The tenure of António Guterres as Secretary-Geeneral of the United Nations ends on the last day of this year. His successor will inherit an organisation struggling to maintain its relevance in a world increasingly divided by war, nationalism and great-power rivalry.

Guterres is a former Portuguese prime minister and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, His decade at the helm has been marked by the UN becoming increasingly irrelevant as an instrument for resolving international conflicts.

His critics argue that Guterres has been too cautious, too willing to accommodate power and ineffective in confronting international aggression. It has, in short, become less like the UN of 1947 and more like the League of Nations of the 1930s.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a particularly serious test. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia has a veto over its decisions. Guterres struggled to influence Moscow or bring the conflict to an end.

The war in Gaza was anotheer challenge. Guterres has repeatedly condemned attacks on civilians, called for humanitarian access and demanded ceasefires. However, he has been unable to secure a lasting political settlement or prevent the humanitarian catastrophe. His critics argue that his statements have not been matched by sufficient diplomatic influence.

Then there is Sudan. The devastating civil war has continued despite international diplomatic efforts, while competing foreign interests have complicated attempts to secure peace.

It would be unfair to attribute all these failures to Guterres. The Secretary-General does not command an independent military force or possess the authority to overrule sovereign governments. The Security Council, particularly its five permanent members, ultimately determines what action the organisation can take. Guterres has also championed climate change, humanitarian assistance and gender equality, and achieved gender parity in the UN’s senior leadership team.

A big part of Guterres’s problems can be laid at the door of Donald Trump. The US president has repeatedly and loudly made clear his dislike of the UN. The UN represents international law. Trump flouts the law in pursuit of the philosophy of might is right.

Trump has withdrawn the UN from several UN institutions. In September he paid UD $827 million towards the UN budget. But America still owes $1.312 billion. The United Nations relies on contributions from its member states to pay for peacekeeping operations and other activities. Because of the dominance of the US economy, America is assessed at 22 percent of the UN’s budget. Trump’s failure to pay America’s fair share has brought the organisations to the brink of financial and political collapse and left Guterres’s successor with a major headache.

There is also the question of institutional reform. The Security Council still reflects the balance of power that existed at the end of the Second World War. Its five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – enjoy veto powers denied to the other ten members.

Countries such as India, Brazil, Japan and Germany argue that the Council should be expanded to reflect today’s economic and political realities. African countries also want permanent representation. However, agreement on reform remains elusive because the existing permanent members are reluctant to surrender their privileges.

So, who is likely to succeed to what has increasingly become a diplomatic poison chalice. As of this week, eight candidates remain in the running. Five are women, raising the possibility that the UN could appoint its first female Secretary-General since its foundation in 1945.

The Secretary-General’s post tends to circulate among the continents. This time around Latin America is expected to take the position. The current Latin American front runner is Costa Rica’s former vice-president Rebecca Grynspan, the current head of the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Ms Grynspan argues that the UN has become too risk-averse and needs to be more proactive in diplomacy and conflict prevention.

Such attitude does not sit well with either the US or Russia might be expected to block Ms Grynspan with their veto. Donald Trump is also believed to oppose the UNCTAD head because Costa Rica is a rare stable, democratic Latin American country with an independent foreign policy.

Within Latin America, Trump is more likely to support Rafael Grossi from Argentina. As the current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Grossi is well-versed on Iranian nuclear issues. And as an Argentinian, he is close to Trump’s South American ally Javier Millei. Grossi, could fall foul of the British veto over the issue of the Falkland Islands.

Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett is an Arawak-Amerindian who grew up in a village without electricity or running water. She won various scholarships and eventually entered politics. In 2001, Ms Birkett was named foreign minister Guyana. She is currently her country’s permanent representative at the UN.
Lana Nusseibeh is from the United Arab Emirates. She thus may be ruled out on two grounds: she comes from outside Latin America and the UAE is not a democratic country. Ms Nusseibeh does, however, come from a distinguished Palestinian family. The Nusseibeh family have since the end of the Crusades been entrusted with the keys to the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem.

Other candidates include María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador, former UN General Assembly president; Ivonne A-Baki of Ecuador, an experienced diplomat; Olara Otunnu of Uganda, a former UN Under-Secretary-General; and Turkey’s Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu a former foreign minister and current head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Grynspan appears to have the strongest immediate position. In the 5 November Security Council straw poll, she received 12 votes in favour and three against. Grossi received nine favourable votes, while Rodrigues Birkett received eight. These results are unofficial, but they provide an indication of the candidates’ relative support.

The election of Secretary-General involves two stages.
First, the 15-member Security Council considers the candidates through informal straw polls. A successful candidate must ultimately secure at least nine votes and avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members.
Second, the Security Council formally recommends one candidate to the 193-member General Assembly, which makes the official appointment.

Whoever gets the job will face a formidable task. They must persuade the United States, China and Russia to cooperate while maintaining the confidence of the other 190 member states.

They will also have to restore confidence in an organisation whose reputation has suffered from its inability to prevent or resolve some of the world’s most serious conflicts.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the appointment. The Secretary-General is expected to act as an independent international statesman, defending the UN Charter and international law. Yet the appointment depends on the agreement of the very powerful governments whose actions the Secretary-General may sometimes need to criticise.

The real test, however, will not be who wins the appointment. It will be whether the new Secretary-General can persuade the world’s major powers that the United Nations is more useful as a forum for cooperation than as an arena for confrontation.

Without that change, the organisation risks becoming an increasingly expensive talking shop, issuing declarations about international problems that it has little power to solve.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”