By Ramesh Jaura* – rjaura.substack.com
Issues related to Gaza, Iran, and private negotiations cannot be resolved through the United Nations Security Council’s secret ballots.
When a government marks “encourage” for a UN Secretary-General candidate, is it supporting independent leadership, alignment with its own policies, or a willingness to negotiate? Conversely, does “discourage” reflect concerns about the candidate’s abilities, their positions on issues like Gaza and Iran, or their views on power dynamics? Studies of UN appointments highlight the complexity behind these decisions.
The next Secretary-General, starting 1 January 2027, must facilitate negotiations despite profound disagreements. Ongoing conflicts, climate challenges and unmet development needs demand cooperation, while commitments to particular countries will further complicate the role.
Seven candidates remain: Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), Rafael Grossi (Argentina), Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett (Guyana), Macky Sall (Senegal), María Fernanda Espinosa and Ivonne Baki (Ecuador), and Olara Otunnu (Uganda). Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile, has withdrawn. While all candidates have significant government and international experience, the public cannot observe how governments weigh this experience against their political interests.
Patrick I. Gomes, former Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, offers another perspective on candidate evaluation. In his appeal shared on 8 October, he supports Rodrigues-Birkett for her ministerial experience, commitment to multilateralism, and advocacy for smaller and less influential countries. It remains unclear whether governments value these qualities as highly as Gomes does.
What the ballots measure
The UN’s invitation to candidates lists integrity, competence, leadership, management ability, international experience, diplomatic skills, and commitment to the Charter as requirements. However, this does not reveal how Council members make their individual voting decisions.
According to Reuters, the process uses several confidential, non-binding ballots to gauge support for each candidate. An “encourage” vote signals support, not necessarily alignment with UN criteria, while a “discourage” vote indicates opposition without explanation.
Ben Donaldson, co-founder of the “1 FOR 8 BILLION” campaign, explains that powerful states initially seek candidates aligned with their national priorities and interests. His research with Fred Carver found that explicit deals sometimes occurred during the straw-poll phase in past elections. These findings reflect previous patterns, not the motivations behind the 2026 candidates.
Reuters reveals that in the fifth straw poll on 7 October, Grynspan received nine encourage votes and six discourage votes, down from ten encourages previously. Daniel Safran-Hon, a former UN official, noted that while she remains a contender, the instability of her support could prompt new candidates to enter the race.
PassBlue reveals that Grossi has six votes in favour, seven against, and two abstentions; Rodrigues-Birkett has five in favour, nine against, and one abstention, having lost three favourable votes. Grossi also lost two favourable votes but remains ahead. However, a higher ranking does not necessarily indicate increased support.
Because Council members assess candidates individually and may support several, one candidate’s decline does not show that votes shifted to another or that members acted in concert.
Gaza and Guyana’s candidate
Some reports link Rodrigues-Birkett’s prospects to her characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. This issue extends beyond the concerns raised in Gomes’s private correspondence.
PassBlue reported on 27 September that the New York Times had linked growing US opposition to her Gaza position. It also published her response. In a statement sent on 25 September, Rodrigues-Birkett said US authorities had assured her that the information did not originate with the US government. The US mission did not respond to PassBlue’s request for comment.
Her response should be considered alongside the allegation. It does not reveal Washington’s vote or clarify US officials’ intentions. While reporting highlights Gaza as a political issue in her campaign, it does not prove that this caused her loss of three encouragements on 7 October.
Even confirmed US opposition would not account for nine discouraging votes. Other governments may share US concerns, have separate objections, or question her ability to overcome a veto. These are possible explanations, not definitive accounts of individual votes.
The ballot took place on the third anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel, but timing alone does not prove it influenced voting. Israel does not participate in this selection so that any influence would be indirect, through Council members. Claims of lobbying require evidence of specific interactions and outcomes.
If a candidate’s view on Gaza is grounds for exclusion, governments should clarify whether they dispute her judgement, her evidence, or her willingness to criticise an ally. Each objection has different implications for the next Secretary-General’s independence.
Iran and Grossi’s record
Iran is central to Grossi’s candidacy because he led the International Atomic Energy Agency. Governments may view his approach to nuclear verification and dealings with Tehran as either evidence of diplomatic skill or grounds for concern. Interpretations of his record may differ.
The Washington Post cited analyst Brett Schaefer linking Russian unease about Grossi to the IAEA’s positions on Iran and Ukraine.
This reflects an analyst’s view, not Russia’s actual vote. It also highlights the need to consider perspectives beyond Washington’s. Russia’s concerns and the Ukraine dispute may intersect with the Iranian issue in Grossi’s assessments.
Grossi has publicly cautioned against military action near nuclear sites. In his 13 June 2025 Security Council statement, he highlighted the risks and called for restraint. These statements should be considered alongside his oversight of Iran’s nuclear activities.
