coverage in the run up to the rushed straw poll. This includes a piece by Op-Ed contributor Bret Stephens in today's WSJ (hopefully I'll get the full version later today: email with a copy is welcome!), with this intro:

Few people are better qualified to run the United Nations than Ashraf Ghani. So it goes without saying that the former Afghan finance minister and current chancellor of Kabul University stands almost no chance of getting the job. Instead, Kofi Annan's successor as secretary-general is likely to be South Korea's colorless foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon, who has the backing of the Bush administration and continues to run well ahead of other candidates in several Security Council straw polls. An Asian peer of Mr. Ban recently quipped that he'll be "more secretary than general"; his one recommendation is that he's probably ...

Other coverage included a live appearance last night on BBC World's unforgiving but high standard interview show "Hard Talk", and this agenda presenting interview with the AP. The interview demonstrates Ghani's insight into the challenges lying ahead for the UN, especially the necessity of focusing on the reform process in order to safeguard and ameliorate the organization's operational effectiveness and general standing. Today's quote is from the WSJ whose Op-Ed page asked the candidates "to two questions. First, we asked them to discuss an avoidable mistake the United Nations had made within the last five years. Second, we asked them what major reform they would undertake as secretary general. Five candidates gave us their answers." This is Ghani's answer:

IN his March report on reform, Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the United Nations ''lacks the capacity, controls, flexibility, robustness and indeed transparency to handle multibillion-dollar global operations.'' Describing the organizational culture as ''damaged,'' he acknowledges that a recent audit points ''to both mismanagement and possible fraud'' in peacekeeping operations. He concludes that reform efforts have addressed the ''symptoms and not the causes of our underlying weaknesses.''

These internal problems have undermined the moral authority and effectiveness of the United Nations, which ought to be the trusted global forum for reaching consensus and taking action on vital challenges. This loss is most directly felt in the poorest countries of the world. Yet distrust among member nations has slowed the momentum of reform.

The United Nations should foster global stability by investing in effective states and legitimate institutions. But doing so requires us to renew an organization designed for a different era. Through consultation with member states, I will seek an agreement on the key tasks that the United Nations must perform. I will lead a process of reform that will allow the United Nations to set the gold standard for transparency and accountability, and which will inspire talented women and men from around the world to work at the United Nations. Only by establishing trust in the organization can we make the United Nations the instrument of global choice for addressing the problems of our time.

The P5 have decided to choose a candidate who will leave the reform process to underlings. Perhaps this is an expression of a hope that a weak or at least loose management UNSG makes for an easier outside imprint on UN reform. If so, that would be a perverted logic: without strong internal leadership, UN reform risks being voted and analysed, but not implemented whole-heartedly. Furthermore, even if Ban still has the chance to transform his bland aura in practice, the choice of a bureaucrat for UNSG may seem a safe bet to some governments. But they may come to dearly regret this if Ban shows himself unable to be more than the "world's top diplomate", namely someone who can redefine the given crisis agenda through intellect and charisma.

It will be interesting to follow the after-math stories to the selection of Ban -- especially which P5 members vetoed who and for which reasons, including Mr. Ghani.

The major winner, however, seems to be India. India's support for the Tharoor candidature looks like a smart ploy. By backing him in spite of breaking the 'no large country UNSG rule', the Indian government created a defeat for India, which adds to the argument that India should get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Ghani Runs For UNSG And Deserves To Win

Ashraf Ghani has decided to run for UNSG, today’s Financial Times reports. This is good news: Ghani is by far the most interesting candidate in the field. FT quotes him as arguing for the candidature with the exact element other candidates are missing:

“I hope to win, through ideas,” Mr Ghani told the Financial Times. “In the public debate so far, I have yet to see a clear articulation of vision, an analysis of the central issues and a programme for change.”

