Editorial: Tough job for new head of UN

Opinion

Early this week, the way will be cleared for Ban Ki Moon to become the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations. The 15 envoys on the Security Council will confirm their overwhelming support for the candidacy of the South Korean Foreign Minister, leaving only the formality of General Assembly approval. On January 1, Mr Ban will succeed Kofi Annan at the start of a five-year term.

Given the straightforward nature of the selection process, it might be assumed that it is widely considered he will be an effective Secretary-General, able to renew and revitalise the UN. That, however, is not the case. His appointment reflects, in part, the fact that no suitable alternative emerged from Asia to highlight questions about his credentials. The first of these is his low-key demeanour, a characteristic at odds with the need to be the world body's vigorous public face. The other is his closeness to the United States, a feature accentuated by Washington's agitation for his selection.

The first concern is probably overstated. His manner may be simply a byproduct of his Asian makeup and a long career as a career bureaucrat. That is counterbalanced by the period he has already spent gaining an intimate knowledge of the UN. Mr Ban should understand its shortcomings and the need to continue Mr Annan's energetic pursuit of a blueprint for change. Already, he is addressing the doubters, saying that he has "inner strength when it's really necessary".

The second question-mark is more problematic. The UN is only as active and able as its members want it to be. For much of its history, it has been shaped by national self-interest, not a collective resolve that would make it truly effective. Two things determine the extent of that resolve at any moment: the attitude of the major powers and the standing of the UN leadership. The risk with Mr Ban is that his close ties to Washington will weaken that standing at the same time as America is indulging in a bad case of self-interest.

It should be recalled that Mr Annan was expected to bring reform and order to the UN's operations, thereby making it more acceptable to an increasingly sceptical US. He did the opposite, culminating in the UN's refusal to endorse the American-led invasion of Iraq and his own verdict that the action was "illegal". In response, the Bush Administration deemed the global body "irrelevant". It also made sure Mr Annan's planned reform of the UN structure, including a widening of the membership of the Security Council, would come to naught.

In the final period of his tenure, Mr Annan's status was eroded by the Iraqi oil-for-food programme scandal. Nonetheless, the standing of the UN recovered somewhat. It won plaudits for the response to the Boxing Day tsunami, and became a little more relevant to the White House as the US floundered in Iraq. Nonetheless, Mr Ban is right to note that restoring the confidence of the UN must be his first priority.

For that to happen, the new Secretary-General will have to overcome the suspicion, especially among Europeans, that his appointment is not so much about the reform of the UN as its taming. He will have to distance himself from Washington. Indeed, he must promote the UN as a political counterweight to the US on the international stage. The UN will be irrelevant if he aids and abets the superpower to fashion a barely disguised hegemony.

Hopefully, the next occupant of the White House will be aware such a state of affairs is not in the interest of the US, let alone the UN's other members; that a strong world body means a more secure America. If so, Mr Ban's consensus-building skills could yet stand him, and the UN, in good stead.