KEY POINTS:
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is treading where many fear to go in pursuing a far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of what he sees as a "new world order" and "global society". His very approach, holding secret talks with other world leaders to try to build a consensus, reflects the sensitivity of the subject. Whenever it is raised, national self-interest tends to quickly destroy any flickering of collective resolve. That reaction says much about the current standing of the UN and the need for reform, as well as illustrating the difficulty of the task.
Mr Brown is right to say the UN is punching below its weight. Most of its members would agree. But the UN is only as effective as the major powers want it to be and its leadership allows. It has functioned fitfully since President George W. Bush deemed it "irrelevant" and, without UN endorsement, invaded Iraq. Subsequently, US self-interest also doomed former Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vigorous attempt to bring reform and order to the UN's operations, a process that, ironically, was meant to make the body more acceptable to a sceptical Washington.
In many ways, Mr Brown has picked up the baton left by Mr Annan when he was replaced as Secretary-General at the start of 2007 by Ban Ki-moon. His approach is certainly radically different from that of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who effectively belittled the UN by supporting the US in Iraq.
Mr Brown has yet to unveil a formal proposal but he seems inclined, like Mr Annan, to expand the number of permanent members on the Security Council.
The world's new challenges and new power bases would be acknowledged if the likes of India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations were added to a permanent membership that has not changed since 1945.
That proposition is not, however, greeted with particular relish by Britain's fellow original members - the US, France, Russia and China. They fear a loss of power and prestige, not least because their veto over council resolutions would be diluted.
One compromise would be for the new permanent members not to have a veto, at least initially. But that would solve just one of many problems. Another would be the inclusion of India, but not Pakistan. Bitter rivalry led Pakistan to play a major role in blocking discussion on an expanded council at the 2005 UN summit in New York. Mr Brown is also pushing the idea of a new UN rapid-response force that would stop failed states sinking back into chaos after peace deals are reached.
Civilians such as police, administrators and judges would work alongside military peacekeepers. In this part of the world, East Timor has proved the importance of combining sustained stabilisation, recovery and development work with traditional aid and peacekeeping. The UN would be far more effective if it were to pursue this initiative.
It might be wondered why Mr Brown, rather than Ban Ki-moon, is spearheading this drive. The answer could lie, unfortunately, in the fact that, as critics feared, Mr Ban is proving too low-key and too closely aligned to the US. Washington agitated for his appointment, a fact that, according to some Europeans, pointed to its wish to tame the UN rather than reform it.
The next occupant of the White House is, however, virtually certain to have a more helpful international outlook. This will recognise that a strong UN is not only indispensable but is the best means of guaranteeing American security. The inauguration of a new President early next year could be the signal for the UN's modernisation. In the meantime, Mr Brown is doing well to lay a foundation for change.