No evidence shows that Washington rewarded or penalised Grossi over Iran in the 7 October poll. His two lost encouragements cannot be directly linked to this issue. While his record makes Iran relevant, the voting remains unexplained.
For Grynspan, even less evidence links her vote changes to positions on Gaza or Iran. Her nine encouragements and six discouragements do not clearly reflect approval or rejection based on these issues. The same caution applies to Sall, Espinosa, Baki, and Otunnu. No verified account explains how either conflict affected their scores.
Gaza, Iran and Ukraine are relevant to assessments of Rodrigues-Birkett and Grossi, but none reliably explains the vote counts.
Where bargaining enters
The study Backroom Deals, published by 1 for 8 Billion with Plataforma CIPÓ, raises further questions about what encouragement means. Researchers Ben Donaldson and Fred Carver document credible allegations that support was exchanged for influence over senior appointments, drawing on histories, memoirs, and interviews with over 40 individuals familiar with the organisation.
The study, previously discussed by IDN, provides historical context for current bargaining but no evidence that a 2026 candidate exchanged a post or policy commitment for a favourable vote.
Donaldson’s analysis raises a key question: is a government withholding encouragement because it doubts a candidate’s abilities, or to seek concessions? A change in vote deserves scrutiny but does not, by itself, prove an improper exchange.
PassBlue explains that a poll on 16 October may use colour-coded ballots to distinguish permanent members’ votes. This could indicate whether a candidate faces opposition among the Permanent Five, but it would not identify the specific state, its objection, or any offers made to address it.
Does a deal breach the Charter?
Under Article 97, the General Assembly appoints the Secretary-General on the Security Council’s recommendation. A recommendation requires at least nine votes and no veto from Britain, China, France, Russia or the United States. Discussion and agreement among governments are part of that process; private discussions are not automatically unlawful.
Article 100, however, requires independence from government instructions and obliges states to respect the office’s international character. Donaldson argues that the founding powers contravened Article 100(2) when they arranged to appoint one national each to five senior Secretariat posts. That is his assessment of a historical practice, not a legal ruling on today’s candidates. Whether a current bargain breaches the Charter would require evidence of its terms and how it is implemented.
Article 101 gives the Secretary-General responsibility for staffing under General Assembly regulations, prioritising competence, efficiency and integrity, with due regard for broad geographical recruitment. Reserving a department as a national entitlement is difficult to reconcile with those requirements. Appointing a qualified national of a powerful country is not proof of wrongdoing.
Donaldson also argues that promises over senior positions can obstruct reform by preserving powerful countries’ influence over departments and limiting the next Secretary-General’s ability to restructure them around organisational needs.
Judgement and independence
Thalif Deen’s IPS report of 8 October explores questions candidates may avoid preventing a veto. Thomas G. Weiss, emeritus professor at the CUNY Graduate Centre, noted that acceptance by the permanent five does not guarantee the leadership the UN requires. CIVICUS Secretary-General Mandeep S. Tiwana emphasises the organisation’s founding values and its duty to victims of abuse.
Richard Gowan, International Crisis Group director for global issues and institutions, told IPS that restraint during the campaign does not necessarily indicate weakness in office. Effective diplomacy requires tact, and the next Secretary-General must negotiate with governments whose actions may also warrant criticism.
Candidates should be asked how they would determine when private negotiations have failed, whether they would defend unwelcome findings by UN staff, and what commitments they made to gain support. They should clarify which compromises they would accept and which would hinder their responsibilities.
The case Gomes makes
Gomes supports Rodrigues-Birkett based on over 25 years of professional and personal experience. As a former leader of a 79-state coalition, he values her advocacy for least developed, landlocked, and small island developing states.
He recalls her intervention at the 2008 ACP summit in Accra, where she identified flaws in trade and development proposals that were later rejected. He highlights her experience as Minister of Amerindian Affairs and Foreign Affairs, her focus on climate adaptation and mitigation, and the Caribbean Community’s support for her candidacy.
Gomes argues that her experience equips her to bridge conflicting government interests. The persistence and persuasion smaller states require, he says, could help revitalise the UN.
His endorsement warrants closer scrutiny of her proposals, including how she would respond to demands for appointments or policy concessions. All candidates should have the opportunity to address such questions; negative polling should not substitute for a thorough assessment of their records and potential.
Governments can support the next Secretary-General by agreeing on a program and respecting the autonomy needed to implement it. Alternatively, private obligations made before the term begins could undermine that autonomy. Governments should disclose any commitments sought before the appointment is finalised.
Until governments clarify their decisions, “encourage” only signals support without explaining its basis. In a world that needs cooperation, it is reasonable to ask what is truly being encouraged and what the next Secretary-General may have to concede to maintain that support.
*Affiliated with ACUNS, the Academic Council of the United Nations, and an accomplished journalist with sixty years of professional experience as a freelancer, head of Inter Press Service, and founder-editor of IDN-InDepthNews. His expertise comes from extensive field reporting and comprehensive coverage of international conferences and events.