The problem goes futher than Ghani’s diagnosis: the absence of concrete and strategic visions for the UN is also a sign that the general ability to generate ideas and initiatives later on is probably low. If you cannot get an idea when you need one, you need a different job.

The coming UNSG is faced with a number of challenges, some immediate — operational and organizational — and some more abstract. Ghani’s record in Afghanistan e.g. speaks clearly about his ability for running a multilateral, multi-stakeholder process with both heavy security and development repercussions. Most of the present candidates are of course likely to be solid administrators who can deal with immediate and running operational challenges. But Ghani is furthermore both brave and original: take e.g. this BBC piece about his intervention at last year’s TED global, including a critique of the redundancies of the development and aid industry.

The capacity to deal with the immediate and longer term organizational challenges — the reform agenda — however, is tied up with the more abstract challenges facing the UN. The short version of this is that security and development are converging. In strategic terms, political solutions are needed first to complement globalization’s integrative pull, not least in terms of creating effective states that can allow their citizens to prosper — a long term challenge that, once lifted, will at the same time alleviate the security problems associated with weak and failed states. Second, they are needed to orchestrate globalization as an integration of relations between the ‘old world’ and the ‘emerging’ powers and markets — in order to avoid a return to pre-WWI big power politics. In operational terms, enabling effective states is also the emerging necessary goal of any military conflict or post-conflict situation. The new military lessons learned of Phase IV and Peace Operations emphasize the parallel effort of stabilization and reconstruction. At both levels, security and development are increasingly tied to together.

The upshot of this convergence is that the next UNSG must have both practical operational experience with either agenda, and also a calibrated capacity for horizontal thinking. Horizontal thinking is Thomas Barnett’s term for pragmatic agility in terms of eschewing the stove-piped specialization of academics. All bureaucrats tend to think of themselves as productive generalists. But academic ability is crucial: the ability to not only grasp the largest global trends but also to pose productive solution-frameworks is rare among non-academics (as it is among academics in general who falter on the second element, but that is another story).

Ghani’s track-record is well-established here: take e.g. this new piece co-written with Claire Lockhart for the Washington Quarterly. Go read it, and then ask yourself whether you would rather have a person who can think like that at the helm of the UN — or someone who might be bothered to read it?

Ashraf Ghani seems to be the right man for the job. He appears organizationally and intellectually astute enough to deal with the member states’ cross-pressures regarding the reform agenda at both the UN and in development policy. Furthermore, he understands the necessitas of security: that security issues and logics sometimes intrude on ‘regular’ politics and policies, and that this should be if not always heeded then at least willingly mediated. A UNSG without this insight would leave the organization crippled.

This post is cross-posted at UNSG.org. Thanks to Tony Fleming for the invitation to become guest editor at UNSG.org.

A Ghani UNSG Candidature in the Offing?

[LATER UPDATE: See: Ghani Runs for UNSG and Deserves to Win]

The Financial Times now mention Ashraf Ghani among the two, top alternative candidates for taking over at the UN after current UNSG Annan steps down. But more than just getting the FTs attention, Ghani's possible candidature is being vetted from several sides:

"The conventional wisdom is that none of the four candidates stand much of a chance," said one Security Council diplomat. The idea is that once the field has cleared, other candidates will emerge from the wings. One strong potential figure could be Goh Chok Tong, Singapore's former prime minister. Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan's respected former finance minister, is also contemplating a bid, having been approached by President Hamid Karzai and sounded out by several European governments, the FT has learnt.

As written before (Next UNSG Must Know Security), it is highly important for the UN that the coming top guy knows both development and security. Furthermore, he needs to be a proactive administrator. Being proactive in terms of bridging differences by bold or imaginative proposals before the differences grow too large is key for the coming UNSG. Ghani himself agrees with this analysis -- see his new piece on nepalnews.com, and especially this argument on the importance of leadership:

In the absence of leadership, the people’s energy is focused on gaining immediate benefits for themselves. Groups, from organised labour in private businesses and schools, to even the civil service are demanding more for themselves, expecting the New Nepal to bring payoffs to them. Political leaders have been unable to counter such demands because they have not articulated the new vision and defined the new compact. The people’s movement was able to bring down the old regime but without leadership of vision and action, it will not be able to construct a New Nepal.

