The appointment of heads of international organisations is a process that is as political as it is strategic and, well, unfair, with attendant pushing and shoving to get to the front of the queue.
Some appointments are cast in stone, so to speak; the World Bank president is always appointed by the US, and the head of the International Monetary Fund is always appointed by the Europeans. This is part of the postwar bargain, and common knowledge.
Other bodies, such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Health Organisation, are also part of this bargain. But behind a facade of democracy and pretences of representation, these appointments are invariably given the nod by global leaders who have their hands on "the levers of power".
It is comical, at the moment, to see how candidates for the top position at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are falling over themselves to appease the US. The candidates are Amina Mohamed (Kenya), Hamid Mamdouh (Egypt), Yoo Myung-hee (South Korea), Mohammed al-Tuwaijri (Saudi Arabia), Jesús Seade (Mexico), Tudor Ulianovschi (Moldova), Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (Nigeria) and Liam Fox (UK).
Mohamed and Okonjo-Iweala are the leading candidates, and have already come out in support of US criticism of the WTO. While one should not assume that these two women do not have the experience or skills, the history of such appointments shows that the US and the EU, and this time also China, will have the last say. The best example was the way Kofi Annan was effectively appointed by the US as secretary-general of the UN - which came at a price (for people in the former Yugoslavia).
PRO - US STANCE IS NOT OPTIONAL
Sometimes, career international public servants will get to the top, but even then, candidates are sometimes expected to be somewhat pliant, and accommodating of the wishes and strategic objectives of Europe and the US and their allies.
These days we have to factor in the power and influence of China. But, for most of the past 75 years, if a candidate was seen as accommodating of US global strategy, she or he would probably get the job.
During the eight years that Annan held office, Washington's apparatchiks did not hesitate to force out UN officials who would not kowtow to US demands - people such as the former UN high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson; the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, José Bustani; and Cherif Bassiouni, who served as independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan for the UN.
During the eight years that Kofi Annan held office, Washington's apparatchiks did not hesitate to force out UN officials who would not kowtow to US demands
Annan shrewdly held on to his position by making sure he always stayed on the right side of the US and its Nato allies, and he did so in the smartest and most eloquent manner (with only the most anodyne criticisms of Washington).
Annan assumed office in January 1997, in the aftermath of his support of Washington's demands in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Back in August 1995, when Annan was head of peacekeeping for the UN, he unilaterally approved Operation Deliberate Force, the Nato bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina. His boss, the then secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was out of contact on an aircraft at the time.
Annan was the perfect quisling for the US, wrote the late Edward Herman, former professor of finance at the Wharton School of Business and at Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
In his memoir, To End a War, the late Richard Holbrooke (who represented the Clinton administration in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia) wrote: "When [Operation Deliberate Force] was all over and we could assess who had been most helpful, my Washington colleagues usually singled out Kofi Annan at the UN.
Annan's gutsy performance in those 24 hours was to play a central role in Washington's strong support for him a year later as the successor to Boutros Boutros-Ghali . Indeed, in a sense Annan won the job that day."
And so we get to the current pushing and shoving to see who can best accommodate US demands and expectations - and get the top job at the WTO.
The leading candidates to replace outgoing director-general Roberto Azevêdo of Brazil in September are both African. One would imagine that they would at least start initiating greater representation of developing countries in the WTO, and better decision-making methods in the organisation.
Poor countries are dreadfully under-represented in the WTO - especially when compared with the US, Europe and such countries as South Korea, Japan and increasingly China. But for now, Mohamed and Okonjo-Iweala seem focused only on gaining US support for their candidacies.
Criticism and stonewalling by the US have virtually paralysed the institution's highest legal body and, consistent with President Donald Trump's anti-globalism, started to undermine the WTO itself.
The US used its power in the WTO to freeze the organisation's appellate body, by refusing to appoint new judges. Washington protested about WTO rulings against US restrictions on low-priced imports.
Mohamed was quick out of the blocks to support the US when she said US concerns were "real" and that the WTO's appellate body had gone beyond its mandate. Okonjo-Iweala followed swiftly, telling the Financial Times: "I think most people agree that they [the US] have a point - that there may have been instances where the appellate body may have acted beyond the covered agreements that members reached."
The issue of a successor to Azevêdo is far from settled. While both the African frontrunners are highly qualified, in the end it might come down to who pleases Washington and its allies the most.
We should also factor in China's increasing role in global political economic relations, and not ignore the likelihood of a Chinese veto - or preference. We should probably not be surprised if the succession issue drags on into next year, due in part to the Covid-19 pandemic as well.
• Lagardien is a writer, columnist and political economist focusing on global political economic affairs. He attended the London School of Economics and has a PhD in international political economy
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.