The Next UN Secretary-General Must Not Be a Genocide Denier & Enabler

On December 31, the current United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, will conclude his decade-long tenure at the helm of the organization. As the race to select his successor intensifies, the international community must remain vigilant against attempts by powerful states to turn the selection of the next Secretary-General into an exercise in political loyalty rather than a commitment to the charter of the United Nations.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has serious concerns that the United States, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates may be seeking to influence the selection process in ways that protect their geopolitical interests and shield themselves and their allies from international scrutiny with regard to their involvement in genocide. (See various genocide earlier alerts issued by our Institute).

The procedure for selecting the next Secretary-General gives the five permanent members of the Security Council considerable influence over the outcome. The process begins with informal polling within the Security Council, followed by a formal recommendation to the 193-member General Assembly, which appoints the Secretary-General. To secure the Council’s recommendation, a candidate must obtain at least nine affirmative votes and avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members (P5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Six rounds of informal polling have already taken place. In the latest round, no candidate emerged without facing opposition from at least one permanent member.

Rebecca Grynspan, widely regarded as the frontrunner in the race, came out on top, receiving nine votes of encouragement. However, she also received five votes of discouragement, including two from permanent members of the Security Council. A Republican congressional aide in the USA reportedly stated that Republican lawmakers opposed her candidacy, citing her perceived criticism of Israel and what they characterized as an accommodating position toward China. As head of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Grynspan has overseen the continued production of some of the UN system’s strongest assessments of the damage Israel has inflicted on the Palestinian economy. UNCTAD’s reports have examined the costs of occupation, Israeli restrictions across the occupied West Bank, and the destruction of Gaza’s economy, linking the collapse of Palestinian economic life to Israeli policies and military operations. In January, Israel’s Foreign Ministry cut ties with several UN agencies and international organizations over their reporting on Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Israel included UNCTAD on the list and accused the organizations of publishing “dozens of virulent anti-Israel reports.”

In the Lemkin Institute's view, in the current political climate the P5 veto structure excludes as viable candidates for Secretary-General the most principled human rights defenders in favor of candidates who protect P5 interests, with devastating consequences for global genocide prevention.

For example, Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, would have made an excellent Secretary-General. Her tenure as High Commissioner, from 2018 to 2022, was marked by her willingness to confront serious human rights violations, including through her office’s landmark assessment of the situation faced by Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, China. The report documented serious human rights violations and generated significant political backlash. Bachelet also faced criticism from conservative American political circles over her positions on reproductive rights, including abortion.

Bachelet’s record demonstrates precisely why a Secretary-General committed to human rights may be unwelcome to powerful states: she would not have remained silent in the face of abuses committed by governments responsible for genocide or other mass atrocities. Bachelet withdrew her candidacy following the third round of informal Security Council consultations, during which she reportedly received 11 votes of discouragement. It is increasingly clear that the ideal candidate for the P5 may be someone they perceive as more aligned with their worldview and interests. That worldview does not necessarily include a world in which international law prevails.

The Lemkin Institute is deeply concerned that, amid the impasse facing the UN Security Council, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has put forward its Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Lana Nusseibeh, as a seemingly compromise candidate for the position of United Nations Secretary-General.

At first glance, Ms. Nusseibeh may appear to be an excellent choice: a seasoned diplomat, a woman, an Arab, and a person of Palestinian descent. Her appointment would break several historic barriers. However, the Lemkin Institute cautions against allowing the symbolic significance of such an appointment to overshadow the candidate’s record or the interests of the state putting her forward. As a senior UAE official, Ms. Nusseibeh has actively defended her government against accusations of complicity in the ongoing genocide in Sudan. She has repeatedly denied that her government is providing military support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a stark violation of the UN arms embargo in Darfur. UN experts and human rights organizations have concluded in several authoritative reports that the RSF have committed genocide and other international crimes against non-Arab communities in Darfur. There is also extensive public evidence, including substantial reporting, linking the UAE to the supply of arms and other goods to the RSF, which have been used to massacre civilians.