If the leaders fail in this critical moment, the state is bound to fail under the weight of excessive expectations alone. Surely the people of Nepal deserve leadership from their politicians to ensure that Nepal embarks upon a path towards a new future. In this unique moment, even the age-old social barriers to inclusion seem surmountable. A new future is no longer a dream, it has become possible.

However if this chance is wasted, the mobilised energies of the people could not only dissipate but, worse still, feed into a vicious cycle of violence and destruction. Nepal would rapidly fall back into the old orbit defined by the old dynamics. Seizing a rare, historic moment and turning it into the beginning of a new future requires a clear vision and sustained action. A clear vision enables collective efforts by citizens and sustained action reinforces their belief in the attainability of the new future.

Ashraf Ghani -- accomplished academic and practical reformer both -- would surely be a remarkable candidate (Ghani Would Be Good For UN: FT Op-Ed On Reconstruction).


LATER UPDATE: The FT reiterates its information on Ghani after the first "informal strawpoll" on the official candidates:

The poll has been described as only a first indication, as the process has some way to go, and other candidates are expected to emerge from the wings. One strong potential figure could be Goh Chok Tong, Singapore’s former prime minister. Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s respected former finance minister, is also contemplating a bid, having been approached by President Hamid Karzai and sounded out by several European governments, the FT has learnt.

Moreover, a new Webmemo from the Heritage Foundation picks up on Ghani's possible candidature as well, mentioning him first among the other potential candidates:

News reports indicate that, while Ban Ki-Moon and Shashi Tharoor led the UN Security Council’s first straw poll to become the next Secretary-General, there is a “a general sense that none of the candidates were likely to succeed.”

If the official candidates founder, other potential candidates include Afghanistan’s former finance minister Ashraf Ghani; Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan; President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia; former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim; current high commissioner of Pakistan to the United Kingdom and a former ambassador to the United States Maleeha Lodhi; former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski; Singapore’s former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong; and Administrator of the UN Development Programme Kemal Dervis of Turkey.

How the U.S. will vote on the official candidates is unclear. Although President Bush’s statements on July 10 indicate that the U.S. has acknowledged demands that the next Secretary-General be from Asia, it also seems clear that the U.S. will oppose candidates whom it considers unsuitable. Thus far, the U.S. appears unenthused about any of the four declared candidates, which may in part reflect its uncertainty about the commitment of the individual candidates to fundamental UN reform. Based on comments by U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, UN reform is a priority for the U.S. and will be a key factor in its decision whether to support or oppose a particular candidate.

Ghani Would Be Good For UN: FT Op-Ed On Reconstruction

Among the various candidatures either vented, expected or encouraged for the next UN Secretary General, the best looking is Ashraf Ghani, present Chancellor of Kabul University. My arguments for a Ghani candidature have been mentioned before (Next UNSG: Ghani and the Scandinavians plus Next UNSG Must Know Security) so the reason I bring him up here is his recent op/ed-piece in the Financial Times: "Afghanistan has the assets to regain momentum" (subscribers only, but sabawoon.com brings the whole text here):

There is an emerging consensus, domestic and international, that Afghanistan is likely to slide into chaos. This misses the central point: there are assets in place that, if organised coherently, could re-establish momentum towards creating a stable, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan. If failure is not an option for the international community, attention must be focused on renewing Afghans’ trust in a bright future to make them active partners in the fight against violence and disorder. The problem has arisen from failure to adapt to a changed context, loss of momentum in pursuing a credible programme of development and mis-calibrated use of violence. (...)

