The selection process for the next U.N. secretary-general remains competitive, but one emerging candidate is drawing attention. Recent straw polls show Rebeca Grynspan, who leads the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, slightly ahead in the race. Previously, Guyana’s U.N. ambassador, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, led the polls and is still a contender. The successful candidate will need support from nine of the 15 U.N. Security Council members and must avoid vetoes from permanent members – the U.S., China, the U.K., France, and Russia.

Despite Guyana’s alliance with the U.S., Rodrigues-Birkett’s positions align more closely with nations like China, known for differing from U.S. interests. Her association with China includes backing its World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, which involves countries such as Russia and Cuba. At a time when the U.S. is striving for leadership in AI, Rodrigues-Birkett’s stance may present challenges.

In July, Rodrigues-Birkett campaigned in Beijing. Unlike other candidates, she endorsed the U.N. resolution that recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China at the U.N., contradicting Washington’s support for Taiwan’s participation in international bodies. Additionally, her support for China’s proposals on global governance aligns with Beijing’s plans to reshape international order.

Rodrigues-Birkett has shown support for Cuba’s communist regime, calling Fidel Castro a “visionary” and criticizing the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Her views extend to the Gaza conflict, where she criticized Israel, accusing them of genocide while advocating for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency’s involvement, despite U.S. concerns over the agency’s alleged links to terrorism.

Given these positions, the U.S. may consider using its Security Council veto against Rodrigues-Birkett’s candidacy. This action, although potentially controversial, may protect U.S. interests in global diplomacy.

Richard Goldberg and Ben Cohen of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies highlight the implications of electing a U.N. leader whose views may not align with U.S. priorities in international relations.