Appointment of the Next UN Secretary-General: Joint Letter from the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly
A joint letter marking the formal start of the selection and appointment process for the next UN Secretary-General has been signed today (25 November) by the President of the Security Council, Michael Imran Kanu, and the President of the General Assembly (PGA), Annalena Baerbock. The letter serves to begin soliciting candidates for the position while also setting out the modalities for submitting and considering nominations.
The joint letter invites member states to present candidates through sending a letter to the presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It indicates that the Council will begin its selection “by the end of July 2026” and that it “plans to make its recommendation to the General Assembly in a timely manner”. Among other things, it says that the process will be “guided by the principles of transparency and inclusivity”.
Background
Issuing the joint letter is in line with General Assembly resolution 79/327 of 5 September on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, which called for the two presidents to start the Secretary-General selection and appointment process in this way. It follows the precedent set by resolution 69/321 of 22 September 2015 and marks the third time that a joint letter is being used to start the process. The first time was during the process that led to the appointment of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, whose second term ends on 31 December 2026. At that time, the joint letter was issued on 15 December 2015. The second occasion was in connection with the reappointment of Guterres, when the joint letter was issued on 5 February 2021.
This year’s joint letter was largely negotiated between, on the one hand, the five permanent members of the Council (P5) coordinated by Russia and, on the other hand, the ten elected Council members (E10) coordinated by Denmark.
On 30 September, ahead of the start of its October Council presidency, Russia met with the PGA. One of the topics discussed was the selection process for the next Secretary-General and it seems that the PGA indicated that she would provide an initial draft of the joint letter in line with the start of this process in 2015. On 3 October, the Office of the PGA sent a draft letter largely featuring language from General Assembly resolution 79/327 detailing the process of nomination and withdrawal of candidates and the qualities of nominees. It also apparently included language that had not been retained in the final draft of that resolution, such as timeframes for some of the expected steps of the selection process. It seems that the PGA’s draft was not shared with the whole Security Council.
On 20 October, Russia scheduled a meeting under “any other business” (AOB) to discuss the selection of the next Secretary-General. It seems that the Security Council Affairs Division (SCAD) briefed on the process during the meeting, which was held on 22 October. Russia also apparently announced that the P5 had agreed on a draft of the joint letter and expressed the hope that such a draft could be agreed by the whole Council. This draft, which at the time of the AOB meeting had not been shared with the E10 members, was apparently closely modelled on the 15 December 2015 letter, with minimal updates based on resolution 79/327.
It seems that during the AOB meeting, Denmark and many other E10 members raised concerns about the draft joint letter having been agreed among the P5 without consultation with the E10. These members apparently felt that this practice promoted a two-tiered system in which the P5 made decisions that the elected members were then expected to endorse. They stressed that the joint letter should be negotiated among all Council members and called for a transparent and inclusive approach.
At the time of the 22 October AOB meeting, the E10 and the five incoming Council members (I5) had been working on a position paper aligning their positions on the Secretary-General selection process. This initiative, spearheaded by Denmark, was aimed at developing a common E10 understanding of the role they could play in the process within the Security Council. In this context, the elected members agreed that the joint letter should include specific principles—such as fair geographic representation; encouragement of the nomination of women; and a commitment to a timely, transparent, and inclusive process—as well as notional events, such as a deadline for submission of nominations. During the negotiations on the joint letter, even though there were differences among some of the E10 on the relative importance of specific aspects of the selection process and regarding how much pressure the E10 should apply to ensure their positions were reflected in the letter, E10 unity was maintained.
The Negotiations Process
Following the 22 October meeting under AOB, Russia circulated the draft letter as agreed by the P5 to the rest of the Council, inviting comments by 24 October, a deadline that was later extended until 31 October at the request of the E10. Following an informal meeting of all Council members at the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN on 28 October and upon receiving comments from the E10, Russia circulated a first revised draft of the joint letter on 31 October and called for a second in-person negotiation meeting at its mission on 5 November. (Russia continued to lead on the drafting of the joint letter in November, when the Council presidency had moved to Sierra Leone.) Following that meeting, the E10 provided comments on the first revised draft on 6 November, which apparently were largely unacceptable to the P5.
In the following days, Denmark conducted several consultations, liaising between the E10 and the P5, as well as within the E10, in an effort to arrive at a letter that was acceptable to all. It seems that, following internal E10 discussions on the elements they considered essential, the E10 sent a streamlined version of their earlier proposal to the P5 on 12 November, after which E10-P5 bilateral consultations continued.
On 20 November, Security Council members held a meeting under AOB to discuss the joint letter. The meeting was requested by Sierra Leone in its capacity as November’s Council president to receive an update from Russia and Denmark on the P5 and E10 positions, respectively. Following additional informal exchanges after the AOB, Russia put a second revised draft of the joint letter under a no-objection procedure (NOP) until 21 November, which it passed. Upon expiration of the NOP, the draft letter was sent to the PGA.