What are the elements of a strategy? Hamid Karzai, president, and his government have a choice: act decisively and become founding fathers of a dignified nation or go down as those who squandered a golden chance. They must show commitment to rule of law and accountability. First, they must establish a supreme court that is a model of independence. Second, they must confront corruption through a commission of Afghan and international people who could investigate allegations at the highest levels and impose sanctions. Third, they must pursue good governance. Fourth, they must build equality of opportunity for the young generation. Fifth, security strategy must be overhauled.

Regional support must be renewed: in particular, Pakistan should be persuaded that stability in Afghanistan provides the basis of its own stability and prosperity. The imbalance between military and developmental expenditure by the international community needs to be redressed, with new mechanisms that would reinvigorate the Afghans’ energies for reconstructing their country. As the key to prosperity lies in regional trade and investment, the Gulf countries could play an important role. While use of force is going to be required, it must be placed within a comprehensive strategy of state-building. The anti-drugs strategy must be revisited to ensure it is aligned with the overall objective.

Ghani's expertise in state-building and reconstruction operations is clear as he recommends a wiser use of force (viz. the debate on the political nature of counterinsurgency where the centre of gravity is always the hearts and minds, as argued e.g. here); and a balancing of expenditures on military and civil means. Interestingly for his theoretical candidature, he smartly doesn't critize the US directly, but keeps to challenging the Karzai administration with pretty sound and concrete advice. Most importantly the piece shows his commitment not only to Afghanistan -- but also to the crucial combination of development and security embodied in the reconstruction task.

Understanding the challenge of the convergence of security and development will be essential for any coming UN Secretary General. Without knowledge of both development and security in practice (and, as Ghani has, also preferrably in theory) there is less of a chance that the UNSG will succeed. The next UNSG will have to deal with development as much as geopolitics -- and the other way around. Since most stakeholders seem to focus on either side of the coin diplomatic skills and a sense of urgency for either agenda, and their converging trend, is utterly important.

* * *

Later update on the concrete case: al-Zawahri calls for attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan ("Al-Qaeda Leader Calls for Afghan Rebellion", Washington Post); while Karzai echoes Ghani's critique of the present tactics ("Karzai Calls for Reassessing U.S. Strategy", from AP).

Next UNSG Must Know Security

The last post contained a few reflections on who might be the next UN Secretary General; pointed to Ghani as the best present choice; and speculated a bit about theoretical Scandinavian dark horses. But, instead of guessing names, which tendencies and structural demands can be established for the selection?* If the UN is to retain or regain the standing it had during the 1990s as a medium of choice for international politics the next UNSG has to be able to embrace a proactive, not just a defensive agenda. It seems there are at least four elements:

The Basics: The next UNSG must be able to cope with a defensive agenda as a minimum. The first UNSG post quoted an FT article out of Davos with positionings by a few candidates, which pointed out that the coming UNSG must be able to handle several challenges at the same time. Sorting these into categories, the following defensive agenda emerges: Be a diplomat: "Cater to great powers, disgruntled middle-income countries and the developing world"; "balance US objectives with the rest of the world’s suspicion of US motives"; "deal with a rising China and India"; "have mental strength to absorb savage criticism for events sometimes out of his or her control". Be an administrator: "Push through major institutional reforms"; "expand operations around the world"; "do this amid US congressional demands for managerial change following the oil-for-food and other corruption scandals"; "develop new tools to cope with: nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, human rights atrocities, persistent poverty, disease and environmental degradation".

The Politically Correct Demands: According to the site of reference concerning the next UNSG (http://www.unsg.org/), two general expectations or hopes seem to be widespread: that the next UNSG be Asian and/or a woman. The former demand is probably more in play than the latter just by virtue of the stakeholders. Truth is, the taking turns argument is not an old institution: it was invented as part of the argumentation of why Perez de Cuellar should have the post. The Asian countries will of course defend whatever candidate emerges, but the claim is not enshrined.

