Julia Slatcher is a Policy Analyst of Strategic Initiatives for Population Action International.

This year, three large international bodies that have great influence on global reproductive health searched for new leaders. The selection processes for new heads of the United Nations, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the World Health Organization have evolved in unique ways – often involving back-room politicking and intrigue – requiring our scrutiny on many levels.

At the UN, not surprisingly, geopolitics come into play, as many Asian countries indicated that they would only support a candidate from their region. Between July and October, four straw polls were conducted of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council to "encourage" or "discourage" candidates for Secretary General. Ban Ki-moon of South Korea emerged as the only one with the support of all five permanent members of the Security Council.

The Global Fund aims for an open system, whereby their twenty member board must approve the winning candidate by a "double majority" – at least seven of ten members of their "donor" group and at least seven of ten of their "recipient" group. There was such an emphasis on transparency and consensus that the lack of a clear winner actually led to the postponement of a decision until next April. The Global Fund has received praise for its process – but blame for not having selected a leader.

In marked contrast, the process of electing the WHO's new Director General was shrouded in mystery. The leading candidates vie for support by meeting with various country officials, but the process is quite closed. The executive board of 34 country members ultimately vote by secret ballot.

The UN and the WHO have new leaders – but how Mr. Ban Ki-moon and Dr. Margaret Chan will lead in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remains to be seen. Neither one has a public record on our issues.

The Lancet, having just published a remarkable series in conjunction with WHO, is urging Dr. Chan to "massively scale-up" WHO's response to SRHR. However, many in the NGO world are uneasy knowing so little about her views – and those of Mr. Ban – on SRHR, as well as how much influence the Bush administration will have in both agencies with its anti-reproductive rights agenda – especially given that it reportedly supported both candidacies.

The anti-condom crowd and its cronies have gained traction in recent years. For example, there is now an "outcry" to cut funding to the Global Fund unless it increases outreach to faith-based groups and decreases its emphasis on condoms. So we must remain proactive in advocating for the selection of a leader who vows to keep evidence-based SRHR issues at the forefront. Likewise, as the newly approved reproductive health target under Millennium Goal 5 supports, Dr. Chan and Mr. Ban must maintain SRHR as a high priority within their institutions. And we NGOs who know how critical SRHR is must hold these new chiefs and their institutions accountable.