The race to choose the next secretary-general of the United Nations is underway. In late April, candidates will appear before member states in New York for the now-familiar public dialogues introduced during the last selection process in 2016.

Those debates marked a historic improvement in transparency. For the first time, candidates were required to publish vision statements and answer questions from governments and civil society. The reform opened what had once been a closed diplomatic process. But nearly a decade later, one feature of the process has not changed: the formal member-state debates still take place entirely in New York. The only engagement the candidates are currently scheduled to convene in Geneva is an informal session with civil society in early June.

This year’s consultations will again be held at UN headquarters the week of April 20th. The current candidates include Rafael Grossi (Argentina), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Macky Sall (Senegal), and Virginia Gamba (Argentina), with additional nominations expected as the race develops. These dialogues are important. But they also reflect the worldview of New York diplomacy, one centered heavily on geopolitics and the work of the UN Security Council.

In 2016, most questions to candidates focused on peacekeeping, conflict mediation, and relations with major powers. Those issues will always be central to the secretary-general’s role. Yet the world confronting the next UN leader looks very different from the one that shaped the last debate. Today’s global agenda is defined not only by war and peace but also by a much wider set of disruptions: accelerating climate change, widening inequality, humanitarian emergencies, the transformation of international trade, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, and worrying backsliding on human rights.

If the UN is to remain relevant in this new landscape, the process for selecting its leader should reflect the full breadth of the organization’s work. That is why the secretary-general candidates should also come to Geneva for dialogues with member states. Geneva could be a first step: consultations in Nairobi, Bangkok, and Panama City could further broaden candidates’ exposure to crucial regional issues and deepen the scope of their engagement.

Why Geneva Matters

While New York is the political heart of the UN system, Geneva is its operational and normative center. It is home to major UN institutions responsible for humanitarian action, human rights, trade, health, technology governance, and migration.

Organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization shape global responses to many of the defining challenges of our time. The city also hosts hundreds of civil society organizations and international agencies that operate on the front lines of humanitarian crises and development efforts.

Yet none of these actors, or the member states working with them day to day, are offered a meaningful role in questioning candidates for the UN’s top job. The result is a debate that risks being too narrow for the moment we are living through. Holding a round of member-state consultations in Geneva would not diminish New York’s central role. Rather, it would complement it, ensuring that the candidates demonstrate their readiness to lead the entire UN system, not just its political headquarters.

What Geneva Consultations Could Accomplish

First, Geneva dialogues would broaden the policy conversation. The secretary-general is not only the world’s chief diplomat; the office also coordinates a vast system addressing development, humanitarian response, and global governance. A consultation in Geneva could bring forward questions that rarely dominate New York debates: How should the UN respond to climate-driven displacement? What role should the organization play in regulating artificial intelligence? How can global trade systems support development and resilience? How can human rights institutions maintain credibility in an era of geopolitical polarization? These issues are already reshaping international cooperation. Candidates should show how they would lead on them.

Second, Geneva consultations would strengthen engagement with civil society. The reforms introduced in 2016 opened the door for nongovernmental actors to submit questions, but their participation has remained limited. Geneva’s dense ecosystem of humanitarian organizations, human rights advocates, and research institutions offers an opportunity for a much richer dialogue. A public consultation with these actors alongside member states would help test how candidates think about the UN’s relationship with the societies it serves.

Third, Geneva dialogues would reflect the evolving geography of multilateralism. For decades, global diplomacy was dominated by traditional interstate politics. Today, many of the most complex challenges—from pandemics to climate governance—require collaboration between governments, scientists, businesses, and humanitarian organizations. Geneva has become a hub for precisely this kind of multistakeholder diplomacy. Bringing secretary-general candidates there would signal that the UN recognizes how global governance is changing while also prompting member states to engage more directly in the question of how Geneva might play a greater role in addressing global risks.

A Stronger Selection Process

None of this would require rewriting the rules of the selection process. The president of the General Assembly could simply invite candidates to participate in an additional round of public discussions in Geneva, hosted jointly by UN agencies, member states, and civil society. The dialogues could be webcast, just like the New York hearings, ensuring transparency and global access.

In fact, the secretary-general candidates are already due to be in Geneva for civil society discussions on June 9th. Adding a member state dialogue around that time would be simple. The cost would be minimal. The benefits could be substantial.

The selection of the next secretary-general is more than a choice of a single individual. It is also a moment for the international community to reflect on the direction of the United Nations itself. The world of 2026 is facing overlapping crises that extend far beyond traditional security debates. The next UN leader will need to navigate not only geopolitical rivalry but also economic upheaval, technological transformation, and environmental instability.

If we want candidates who are ready for that task, we should test them across the full spectrum of the UN’s responsibilities. New York should remain the stage for the core diplomatic debate. But the candidates should also come to Geneva as a next step.