The Secret Stuff: While all of the other countries do have a say, it is both difficult to imagine possible and would be very counterproductive for the UN to get a candidate which the US cannot greenlight. One element, though can help making the US accept a given candidate -- and it is said that this has always been the case -- would be if the US "had something" on the person (e.g. Hammerskjöld, Waldheim and de Cuellar).

The Post 9/11 Demands: While the defensive agenda -- being a diplomat and an administrator -- is necessary but not sufficient, the final weight of the two next groups is harder to gauge. What we can say with some certainty, though, is that in the post-9/11 context, the UN faces some challenges very different from those it did during both the Cold War and the 1990s intermission. The UN and its backers wish to retain or regain its or parts of its status as a the reference global mediating institution as it looked to be for a while in the 1990s. As written elsewhere, this is unlikely to happen: 9/11 meant that the relative American indifference of the 1990s was over, and that DC recaptured the initiative taking role. Instead, the G8 along with other more ad hoc decision making circuits is likely to figure as the forum of choice. Yet, nevertheless, UN reform is extremely important for those parts of the global agenda that the UN runs, i.e. large chunks of development.

This means, that the next UNSG cannot merely stick with the largely defensive agenda that the FT article stakes out. The UN has to be able to deliver in terms of security politics, not just as a function of American wishes, but, in order to be a bridgebuilder, proactively deliver on American promises in ways that accomodate or sufficiently satisfies both the US and the other players. Effectively, the next UNSG must be bold enough to bring forth policy proposals very early on in these policy processes.

And here is the problem: Candidates who have only worked with "civil affairs" would probably be less readily receptive to the function of security as a policy domain. Getting a new UNSG with strong preferences for the development agenda is important -- and many development people probably would love one that would also "stick it to the rich countries" once in a while -- but this can easily backfire in terms of the UN's relative standing as a problem solving forum. So, the next UNSG must not only be a diplomat and an administrator, be well-versed in development but also have in-depth experience with security in situations when push comes to shove. Merely having been a foreign minister might not be enough.

* = Update: Richard Holbrooke has had his say on the subject in the Washington Post: Holbrooke insists on the Asian claim, and offers both a number of candidates and more general reflections.

Next UNSG: Ashraf Ghani and the Scandinavians

[LATER UPDATE, SEPT 18: Ghani Runs for UNSG and Deserves to Win]

The battle over who will replace Kofi Annan as the next Secretary General of the UN is on: Annan's term expires at the end of the year, and several candidates either have or are perceived to have joined the ranks of contenders for one of the most influential and definitely important posts in the world. Financial Times has an interesting piece on the subject coming out of the World Economic Forum summit in Davos. As FT's people aptly summarize, the next UNSG faces several tough challenges (for further reflection of the general demands for the next UN SG see the next post):

[W]hoever assumes the job will need to push through major institutional reforms as the UN expands its operations around the world, and amid US congressional demands for managerial change following the oil-for-food and other corruption scandals. They will have to perform a delicate dance between great powers, disgruntled middle-income countries and the developing world, and develop new tools to cope with nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, human rights atrocities, persistent poverty, disease and environmental degradation.

The secretary-general is often consumed with trying to balance US objectives, without whose support the UN is impotent, with the rest of the world’s suspicion of US motives. The new secretary-general will also have to deal with a rising China and India. Finally, as Mr Annan has quipped, the SG – as the secretary general is sometimes referred to – often stands for scapegoat. The incumbent needs the mental strength to absorb savage criticism for events sometimes out of his or her control.

While the election procedure is murky, a principle of different parts of the world "taking turns" to "supply" the SG would this time in principle call for an Asian to become the next SG. Among the Asians mentioned, Surakiart Sathirathai who is Thailand's deputy PM looks in the lead so far. Other Asians include the foreign ministers of Korea, Ban Ki-Moon, and Jose Ramos-Horta of East Timor.

