THE contest for the UN Secretary-General role increasingly reflects a geopolitical shift, with candidates from Global South nations challenging traditional dominance by Western (Northern) contenders. This trend underscores growing calls for equitable representation and greater inclusivity in global governance. While the process remains influenced by the UNSC power politics, especially the veto power of permanent members, rising support for Southern candidates signals a broader demand for legitimacy and diversity in leadership. Hopefully, this time the outcome may reshape perceptions of multilateralism and reinforce the UN’s relevance in a multipolar world.
The process is ongoing for the selection of the next SG, there is no direct public election, as per the procedure, the UNSC recommends a single candidate (subject to veto) and the nominee need to secure 9 affirmative vote out of 15 with no veto and thus, ultimately the UNGA makes the final decision. Seven candidates are vying to succeed António Guterres as the United Nations’ tenth leader. The candidates in the race are: Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), Rafael Mariano Grossi( Argentina),Carolyn Birkett (Guyana), Lana Nusseibeh (UAE), Maria Fernanda (Ecuador, Barbuda),Lavonne A-Baki (Tonga) and Olara Uttunu (Uganda). This year’s secretary-general selection could be of particular significance because the United Nations may choose its first-ever woman leader. Out of the seven candidates, five are women. Based on the United Nations’ informal regional rotation, there is also a strong possibility that a candidate from the Latin American and Caribbean region will be selected.
Member states nominate candidates by submitting an application to the UN, including a personal statement with that candidate’s vision for what they would do in the role, a resume and campaign finance disclosures. The General Assembly then holds “interactive dialogues” in which candidates express their hopes for the position and the U.N. in an opening statement, which is followed by questioning from the assembly. These televised hearings continue as candidates are submitted to the U.N.The selection process relies on confidential straw polls among the 15 Security Council members, filtering out independent candidates’ early and forcing contenders to soften stances on human rights, democracy promotion or institutional reform to avoid antagonizing authoritarian or conservative P5 members.
As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United States holds the power to block any nominee, meaning a candidate needs Washington’s backing or at least no U.S. veto to win the position, That said, President Donald Trump has not publicly endorsed any of the seven contenders for UN Secretary-General due to his general skepticism toward multilateral institutions like the UN. His administration often criticized the organization as inefficient and biased, particularly against Israel. Trump’s foreign policy prioritized bilateral agreements and national sovereignty, making him unlikely to champion a UN-led candidate.
The officials in Washington state that the current slate of candidates lacks the radical reformers Washington wants and instead represents “business-as-usual” leadership. President Trump is pushing for a drastic overhaul of the global body and wants a leader willing to radically shake up the system. The UN Secretary-General selection is influenced by UNSC power politics because permanent members (P5) hold veto power, allowing them to block candidates they oppose. This ensures that the choice reflects geopolitical interests rather than merit alone. Regional rotations and diplomatic negotiations further entrench influence, with candidates often backed by major powers. Consequently, the process prioritizes consensus among P5 nations over transparency or global representation.
Fairly arguing, in the United Nations Secretary-General (SG) selection process, the General Assembly’s role is largely procedural and consensus-driven, reflecting intergovernmentalism, while the Security Council holds decisive influence through its recommendatory vote, embodying supranationalism. Although the GA formally appoints the SG, its power is constrained by the UNSC’s effective veto and dominant decision-making role. This imbalance underscores a structural asymmetry where diplomatic coordination among permanent members shapes outcomes more than broad multilateral agreement. The process thus favors strategic influence within the UNSC over inclusive intergovernmental negotiation
The Secretary-General holds independent authority under Article 99 of the UN Charter to bring threats to international peace and security to the attention of the Council. Major powers prefer a manager who will navigate geopolitical sensitivities and respect sovereign boundaries rather than a disruptive activist who challenges P5 interests in ongoing conflicts (such as Ukraine, Gaza or Sudan).The Secretary-General controls senior appointments, internal restructuring and management priorities. Major donor states and the P5 seek influence over these administrative levers—especially amid severe budget cuts and funding shortfalls—to ensure the Secretariat aligns with their foreign policy narratives.
In summary, the selection of the tenth United Nations Secretary-General arrives at a moment of unprecedented global instability. As AntónioGuterres prepares to step down on December 31, 2026, the international community is navigating a highly fractured geopolitical landscape defined by major conflicts, a crippling UN financial crisis and profound skepticism over the relevance of multilateralism itself.
The selection of a new UN Secretary-General at this pivotal moment reflects heightened global tensions, with major powers like the U.S., China and Russia exerting influence through veto dynamics and regional alliances. This choice is not merely administrative but symbolic—shaping multilateralism’s future while addressing the crises in Yemen, Gaza and Ukraine and also the challenges posed by the climate change and AI governance. A balanced, credible leader could restore trust in the UN; however, geopolitical gridlock risks appointing a figure compromised by power politics. Nonetheless, the outcome will test whether the UN can remain relevant in an era of fragmentation and instability and where international norms-based order is under serious threat.
—The writer is an independent IR & International Law analyst.
