The content of this article cites authoritative information in combination with personal opinions for writing, the source has been specified at the end of the text, please know.

On October 24th, the United Nations Security Council held a special meeting in new york. The original agenda was to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and discuss the election process of the new Secretary-General to be launched in 2026. As the rotating presidency, Russia initiated the meeting. The meeting originally went smoothly, Until the US representatives spoke, the atmosphere on the scene muted.

The United States suddenly sent a heavy signal-not only intended to participate in the election of the Secretary-General, but also advocated breaking the traditional rotation system of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. These words made the entire venue quiet for a few seconds.

In accordance with the United Nations Convention, The positions of the Secretary-General are alternating across continents to reflect global equity.¡£ Although this practice has not been written into the Charter of the United Nations, it has become a tacit political consensus for decades.

The previous Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was from South Korea, Asia, and the current Secretary-General Guterres is from Portugal, Europe. According to this logic, the next Secretary-General should be a representative of Latin America or the Caribbean.

It¡¯s not just a rotation between regions. It is also a symbolic guarantee for the participation of SMEs in global governance.However, the U.S. statement now is equivalent to directly breaking the system¡¯s design and even intending to take over the highest executive position in the United Nations.

In her speech, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Secretary-General Xi emphasized that the Secretary-General should be ¡°global preference¡± and should not be restricted by continental rotation, she said that the United States hopes that its nationals can participate in the competition, while also supporting candidates from ¡°all regions¡±. This is what is called ¡°open¡± and ¡°competitive¡±.

In recent years, the United States has clearly promoted unilateralism in international affairs, frequently bypassing the United Nations, launching "allied mechanisms", trying to replace large platforms with "small circles". Now, the position of the Secretary-General is to be referred to, and there is no doubt that his intention is to radically change the former political ecology of the United Nations.

Moreover, the timing is no coincidence. In 2026, the United Nations will officially launch the election process for a new Secretary-General, and the new Secretary-General will officially take office on January 1, 2027. It was at this juncture that the United States suddenly proposed institutional "reform", Trying to remove institutional obstacles for your own election.

More interestingly, as early as September, the UN General Assembly just passed a new resolution, deciding to reform the selection mechanism of the Secretary-General, enhance transparency and strengthen institutionalization. This was intended to curb behind-the-scenes transactions and ensure fairness, but the United States took the opportunity to put forward the request of "expanding the source of candidates". The purpose is self-evident.

In this sudden turmoil, China and Russia have shown determination¡£ Fu Cong, China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, made it clear that the election of the Secretary-General should adhere to multilateralism and safeguard sovereign equality. Fu Cong emphasized that the United Nations cannot be monopolized by some big countries, let alone become a tool for promoting unilateralism. Global governance should be discussed, built and benefited by all members.

Russia¡¯s representative Neretva also openly said that some countries are currently manipulating the speech system and trying to divide the world into ¡°democratic camps¡± and ¡°autoritarian camps¡±, this is a man-made confrontation practice. Not only is it detrimental to international cooperation, but it further undermines the function of the United Nations as a multilateral platform.

More importantly, this is not the first time that China and Russia have joined forces to block the "manipulation plan" of the position of Secretary-General. In 1981, then-Secretary-General waldheim attempted the third term of the * with the support of the West. In order to prevent its *, China voted against it 16 times in a row in the Security Council and finally succeeded in bringing it down. That war set the bottom line of the United Nations system and also set the bottom line of China's position.

Some Latin American countries were even more angry. The secretary-general¡¯s position was their turn, and they had begun to brew the list of candidates in the region, lobbying for all parties. The result was that the United States suddenly announced that ¡°the region is not important¡±, which is no different than the crowd.

What is more interesting is that this U.S. rhetoric is not groundlessThere have also been exceptions in the history of the United Nations, such as when Guterres took over Ban Ki-moon, though he came from Europe, but was not very much opposed because the process reform was not completed, and Europe had not been in office for a long time.

But unlike the United States, it is a permanent member of the Security Council and one of the biggest donors to the United Nations, if it chooses a candidate for the Secretary-General, it is equal. gathering decision-making power, fiscal power, and executive power in one¡°The United Nations is not a multilateral platform, no one can say it clearly.

Academics have pointed out that the position of the Secretary-General should not become a geographical position distribution, but this is often said in reform discussions, where regional balance is always an important consideration forining the credibility of the organization when it is really implemented to the operational level.

The Secretary-General¡¯s position is said to be the most embarrassing role in international politics. ¡£ With executive power but no decision-making power, to balance the five permanent members, we have to respond to the demands of 193 member statesTo be able to speak is one thing, to say if anyone is listening to it is another thing.If this position is directly controlled by the United States, then the ¡°neutrality¡± of the United Nations is likely to disintegrate from the root.

Latin American countries have privately expressed strong dissatisfaction. A representative of a Caribbean country even said that if the United States forcibly stood for election, it would be a trampling on the dignity of the United Nations, and they would collectively resist it.

This is not going to be the case from now until 2026. The contest of Secretary-General candidates, institutional arrangements and reform directions will run through all kinds of United Nations conferences and bilateral diplomacy.

It¡¯s not just an election, it¡¯s a sweepstake over the dominance of the global order. Who will eventually win doesn¡¯t necessarily depend on qualification, but on the crossroads between public opinion, capital, power and rules.

References:

"Representative of China puts forward three preliminary suggestions on the reform of the United Nations structure" October 16, 2025 Source: CCTV News

International Observatory: Contribution and regrets of Ban Ki-moon's ten-year term, December 30, 2016