Dear Editor,
As you are aware I have consistently supported Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett’s candidacy for United Nations Secretary General. For this reason, I listened closely to President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s address to the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Naturally I was especially attentive to the portion in which he urged UN member states to support Guyana’s candidate. What stood out most was his repeated emphasis on Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett’s Indigenous identity.
President Ali referred to her emergence from a small Indigenous village and to the barriers she overcame as an Indigenous woman. He later urged the international community to “look beyond the small country that nominated her,” noting CARICOM’s endorsement and appealing to member states to give “this Indigenous woman” the opportunity to help shape the United Nations we all want to see succeed.
That emphasis may have been intended to present a powerful story of perseverance, representation, and achievement. Yet in a high-stakes global campaign, explicitly centring identity carries real risks. A candidate of Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett’s stature does not need her qualifications filtered primarily through ethnicity; doing so may unintentionally narrow the conversation around her candidacy.
First, an identity-led argument can obscure professional merit. Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett has a formidable administrative and diplomatic record, having served as Guyana’s foreign minister, minister of Amerindian affairs, and permanent representative to the United Nations. If the campaign leads with her ethnic background, critics may wrongly reduce a serious candidacy to symbolism rather than evaluate her executive experience, diplomatic judgment, and governance credentials.
Second, identity-based appeals may have limited influence among the major power brokers at the United Nations. The selection of a Secretary-General is shaped heavily by geopolitical alignment, diplomatic compromise, and confidence in administrative capacity. Arguments about representation may resonate morally, but they are unlikely to outweigh the hard calculations that dominate such a contest.
Third, the strategy could invite avoidable domestic criticism. In Guyana’s sensitive multi-ethnic political environment, highlighting ethnic identity abroad may allow political opponents at home to argue that representation is being used selectively for international appeal, while raising questions about how diversity and inclusion are practiced domestically.
Finally, framing a candidacy so strongly around identity places an unfair burden of representation on the nominee. If elected, Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett would have to make difficult decisions as a neutral custodian of the UN Charter. Those decisions should be judged on principle, competence, and diplomacy, not constantly interpreted through the lens of her background.
Ambassador Rodrigues-Birkett’s story is unquestionably inspiring, and her Indigenous heritage is an important part of who she is. But her case for the highest office in the United Nations should rest above all on competence, experience, independence, and diplomatic vision. To rely too heavily on identity risks overshadowing the very qualifications that make her a credible and compelling candidate.
For that reason, I found the framing disappointing.