The most interesting of the Asian lot, however, is probably Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan. Ghani has extensive UN system experience, is a renowned economist, understands both development and security qua his experience as the UN envoy in charge of seeing through the Bonn Agreement over the reconstruction of Afghanistan and its later implementation as the country's minister of finance from 2002-2004. Ghani has the intellectual ability, personal integrity, administrative experience, the necessary understanding of both security and development -- and he is both a top Western University graduate and a citizen of a developing country in many ways embodying the challenges of globalization in terms of the interconnectedness of security and development. Wikipedia has a nicely extensive bio here. Ghani, given that there are no nasty secrets, looks like my favorite.

As the US, through UN ambassador John Bolton, recently expressed that the American position is not primarily to follow the informal rule of taking turns, but that it wants to see the best possible candidate, a round up of the remaining, non-Asian candidates include most prominetly former Polish president Alexander Kwazniewski. Yet, as FT remarks:

It appears unlikely that the winner will come from any of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, although their blessing will be essential. The process of choosing a secretary-general is shrouded in secrecy and has been described as the papal conclave without the smoke. Many diplomats suggest the winning candidate’s name may not yet be in the ring.

The point about P5 members not running would rule out the probably most interesting candidate at all, former US president Clinton. Harper's Magazine's January edition runs an essay on "Why only Bill Clinton can save the U.N." (by Parag Khanna, main title: United they fall), which unfortunately is not online.

But, in keeping with DracObs' navel gazing claim of having a Scandinavian perspective, let's take a quick look at the possible or theoretical Scandinavian candidates (given that the fat lady has not sung yet, and that new contenders may enter the fray up until very late in the contest). The general argument for having a Scandinavian in the lead of the UN is that the Nordic countries have always been the most ardent supporters of the UN and espcially the development agenda, and that they are the most generous in relative development money terms, and even noteworthy in absolute terms. Moreover, the countries tend to represent the soft, positive agenda of the West while still retaining operative credibility with the US in security matters (Denmark more than others). A Scandinavian could then -- and this would certainly please the self-absorbed lot of us -- emerge as a compromise candidate because he or she would be the least disliked.

The theoretical Scandinavian candidates are, in this order, I would say: Carl Bildt (Sweden), Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway), Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Denmark), Martti Ahtisaari (Finland). All of them are former PM's or presidents, and all of them have experience in different international settings.

Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt has a far more impressive international CV than Rasmussen does; he is only 56; has worked for and with both the UN, the Americans and the EU; and that in security related reconstruction subjects all over the Balkan. The security experience, just like his moderate-conservative outlook is probably a boon vis-a-vis the Americans. Unless he keeps some skeletons in the closet he would be my best Scandinavian bet.

Gro Harlem Brundtland is, for several reasons, the most obvious choice. As not only former Norvegian PM but also former leader of the WHO where she shoved competent leadership during her tenure. Rumor has it that the official reason for stepping down as leader of the WHO (she took ill) was in reality also a reaction to the renewal of Annan's contract -- she could be wanting this. Against her speaks her political stance as a pretty left-wing Socialdemocrat, her not always generous stance towards the US, and the fact that she has little security experience.

Former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, an economist, saw through a tight, fairly conservative economic reform in Denmark as head of both government and the Socialdemocratic party in the 1990s, and was partly responsible for creating and sustaining a long-lasting upturn. After stepping down he was elected to the European Parliament where he is president of the Socialist parties grouping at the EP (American readers: read 'socialist' as 'liberal'). Rasmussen, at 62, surely wants more for himself than sitting in the European puppet container for another term. For him speaks also his pragmatism and extremely efficient administrative skills. Against him speaks in principle his political stance, but he is probably much less of a loose cannon than Brundtland would be.

Former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari had an extensive career with the UN before becoming president in 1994. Question is whether he would want to come back? At 69, though, he is probably to old, and has mostly worked on EU related subjects after stepping down in 2000.