With three women officially in the running so far to become the next United Nations chief, a 2016 contender argues a woman would represent a “new opportunity†and all three have the profiles for the job.
In 2016, Susana Malcorra was one of seven women candidates out of 13 in the running to become the next secretary general of the United Nations, ultimately losing out to former Portuguese prime minister António Guterres.
The experience prompted the former Argentine foreign minister, together with two other candidates, Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand, and the Bulgarian Irina Bokova, previously director general of the UN's cultural agency Unesco, to create GWL Voices to change the course and advance women's leadership in the multilateral system.
Its latest annual report, Women in Multilateralism, exposes decades of underrepresentation at the highest levels: not a single female candidate was officially considered for secretary general during the UN's first 60 years. The movement, which now counts nearly 80 members including all five former female human rights commissioners, will hold a general debate in Geneva on 8 June at the Maison de la Paix, with all five candidates in this year's race to replace Guterres on 1 January 2027, invited to attend. So far, three have confirmed.
With three women in the running so far, there are high hopes that for the first time in the organisation's 80-year history, a woman could claim the top job. They are former Chilean president and UN human rights high commissioner Michelle Bachelet; Argentina's Virginia Gamba, former UN special representative for children and armed conflict; and Costa Rican former vice president and economist Rebeca Grynspan. The other two candidates are Argentina's Rafael Grossi, current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Macky Sall, former president of Senegal.
Malcorra says the decision to hold a public event comes after the General Assembly's decision not to hold one this time around, in what she warns is a step back in efforts to make the work of the United Nations more accessible and transparent. In an interview at our offices in Geneva, Malcorra explains why it’s high time that a woman held the role.
Geneva Solutions: With three strong women candidates in the race, what are your hopes of seeing one of them appointed to succeed Guterres?
Susana Malcorra: That's what we really want to happen. But let me be clear. As Helen, Irina and I set out in a recent opinion piece, titled Not any person. Not any woman. Not any man, we first make the case for candidates that have values, a moral compass, and understand what it takes to be at the helm. We hear time and again: ‘Well, there has to be some somebody who has merit', as though, if it’s a woman, it's someone who doesn’t have merit. We believe that the nine prior secretary generals have been chosen by merit. That’s for us a given. But we also insist on what the profile requirements are, especially in the current circumstances. After that, we make the case that women are very strong on those attributes. Do we feel that this is a given? No, we don’t feel that this is a given. Nothing regarding women these days is a given.
You attended a meeting of the Club de Madrid in Geneva this week along with Michelle Bachelet, just as Chile's new hard-right government announced it was withdrawing its support for her candidacy? How did you interpret this news?
I’m sad that they took that decision because Chile has a history of a very civil change in politics between the left and the right. The fact that they withdrew their support, in my view, has to do with the political positioning.
She was supported by her government at the time, as well as Brazil and Mexico, and my sense is that Brazil and Mexico will continue to support her, because that goes beyond the position of the government under the new administration. They support her as a candidate.
As you refer to in your report, men are often excluded from holding certain leadership positions at the UN to instead manage ‘soft' issues. This may be the case as Bachelet and Grynspan face off against Grossi, who decided to continue working through the race, often closely with the US, on an issue that is central to the Iran-US-Israel conflict. Could that disadvantage the two female candidates?
I’m not going to opine. But just to remind you, Michelle was minister of defence of Chile – that gets forgotten. I think we have strong candidates and one needs to see how things evolve and how they characterise themselves vis-à -vis the current circumstances. What is clear is that the times require people who are able to build bridges, to listen, to find ways to open doors, and, if not doors, windows; to have people there who can go the extra mile, and maybe leave aside egos so as to find the opportunities. I will argue that they are very feminine characteristics. I’m not saying that men do not have them. In a world where there is over militarisation, where testosterone is high and all over the place, maybe having somebody who can diffuse the tensions, to find openings, and be there to put things on the table that might not be considered, that is very important..
How significant would it be in terms of women’ s status globally to see a woman becoming SG?
I think that having a woman secretary general will capture the imagination of the world. The symbolism of having a woman will create a new dynamic, and beyond that, it will represent, for many people, a new opportunity. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that having a woman brings a magic wand that will resolve all of the problems. It will require a very solid team surrounding that woman, which again, tends to be something that women accept and together with the recognition that they cannot do it alone. We will have to have a person that is hard-working, and no matter who the candidate is, man or woman, they will not have all the expertise required on all the issues that are on the table, including the proper management of the United Nations itself.
What political crossfire do you think some of the candidates may encounter in this race, especially from Security Council members? Bachelet for instance, may not be looked on favourably by China following her last report as human rights chief…
All candidates face political crossfire. I faced this myself. I was number two, after António, in the selection process, but I had a veto and it was for political fire. My frustration was more than personal. It was a frustration that, out of seven women with so many different backgrounds and experiences, including a prime minister like Helen Clark, not a single one was up to the task. That was very frustrating. On a personal note, I was told by the vetoing member state, that ‘it was nothing personal'.
What risk do you see of a candidate not being chosen on merit but to appease certain powerful members, namely the US?
That’s the tension you always have in the selection process. In the end, you have five vetoes that can decide your future. And in order for the P5 to decide, they compromise among themselves. That has always been the reality. In fact, when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was not re-elected (in 1996), it was because the US vetoed him. [He is the only secretary general to have been denied a second term -ed.]
One could argue that that’s the weakness of the system – to leave it, in the end, to five member states. When people talk about lack of representation, or equal representation at the UN, this election process is a case to show that. I think it would be better to have at least two candidates presented to the General Assembly to choose from (at the end of the process). This is something that was tried in 2016. However, so far, the P5 has said that that’s not going to happen.
What scope is there in the UN charter to change these rules?
The UN Charter doesn’t make it that clear that there is only one candidate. It says the secretary general is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. So, if you are flexible enough, you could interpret that allowing for two candidates to be proposed to the General Assembly to decide.
Do you think the US would be opposed to having a woman candidate?
I don't think the US is opposed, but two things are clear. Both the US and Russia have said that first, that they are not fixated with any particular region. They are putting aside the regional rotation, which is one first consideration. Secondly, they have said they will not take gender as a special consideration. You can read that in favour or against. I read it as a positive.