In a 21 November letter to Sierra Leone, the PGA apparently noted that some elements of resolution 79/327 related to the role of the General Assembly in the selection process—most of which were included in her 3 October draft letter—no longer appeared in the draft that she received from the Council. It seems that the PGA proposed that these elements be re-inserted in the letter. At the same time, the letter apparently noted that, if agreement on those elements could not be reached, the PGA would conduct the process to select and appoint the next Secretary-General in line with resolution 79/327.
On 24 November, Sierra Leone circulated to Council members the PGA’s edits to the joint letter, inviting comments by noon today (25 November). It seems that some Council members could have accepted the edits put forward by the PGA. The position that prevailed, however, was not to re-open negotiations on the letter that had passed the NOP on 21 November, with the P5 being particularly firm on this stance. At a meeting held shortly after the deadline for comments passed, Baerbock and Kanu signed the joint letter. The version that has just been signed was the one that had passed the NOP on 21 November.
Issues Raised during the Negotiations
The negotiations among Council members were challenging. An area of contention was how much detail to include in the letter about the qualities of the next Secretary-General. It seems that the E10 suggested adding references to independence, political leadership, and commitment to multilateralism and international law. These members also proposed referring to the importance of the Secretary-General’s role in the context of the implementation of the three pillars of the UN: peace and security, human rights, and development. It seems that the P5—which have been generally resistant to any reference that could be used to narrow the possible pool of candidates—opposed these proposals, none of which appear in the final draft of the joint letter.
Similarly, the P5 did not accept an E10 proposal to add a reference to “predictability” as a principle to guide the selection and appointment process. The P5 also objected to other elements—such as setting a 1 April deadline for nominations while allowing for exceptional circumstances—arguing that these would have restricted flexibility in the process. At the same time, an E10-suggested reference to the selection process being carried out “in a structured and timely manner” was added to the joint letter.
Although references to geographical balance, regional rotation, and “fair geographical representation” put forward by the E10 proved contentious during the negotiations, language on this issue was eventually strengthened through a reference noting “the importance of regional diversity in the selection of Secretaries-General”.
Language proposed by the E10 encouraging member states to “strongly” consider nominating women candidates—which reflects resolution 79/327—was also added, overcoming strong US opposition on this issue.
The E10 managed to align language in the joint letter with resolution 79/327 by proposing a reference saying that candidates “should” provide a vision statement and disclose their sources of funding at the time of nomination, as opposed to only being “invited” to do so, as formulated in the first P5 draft. Proposals that would have gone beyond language agreed in resolution 79/327 by asking candidates to disclose “subsequent funding” or to provide such disclosures “regularly” were not included, however. Language saying that candidates from the UN system should suspend their work was also aligned to resolution 79/327 by adding that this is “with a view to avoiding any conflict of interest that may arise from their functions and adjacent advantages”.
An element in the text which uses slightly stronger language than resolution 79/327 stipulates that the PGA and the president of the Security Council “will”—as opposed to “should”—jointly maintain and regularly update a public list of candidates on a dedicated UN webpage. A reference to the General Assembly convening webcast interactive dialogues, among other opportunities offered to the candidates to interact with member states, was also apparently added following an E10 proposal.
It seems, however, that a reference to the General Assembly that was important to the E10, in the context of the early presentation of candidates to help the “deliberations” of both the Security Council and the General Assembly was unacceptable to the P5. It appears that, in the view of the P5, only the Security Council has deliberative power on the matter of the selection of the UN Secretary-General. In an apparent compromise, the final version of the joint letter notes that presenting candidates early “will help the organization of informal interactive dialogues in the General Assembly and the deliberations of the Security Council”, thus adding a new reference to the General Assembly while decoupling it from the reference to deliberations.
The E10 succeeded in adding a paragraph describing the modalities for the withdrawal of candidates. This paragraph draws on resolution 79/327, which introduced these provisions following the experience of the 2016 process. At that time, the importance of clarifying this issue was highlighted by the confusion caused when Bulgaria gave its support to a second candidate in October 2016, having first nominated a candidate in February 2016.
Issues Raised by the PGA
It seems that, in her 21 November letter, Baerbock proposed including language based on Article 97 of the UN Charter, as well as text noting that the PGA would engage with member states in a transparent and inclusive manner. Among other changes, the PGA also apparently proposed deleting language saying that candidates should not be precluded from “making themselves known throughout the process” in the context of a provision encouraging the early presentation of candidates to facilitate the organisation of interactive dialogues in the General Assembly and the deliberations of the Security Council. She also apparently proposed strengthening language on the promptness of the Council’s recommendation to the General Assembly by proposing that the Council “will”, as opposed to “plans to”, make its recommendation “in a timely manner”. These proposed edits were not included in the letter that the PGA and the President of the Security Council signed today.
