The United Nations has never appointed a woman Secretary-General. Four experienced women are now in the running, but the Security Council’s veto politics could still decide the outcome.
A 2026 Lowy poll from two months ago shows that 70 per cent of Australians say that “the United Nations remains important to Australia’s national interests.” One would think, therefore, that there would be significant interest in the appointment of the UN’s tenth Secretary-General, which is taking place at the moment.
The overall selection process is prescribed by Article 97 of the UN Charter: “The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” But since the Charter offers little other guidance, various informal procedures and practices have evolved over time. One is the rule of regional rotation, with it currently being Latin America and the Caribbean’s “turn,” although candidates from other regions can also be nominated. Seven candidates have been nominated to date – five from Latin America and the Caribbean (four women and one man) and two from Africa (both men). Women have been nominated as candidates since 1991, however, no woman has ever been selected, in spite of campaigns to this effect in 2006 and 2016.
It is generally accepted that candidates should come from small or mid-sized countries but not from the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council. To be considered, a candidate must be nominated by one or more of the 193 member states, although the nomination does not have to come from the country of a candidate’s nationality.
For many years, the selection process was opaque, but that has recently improved. The current round of nominations was initiated in November by a joint letter from the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council addressed to all member states, inviting nominations and explicitly encouraging countries, “to strongly consider nominating women as candidates.” The letter requested that nominations be accompanied by a nomination letter; a vision statement; a curriculum vitae; and a statement of campaign financing disclosures. As nominations were received, the Presidents jointly informed all members and the information was posted on a UN website.
In response to General Assembly resolution 79/327 of 5 September 2025 on the revitalisation of the work of the General Assembly, the President organised interactive webcast dialogues with all candidates (each lasting three hours), where candidates responded to questions posed by representatives of member states and civil society. As anyone who has ever interviewed job applicants knows (and as I learned from watching the webcasts), this is very useful for identifying the best candidates.
In addition, on 23 July, a UN Town Hall was organised in the General Assembly Hall by the President of the GA and broadcast live on Bloomberg, with two Bloomberg moderators presiding. All six candidates at the time (a seventh was subsequently nominated) appeared together on the stage and answered questions from the moderators and the audience, who were again representatives of member states and civil society. The Security Council also organised confidential closed-door sessions with each of the candidates.
Subsequently, on 30 July, the Security Council held its first confidential “straw poll,” an iterative process repeated over a number of weeks to decide which candidate has the most support. In each, the 15 members of the Council, i.e., the P5 – the US, Russia, China, France and the UK – and its 10 elected members (E10) who serve two-year terms (currently, Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Liberia, Pakistan, Panama and Somalia) indicate which candidates they are willing to support by voting “encourage” (in favour), “discourage” (against) or “no opinion” (abstain).
During the first rounds, the ballots are identical. However, after a few rounds (the number is not specified), the Council introduces colour-coded ballots: “red” for the P5 and “white” for the E10. From that point onward, votes carry different political weights, since a “discourage” vote from a P5 member is equivalent to a veto. At least nine “encourage” votes with no “discourage” votes from the P5 are required for a candidate to be selected. Candidates with a poor showing may withdraw, although there are no rules requiring this. Votes are intended to be confidential, but results usually leak, as they did after the 30 July straw poll.
Once a determination has been made, the Security Council holds a formal vote and then makes a formal recommendation to the GA, which can be accepted by acclamation or by a formal vote of the 193 member states. In theory, the GA can send the Council’s recommendation back for reconsideration, although this has never happened.
It has been argued that selecting a woman as Secretary-General could break the “glass ceiling,” but ultimately present her with a “glass cliff” where a woman is chosen during periods of institutional crises when risk of failure is the highest. While it is possible that this might account for some of the motivation of those involved in the selection process, the four women in the running have all broken glass ceilings in the past and overcome glass cliff phenomena by succeeding in very difficult leadership roles under daunting circumstances.
Given that the appointment of a woman in this post is long overdue, there is reason to be hopeful.
This will require, however, that none of the P5 veto her candidature. As noted by a report of Women in International Security, “All things considered, the chances of women in the running will depend heavily on the veto power of the United States or Russia who could block their appointment.” The UK, France and China have all indicated that they are positive about the appointment of a woman, but Russia has shown resistance to framing UN leadership selection around gender, and the US, under the Trump administration, has been averse to “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
In a report discussing the possibility of a “discourage” vote from the P5, Rebeca Grynspan is generally “viewed as the candidate with the lowest ideological controversy,” and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett “carries the lowest visible P5 friction,” although as Guyana’s permanent representative on the Security Council, she abstained on a 2024 US-sponsored Gaza ceasefire resolution which might annoy the US. Maria Fernanda Espinosa’s prior support for Julian Assange (as Ecuador’s UN representative and Foreign Minister) could “unsettle the UK which spent years pursuing his extradition.” Finally, China could “pose a challenge for Michelle Bachelet” since, at the end of her tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, she authorised publication of a UN report (despite China lobbying against it) stating that abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities constitute crimes against humanity.
Although the P5 have veto power, the E10 also have power since, if seven members agree on a single candidate and refuse to change their vote, the P5 would not be able to advance a candidate, even if they all agreed – because nine votes are required. With seven E10 members voting “discourage” on a P5 candidate, there would be only eight voting “encourage” and the vote would be blocked. This has even been called the “sixth veto power.”
This momentous decision for the “most impossible job in the world” (as it was described by the UN’s first Secretary-General, Trygve Lie) will probably occur in early October. How the process is carried out and how its outcome is perceived will have significant implications for the restoration of confidence in the UN’s ability to fufil its mandate in an increasingly turbulent world.
As the current President of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock (one of only five women ever elected to this post in 81 years; the other 76 were men), explains: “Our choice will send a powerful message about who we are, and whether we truly serve all 8 billion people of the world in all their diversity.”
Connie Peck
Dr. Connie Peck, AO, is the Founder/Former Principal Coordinator of the UNITAR Programme in Peacemaking and Conflict Prevention – the first-ever training programme in negotiation and mediation in the United Nations (now in its 33rd year). When lecturing at La Trobe University in the 1980s, she also founded Psychologists for the Prevention of War (now called Psychologists for Peace) during the height of the Cold War and acted as its first Convenor. She is the author of several books and numerous articles on conflict resolution and the nuclear threat.See also: www.linkedin.com/in/connie-peck-b92a403a0