Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s decision not to take a run at the nomination for United Nations secretary general might have been because her speeches are at odds with some of the positions taken by the international body.
This is the view of Cynthia Barrow-Giles, professor in constitutional governance and politics at the University of the West Indies.
On the other hand, political scientist Devaron Bruce reasoned that based on her speeches, the position could have provided Mottley with the opportunity to help shape those institutions that impact Barbados and the Caribbean.
In an interview last week, Mottley, for the first time since speculation that she should be a contender for the post, gave reasons for not pursuing it.
“I have a country to run and a region to take care of and I mean that with all sincerity. Look . . . I am not sure that the world wants somebody whose tongue might be as heavy as mine,” she said.
Barrow-Giles said the Prime Minister enjoyed greater political autonomy over what she said, whom she represented and which issues she championed, but as secretary general she would be uncomfortable with a speech “at such an august body which speaks of extinguishing an entire country” and remain silent.
“And herein lies the problem. The political limitations of the secretary general fly in the face of Ms Mottley’s fierce defence of the defenceless internationally. The position would stifle her in this regard. More importantly, Mottley has already demonstrated that she has considerable international influence without the accompanying international office.
‘International influence’
“I would argue that her decision can be best understood as a preference for exercising international influence from a position of national political authority, rather than assuming formal leadership within the multilateral system, especially at a time when the UN system, its very foundation, its purposes for being, its pact represented by the treaty itself, has been so violated by members, some of whom enjoy permanent seats at the UN. Most importantly, it appears that the UN is completely powerless to sanction,” Barrow-Giles said.
Assertive advocacy
The expert in constitutional studies said Mottley’s political persona had been carefully organised around assertive advocacy, speaking on behalf of Barbados, CARICOM and increasingly small states and developing countries on climate finance, international financial architecture, inequality and reform of global governance.
“As secretary general that kind of advocacy and relationship could face real challenges as she would be transformed from that advocacy powerhouse to being the institutional representative of the UN, an international civil servant taking directions from a body. I cannot imagine that this would always sit well with the Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, she does not have to give up her sovereign right to speak freely as she would, in all likelihood, if she were secretary general,” Barrow-Giles added.
However, said the professor, the initial decision to withdraw should not be interpreted as withdrawing from international leadership, but seen as her understanding the limitations of the UN at this moment.
Bruce, meantime, stated that it could have provided Mottley with the right setting to promote her viewpoints and recommendations.
“I think for many, there was an expectation that she would actively take up the opportunity to help shape those institutions and promote the views she has shared as Prime Minister by vying for the secretary general position,” he told the DAILY NATION. (AC)
The post Analysts weigh PM’s UN decision appeared first on nationnews.com.
