UN leadership race narrows as UAE pick trails in key vote

The contest to choose the next leader of the United Nations is entering a decisive phase, and the outcome will shape how the world body responds to wars, humanitarian crises and rights abuses that touch millions of lives. In the first informal Security Council straw poll, held on Friday, the United Arab Emirates’ chosen candidate finished fourth, a result that arrives as the council moves into the final stretch of selecting a successor to Antonio Guterres, whose second term ends on 31 December.

The UAE’s candidate is Lana Nusseibeh, a veteran Emirati diplomat who has served her country’s UN mission for the past decade. She was a late entrant to the race, nominated by Abu Dhabi on 21 October. In Friday’s vote she received seven encourage votes, six discourage votes and two “no opinion” votes from the 15-member council.

For ordinary people around the world who depend on the UN for humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and the defence of international rights, the question of who leads the organisation is far from abstract. That is why the scrutiny surrounding Nusseibeh’s candidacy has become so charged. Human rights organisations and civil society groups have sparked intense debate over her entry into the race, criticising UAE foreign policy heavily.

Critics point to her former role as a top official in the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she repeatedly defended Abu Dhabi against UN panel reports implicating the Gulf state in supplying arms and backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan’s devastating civil war. UN experts and international rights groups have accused the RSF of widespread atrocities against civilians.

Sudan’s permanent mission to the UN voiced that concern directly this week. It told Middle East Eye it had “fundamental questions about Nusseibeh’s independence, impartiality and credibility” as a contender for the UN’s top job. “She has built her career on defending and whitewashing her country’s record of troubling the peace of Sudan by enabling genocide, the enslavement of our women and girls, sexual violence and other atrocities,” the office said. “The UAE must face accountability, not be rewarded with the top global leadership role of the UN.”

Meanwhile, non-governmental organisations campaigning against her candidacy have also targeted Abu Dhabi’s domestic human rights record, widening the debate beyond foreign policy to questions of rights and protections closer to home.

The mechanics of the selection process matter to the public as much as the personalities, because they determine how transparent the choice of the world’s most prominent diplomatic post will be. Members of the Security Council cast their votes on plain paper ballots rather than colour-coded sheets, so diplomats are unable to determine whether any permanent members, the United States, Britain, France, China or Russia, cast discouraging votes. Any candidate recommended to the General Assembly must secure at least nine favourable votes and avoid a veto from any P5 power, giving the most powerful states a decisive say over who ultimately emerges.

The latest straw poll also came after Middle East Eye revealed that Britain was leaning towards backing Nusseibeh to head the global body. Full coverage of the vote and its aftermath can be found at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-candidate-head-un-finishes-fourth-first-security-council-straw-poll

By contrast with Nusseibeh’s fourth-place finish, Costa Rica’s Rebeca Grynspan continues to lead the field with 11 encouraging votes, backed strongly by Latin American and Caribbean states asserting that it is their region’s turn to hold the post, an argument framed around fairness and equitable representation among the world’s regions.

Turkey, for its part, officially nominated Feridun Sinirlioglu, a veteran diplomat, former Turkish envoy to the UN and current head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The nomination came just hours after Friday’s vote concluded, bringing the total number of official candidates to seven.

As the process moves forward, the stakes for the public are considerable. The next secretary-general will inherit responsibility for the organisation’s response to conflicts such as Sudan’s civil war, its handling of humanitarian access and its credibility on human rights. Whether the selection process gives adequate weight to accountability, impartiality and the concerns of affected populations is the question that advocacy groups, and now member states, are pressing hardest as the final rounds of voting approach.