The race to choose the next United Nations secretary general has acquired an uncomfortable test case. The candidacy of Lana Nusseibeh, a minister of state of the United Arab Emirates and a former UAE ambassador to the UN, is reported to be gaining momentum and endorsements. It has also provoked outrage among many Sudanese, who hold the UAE responsible for fuelling the war in their country. The controversy goes beyond one candidate. It raises the question of how much weight the human-rights record and foreign policy of a nominee’s government should carry in a selection process that is, in the end, political, and what the answer says about the credibility of the world’s central international institution.
The dispute rests on accusations about the UAE’s role in Sudan’s war between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The war has caused hunger, displacement and a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions. According to the accusations made by critics, the UAE has over the past three years supported the RSF, facilitated mercenaries who fight alongside it, and used international aid infrastructure to move weapons into the country. The RSF itself is accused of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and sexual violence.
These claims have a public history. They have been the subject of media investigations, human-rights campaigns and political condemnation. Two US congressmen called on American media and sports organisations to end associations with the UAE, accusing it of “abetting genocide” by “arming one faction.” In Britain, a complaint was submitted to the government seeking an investigation into Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the owner of Manchester City and a deputy prime minister of the UAE, citing an “abundance of evidence” of UAE involvement. Critics argue that Sudan’s Red Sea coastline, its gold reserves and its strategic position explain the Gulf state’s interest.
It is important to state what is established and what is contested. The accusations are serious and have been repeated by several sources, but the UAE denies them. Nusseibeh herself has publicly rejected what she called “baseless allegations,” according to critics’ accounts, and has disputed the findings of a UN panel of experts. Her supporters can therefore argue that she is defending her government against claims that remain unproven in any court, and that a candidate should not be disqualified on the basis of allegations. The two positions cannot both be fully resolved without independent verification.
What turns the general dispute into a personal one is Nusseibeh’s role. She has been a prominent public voice for the UAE on this issue, and critics describe her as the face of its Sudan policy. They point to her denials and to her handling of the UN panel’s findings. In one episode, she was confronted by a Sudanese man in Chad, who rejected her visit to his refugee camp and urged her delegation to keep its aid and to stop interfering and stoking the war. Another refugee refused aid, saying the UAE had killed her brothers.
Such incidents are anecdotes and cannot prove responsibility, but they show the emotional force of the issue for those on the receiving end. For Sudanese, the idea that a representative of the government they blame could lead the organisation supposed to protect civilians is a symbolic affront. For the UN, the question is whether the institution can credibly speak on Sudan’s war with such a figure at its head.
The selection process itself helps to explain why this matters. The secretary general is formally appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, where the five permanent members hold a veto. That means that a candidate’s chances depend heavily on the preferences of major powers, which often places a premium on acceptability over moral authority. Candidates from small or neutral states have often been favoured, and ones associated with great-power disputes have struggled.
The UAE is a wealthy state with extensive diplomatic networks, financial ties and investments in the West and elsewhere. Critics argue that these connections make it too valuable to antagonise. Its supporters would say that a well-connected, experienced diplomat is exactly what the UN needs in a period of conflict and strained finances. The disagreement shows the tension between two views of the role: the secretary general as a moral voice, and as a manager who must work with every power.
A further strand concerns image. The UAE has cultivated a reputation as a moderate, modern Muslim-majority state that is alert to the dangers of extremism, and it has built close financial and political relationships in Washington and London. Observers of the process note that a nominee’s personal profile matters. A woman from the Muslim world with an elite Western education and a career in diplomacy offers a persuasive story to many member states, particularly given the long-standing demand for a first female secretary general.
That story is legitimate on its own terms. Gender balance and regional diversity are important criteria, and there is no reason to discount a candidate’s qualifications because of her background. The point is that biography and policy are different things. The debate would be clearer if the personal credentials were weighed separately from the record of the government that a candidate has represented.
For the UN, the stakes are institutional. The organisation’s authority depends on the perception that it applies standards evenly, and in recent years that perception has weakened amid crises in which international law has been breached with little consequence. Appointing a leader associated with a government accused of abetting atrocity would, in the eyes of critics, confirm the view that powerful states are exempt from scrutiny. Appointing a candidate whose country faces unproven allegations could also be defended as respecting due process and avoiding a precedent in which accusations alone determine who may hold office.
Three practical questions follow. First, is there an independent, authoritative finding on the UAE’s role in Sudan that member states can rely on? The reference to a UN panel of experts suggests that such an assessment exists, and that its findings will be central. Second, would a UAE national as secretary general face conflicts of interest on Sudan, and how would they be managed? Third, what signal would the choice send to Sudanese civilians and to humanitarian organisations that depend on the UN’s neutrality?
The selection process will take some time, and several developments are worth following. The first is the list of governments endorsing the candidacy and any change in the positions of the permanent members of the Security Council. The second is whether the UN panel’s findings and other investigations are cited more formally in the debate. The third is the response of African states and the African Union, whose views on a conflict on their own continent carry particular weight. The fourth is the reaction of Sudanese civil society and humanitarian groups. The fifth is whether other candidates emerge who can offer an alternative.
The Nusseibeh candidacy has made visible a conflict between two principles that the UN claims to uphold: universal accountability and the equal sovereignty of its members. How the organisation resolves it will say something about its priorities. If the allegations about the UAE’s role in Sudan are accurate, the case for caution is strong. If they are not, or are not yet proven, the candidate and her country are entitled to a fair hearing. What cannot be avoided is the question that the controversy poses to the whole process: whether, at a moment of weakened international authority, the world’s most senior diplomatic post will be filled on the basis of credibility, or of connections.
Comments