Can a new UN secretary general help solve the global refugee crisis?

Antonio Guterres was the longtime commissioner for the UN's agency on refugees. He'll become top diplomat during a moment of historical crisis for the displaced.

Seth Wenig/AP
Current Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, right, embraces the Secretary-General designate, Antonio Guterres of Portugal, after he spoke during his appointment at U.N. headquarters, Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016.

Former UN commissioner for refugees Antonio Guterres was elected as the next secretary-general of the United Nations on Wednesday after topping all six of the informal polls performed last week among Security Council members.

Mr. Guterres, a former Portuguese prime minister whose 10-year term as refugee commissioner ended at the close of 2015, will begin his new position as the world’s top diplomat on Jan. 1, according to NBC. His arrival coincides with an inflow of refugees into wealthy countries – particularly from Syria into Europe – that has proven deeply unsettling for the politics of would-be receivers, generating animus from nativists and frustration from UN officials and refugee advocates, while some poorer countries are finding themselves overwhelmed with new arrivals.

“It’s a crisis point,” says Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at University of California-Hastings College of the Law.

“I’ve been working on refugee issues for 30 years. I can’t remember a time more dispiriting as now, where in so many regions of the world we see a virtual repudiation” of nations’ obligations under UN conventions and protocols established after World War II, she tells The Christian Science Monitor.

“Having somebody like Guterres as the secretary general just changes the calculus. It puts somebody front and center who deeply cares about this issue.”

Symbolism is a crucial value for the UN. And it’s likely that Mr. Guterres, a onetime engineering professor who first became involved in public life during the 1970s military dictatorship in Portugal, will resort to the bully pulpit more vigorously than his soft-spoken predecessor Ban Ki-moon.

In an analysis for UN Dispatch, journalist and longtime UN-watcher Mark Leon Goldberg wrote of being impressed by Guterres’s unusually frank criticisms of Obama administration officials at an event in Washington dealing with an offer to settle a comparatively small number of Syrian refugees. Guterres, Mr. Goldberg wrote, positioned himself as “the voice of world refugees … a sort of moral center.”

A runaway victor in straw polls, Guterres’s popularity is likely a reflection of his understanding for how the institution works, says T. Alexander Aleinikoff, deputy high commissioner for refugees from 2010 to 2015.

Unlike Mr. Ki-moon before him, Dr. Aleinikoff tells the Monitor, Guterres brings “deep knowledge from the field, a very full view from the ground where refugees are.”

The question may be whether his stout renderings of rich countries’ obligations will translate into breakthroughs on an ongoing crisis.

James Hathaway, a leading authority on international refugee issues and director of the refugee and asylum law program at the University of Michigan Law School, praises his talents as a manager and negotiator, as well as his poise as a diplomat.

“His staff at the UN refugee agency loved him. That’s important, because a secretary general has to depend on thousands of people to actually get things done,” Dr. Hathaway tells the Monitor.

But Guterres, he adds, was “not an innovative leader in any sense,” missing the opportunity to draw up and sell European leaders on a large-scale resettlement program before incoherent national responses ate into the political viability of such a plan – and shifted the burden onto Syria’s neighbors, where as many as one in five residents are refugees.

“I would’ve hoped for more intellectual courage at a moment when, for the first time, rich countries confronted what poor countries had long confronted,” says Hathaway.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.