Secret UN vote revealed

You would not believe the extent to which diplomats are now frothing in New York, and we're duly frothing to share why: the world just got the leaked results of the UN Security Council's first 'straw poll' in its effort to anoint the next Secretary-General of the UN (Portugal's Guterres wraps on Dec 31st).

The hustle is just beginning, but basically the three frontrunners are now i) Costa Rica's ex-veep (Grynspan), ii) Guyana's ex-FM (Rodrigues), and iii) the Argentine diplomat running our world's nuclear watchdog (Grossi).

So what happens next, and why does this matter?

The UN Charter says nothing useful here, other than that it's the UN General Assembly (193 nations) that rubber-stamps the ✌️recommendation✌️ of the all-powerful 15-member Security Council. That’s where the all-the-more-powerful permanent five (P5) members have veto powers: the US, UK, France, China, Russia.

Everything else has just kind of evolved, including this strange straw poll process that emerged from an epic deadlock back in 1981: that was when China repeatedly used its veto to block a UN boss from pursuing an unprecedented third term.

The straw poll solution came from Uganda's then ambassador (Otunnu): the idea was to get a feel for how everyone was feeling about the candidates, but without all the drama, confrontation, veto threats, and ego. This left space for manoeuvrability and quiet negotiation until a consensus candidate finally emerged.

That’s the process we still have today.

Or to put it another way, the whole goal here is to find the ultimate Matt Damon candidate: easy enough to like, but really hard to hate. Like come on, he's Matt Damon! Because the moment you really irk one of those P5 players, you're finished.

So okay, how did this field of seven candidates do in last night's straw poll?

Costa Rica's Grynspan (long a #2) is now ahead, with 10 votes in favour (you only need nine), and just one mystery country casting a vote 'discouraging' her candidacy. At this stage, we have no idea if this was a P5 veto (game over?) or one of the other rotating 10 (don't write us angry letters, but realistically meh if so).

She's an impressive candidate, and clears two unofficial but important hurdles: she's from Latin America / the Caribbean which, by tradition, is due to provide the next UN boss. She's also a she, at a time when many are declaring maybe it's time to end the UN's 80-year sausage-forest at the top.

So then who’s that sole vote against? Three theories: first, as a top UN trade official, she famously negotiated part of the Black Sea grain export deal amid Putin’s invasion. An angry Putin later withdrew, so it's possible Grynspan is now collateral damage, though the Kremlin has never openly blamed her (and it wasn’t her fault).

Second, the Russians often flex their veto early as a way to signal that their support is conditional — it's an attempt to milk concessions from the candidates, whether around sanctions, policy priorities, or key appointments in the UN system.

Third, maybe one of those weaker 10 cast a vote against her. But who would do such a dastardly thing? Don't write us angry letters, but our money is on Colombia or Panama, perhaps because they prefer someone else in the top job:

• Left-leaning (for a few more days) Colombia loves Chile's left-leaning Bachelet, so might've put a speedbump in front of Grynspan to help. And...

• Panama is actually neighbours with Grynspan's Costa Rica, and they get on fine, but every neighbour occasionally uses the leaf-blower too early, right?

Or maybe (say) Somalia, Congo, or Liberia voted against Grynspan out of solidarity with the Caribbean, which has never held the top job. Which brings us to...

Guyana's Rodrigues, who pulled 9 votes (but two 'discourages'), an impressive haul given she only just Hail Maryed herself into this race last month. She might be the ultimate Matt Damon candidate: well regarded for her hyper-effective style as UN ambassador, but without some of the polarising baggage of her bigger rivals.

Those two votes against her? Our money is (sorry) on Panama and Colombia, protecting Latin America’s traditional weight over the Caribbean. Given the scale of US investment in Guyana’s energy sector, and related shows of US military support, it’s possible she also copped strays from rival Russia and/or China.

And then limping into third place is Argentina's Grossi, the erstwhile frontrunner who only got seven votes, but two discourages. And as we've flagged before, and notwithstanding the remarkable work he’s done to keep a Russian-occupied nuclear plant in Ukraine from disaster, there's a real risk these are vetoes by China and/or Russia. Why? It’s possible they’re both still smarting at the way he blew the whistle on Iran's secretive build-up of near-weapons-grade uranium (a whistle the US and Israel then cited when hitting Iran's nuclear sites).

The rest? Three should probably bow out: Senegal's Sall (7 discourages!), Chile's Bachelet (5!), and Uganda's Otunnu (5! And yes, the same guy of 1981 straw poll fame). Ecuador's Espinosa got two mystery discourages, but might stick around in hopes she can come through the middle as a consensus candidate later.

Speaking of later... over the coming weeks, the Council will start making those powerful P5 cast their votes via red paper. That way we'll start to know which of these 'discourage' votes really risk being deal-breakers, until we get our Matt Damon.

And... that's why we're frothing.

Sound even smarter:

• Besides the big 5, the 10 other elected UN Security Council members include (until Dec 31) Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, Somalia, plus (for a year longer) Bahrain, Colombia, DR Congo, Latvia, and Liberia.

• If you want to nerd-out on the full results (e = ‘encourage’, d = ‘discourage’ and n = ‘no opinion’: 🇨🇷 Grynspan (10 e, 1 d, 4 n); 🇬🇾 Rodrigues (9 e, 2 d, 4 n); 🇦🇷 Grossi (7 e, 2 d, 6 n); 🇨🇱 Bachelet (6 e, 5 d, 4 n); 🇸🇳 Sall (6 e, 7 d, 2 n); 🇪🇨 Espinosa (5 e, 2 d, 8 n); and 🇺🇬 Otunnu (2 e, 5 d, 8 n).