The John Holmes Memorial Lecture: Representing the United Nations—Individual Actors, International Agency, and Leadership

Abstract

THE FIRST MAJOR BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN W. HOLMES CARRIES THE EMBLEMATIC title Canadas Voice: The Public Life of John Wendell Holmes. (1) The title implies that here we have an example of one individual speaking for and shaping the voice of a whole nation, embodying the values and principles of Canadian foreign policy. This is, of course, a suitable title for a biography that by its very nature underlines the significance of the person portrayed. It may, however, also illustrate that we quite commonly refer to the fact that it is concrete individuals that represent abstract institutions or ideas. It is also customary for political institutions to regulate specifically who will speak on behalf of the respective entity--be it heads of state and government or executive heads of international organizations. In a static understanding of the term, representation is closely tied to of law and protocol defining the situations and responsibilities that are tied to the execution of political offices. But going beyond this understanding of the term for established routines and hierarchies, a dynamic understanding of the term may see it as a crucial ingredient in the growth and development of a given institution or the idea behind that institution. It is in this context that I discuss a special type of actor in the United Nations system that has not received the amount of attention in academic and political circles that it deserves: special representatives of the Secretary-General (SRSGs). (2) The argument that I present starts with a reflection on what it means to represent an international organization. Then, I analyze how the representatives of the Secretary-General have developed as a specific type of individual actor. Looking both at their origin as well as their development over time, I argue that the actions of these individual actors account for a special kind of agency of the organization that they represent. The question of how individual actions translate into international agency inevitably leads to a discussion of leadership, which I would like to introduce and illustrate as a constitutive feature of that process. SRSGs are persons appointed by the Secretary-General to fulfill various roles from peacemaking to peacekeeping and peacebuilding. They work in specific conflict situations or are engaged in transregional and thematic issues, with activities ranging from discreet mediation efforts to conducting a peace operation and, as in the case of Kosovo, virtually running a country. Since 1990, their number and the tasks they have been entrusted with have increased dramatically. The current website of the Secretary-General lists about seventy names. (3) The acronym SRSG is used for a broader category comprising a wide variety of high-level appointments. (4) Mirroring different tasks, contexts, and mandates, it includes, for example, special envoys, heads of mission, special advisers, personal representatives, and transitional administrators. Twenty years ago, Donald J. Puchala (coincidentally another Holmes Lecturer), in one of the few articles dealing with the phenomenon, argued that even some very elementary questions regarding their origin, development, functions, and performance remain unanswered. (5) Some twenty years later Puchala's assessment holds true, although a few articles and reports explicitly dealing with SRSGs have been published. (6) The work of Connie Peck especially must be mentioned since she not only wrote several pieces on the SRSGs, but also compiled material from a series of interviews with SRSGs for the UN Institute for Training and Research in an attempt to facilitate training of SRSGs. With various tasks in peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding, three main subgroups of SRSGs emerge from the titles used: representatives, envoys, and advisers. Although the labels are not the result of strict procedure and originate from such diverse rationales as tradition, preference of the officeholder, and, last but not least, preference of the country to which they are deployed, a rough distinction can be made. …