Ms. Nusseibeh has maintained her denials even as evidence of UAE complicity in RSF atrocities has continued to mount. In a July 2024 CNN interview, she explicitly rejected the findings of a UN panel of experts that had deemed allegations of Emirati military support for the RSF credible. In November 2025, she traveled to Strasbourg and personally lobbied members of the European Parliament as they negotiated a resolution condemning atrocities in Sudan. The final resolution omitted explicit criticism of the UAE’s alleged support for the RSF, despite amendments seeking to name Abu Dhabi. Her lobbying efforts were part of a broader Emirati diplomatic push to avoid condemnation.

Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, recently warned of the potential consequences of Nusseibeh’s appointment on the United Nations’ work in the region. Referring to the anniversary of the fall of El Fasher, he described Ms. Nusseibeh’s possible selection as a catastrophe for the UN’s work in Sudan, Yemen, and across the region. The UN, he said, “should not celebrate it by making a government official of the country that made the massacre militarily possible the Secretary-General of the UN.”

In late 2025, the UN Human Rights Office documented more than 6,000 killings in the first three days of the RSF offensive on El Fasher, following 18 months of sustained siege of the city. The report assesses that at least 4,400 people were killed within El Fasher in those few days and over 1,600 others along exit routes as they fled. The actual scale of the death toll during the week-long offensive is undoubtedly significantly higher. The RSF and allied Arab militia carried out widespread attacks, including mass killings and summary executions, sexual violence, abductions for ransom, torture and ill-treatment, detention, disappearances, pillage and the use of children in hostilities. The Lemkin Institute released an SOS Alert in response to these events.

The question is not whether Ms. Nusseibeh possesses diplomatic experience or whether her appointment would be symbolically significant. It is whether a government facing serious allegations of complicity in genocide should be permitted to use its influence over the selection of the next Secretary-General to advance a candidate whose appointment could shield it and its allies from international scrutiny. The Lemkin Institute warns that if Ms. Nusseibeh becomes Secretary-General, the very institution meant to hold perpetrators accountable could indeed become a tool for covering up mass atrocities and far darker days would lie ahead, not only for Africa and the Middle East, but also for all humanity. Of equal concern along these lines is the significant role that Ms. Nusseibeh has played in advancing the UAE’s diplomatic normalization and continued cooperation with Israel. She was described by her professor, Colin Shindler from SOAS University of London where she completed a master’s degree in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies, as “instrumental in the Israel-UAE peace agreement.” While the Lemkin Institute supports all efforts towards peace in the region, we have grave concerns about the way that normalization has been used to deny and erase Israel’s mass atrocities against Palestinians. During Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, Ms. Nusseibeh predictably defended her country’s decision to maintain diplomatic ties.

Supporters of her candidacy are highlighting her role in advancing UN Security Council Resolution 2720, which established a mechanism to facilitate and expand humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Humanitarian aid is desperately needed, and we applaud all efforts to coordinate it. However, it should not be instrumentalized to deny genocide. Humanitarian diplomacy cannot be considered an adequate response when a genocide is ongoing and diplomatic relations with the perpetrator state remain intact. Ensuring that aid reaches Palestinians as they are being killed is not equivalent to taking action to stop the killing. When humanitarian assistance becomes the centerpiece of international diplomacy, it risks diverting attention from the more fundamental questions of political complicity and the failure to impose sanctions on a state accused of perpetrating genocide. As the deadline to elect the next UN Secretary-General approaches, the Lemkin Institute is urgently calling on the UN General Assembly, the body that represents the international community as a whole, to reject Lana Nusseibeh’s candidacy should she be nominated by the Security Council. The UN must not become an institution guided by the normalization and denial of genocide.

A candidate who has acted in contradiction to the principles of the United Nations, whitewashed genocide, and maintained close ties with two regimes accused of perpetrating genocide should not be entrusted with leading the United Nations. Such a position demands an unwavering commitment to international law, accountability, and the prevention of mass atrocities.

The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. We must not remain silent.