Disaster-hit peoples need an impartial UN

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/disaster-hit-peoples-need-impartial-un

Version 0 of 1.

Your editorial draws welcome attention to the process of selecting the next UN secretary-general (1 January). You also chide David Cameron for nominating Andrew Lansley to succeed Valerie Amos as the UN’s humanitarian chief. But, alongside questions about Andrew Lansley’s suitability for the job, there is another consideration that should persuade Mr Cameron to withdraw this nomination. Just as the UN secretary-general has never been a national of one of the five permanent members of the security council (China, France, Russia, UK and US), so it was recognised that emergency relief coordinators could also not be drawn from those countries.

In 2007, however, secretary-general Ban Ki-moon appointed British diplomat John Holmes to the post, and in 2010 Holmes was succeeded by Lady Amos. While both Holmes and Amos have shown great energy and commitment, it is widely acknowledged that the appointment of British officials has politicised the role and made it more difficult for the UN’s humanitarian work to be seen as impartial. The UN has appealed for more than £10bn for relief operations in 2015, the largest sum ever requested. The millions of people caught up in disasters deserve to know that the person charged with leading international efforts to assist them inspires the confidence of governments and humanitarian organisations everywhere.

The British government can rise above narrow national interests and embrace the idea of the best person for the job. In doing so, the government will earn credit far beyond the musty halls of the UN secretariat.Martin BarberLondon

• Cameron’s nomination of Lansley, a man who has failed to deliver the NHS reform he was appointed to deliver, is one of a long list of incompetents nominated by UN member states. You alluded to the rotation of the top post of secretary-general across continents rather than concentrating on competence. Rotation is not the core problem. Rather, it is that the candidate has to be agreed by all the permanent members of the security council. This means the selection of an individual who is unlikely to upset the interests of the major nations, including the US, China, Russia, France or the UK. The pool of talent has to be expanded from politicians and diplomats to those with significant and successful careers in business and the professions such as project management, engineering and accounting.Jeremy RossAshtead, Surrey

• Your proposed “more serious” approach to the appointment of the UN secretary-general fails to address the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN security council. It has 15 members, and each member has one vote. Yet the security council is a creature of the five permanent members. Dr Alex MayManchester

• The Commonwealth will be choosing its sixth secretary-general this November. Similar issues to those in your editorial have been raised about the selection. For a voluntary Commonwealth, required to prove its relevance to member states every few years, the stakes are high. Experience shows that only an active secretary-general, backed by a range of governments, can make a difference. Since 2003 two states have left, complaining at Commonwealth enthusiasm for human rights, and Canada has pulled out of funding the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation, in protest at permitting Sri Lanka’s president to chair the association – ie that the Commonwealth was insufficiently serious about rights. In the 1990s, Commonwealth ambassadors at Unesco successfully led a campaign to insist on a job specification and interviews prior to the appointment of its director-general. It is not too late to do something similar for the Commonwealth itself.Richard BourneSenior research fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London