New UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who assumed office on January 1, faces a tough job. Not only is the South Korean coming into a job as the other half of his motherland is testing the international community with nuclear sabre-rattling, but he also is taking the helm at an institution that increasingly appears to have lost its way.
The United Nations' loss of credibility is in part due to a disconnect among what it can do, what people think it can do and what it was created to do.
It was never intended to be an international security guarantor, but rather a forum in which nations could work together to foster international prosperity and prevent conflicts.
The Security Council was intended as a venue for powerful nations to develop a consensus, not a grouping where the world's problems could be resolved. This is completely at odds with most people's perception of the UN, which they understand to be a guarantor of international peace.
The result is a huge sense of disappointment and blame towards the institution whenever people suffer, resulting in a further loss of UN legitimacy in the world.
Wrapped up within this problem is a lack of understanding about the secretary-general's powers. He is not a CEO but a manager in an institution made up of 192 independent members, over which he has no power of enforcement. Unfortunately, as chief bureaucrat, he bears the burden of blame for any institutional failings.
Ban need not inherit such a poisoned chalice. He can avoid getting too wrapped up in the minutiae of institutional repairs by appointing an able deputy to push this acrimonious agenda.
In such a way, he can sidestep the problems that dogged the latter years of Kofi Annan's tenure, and instead seize the opportunity to try to implement a few strategic reforms within the UN.
South Korea has always been at the nexus of the major powers: able to punch well above its weight thanks to stellar economic growth and good brokering skills borne of its precarious geography. Recent events on the Korean peninsula have highlighted how much Seoul must rely on good relations with the major powers.
Ban, who comes to the UN as South Korea's foreign minister, can build on South Korea's special relationship to coax the United States into taking a more constructive approach to the UN, so that it does not simply use it as a whipping post for a domestic audience.
The UN will never function without American support, and the US needs the UN to confer the international legitimacy it craves to advance its foreign-policy goals. However, the relationship will not function as it is presently structured, and future presidents must be persuaded to engage and reform the UN in a manner consonant with the institution's importance.
The American ambassador to the UN can practice tough love, but he or she should understand that open derision and hostility towards the UN will not work to America's benefit.
In dealing with Russia and China, Ban must encourage them to take a more global role rather than act in an obstructive or opportunistic manner. For China, this means a greater willingness to share responsibility for international order.
Russia must take a step back from the meddlesome and contrarian policies of its current government, which is not simply nationalistic but at times goonishly coarse. Both are great states that should assume a worthy mantle in global affairs.
Ban also should nudge Japan further into the international fold and dissuade it from striking out alone in a region where memories of Japanese domination are still fresh. The European Union remains a solid UN supporter, but the Iraq war has done much to undermine the UN's credibility across the EU.
An able secretary-general will be able to mend this through careful management of other relations within the UN and Security Council, proving to Europeans that the major powers (including the US) are eager to support the UN's position as pre-eminent global consensus builder.
Finally, Indian engagement with the UN is necessary and can become emblematic of an institution eager to embrace and give voice to rising powers and the developing world. Ensuring that UN support is embedded early into India's foreign-policy DNA, foundations can be laid that will help both in the short and long term.
Superseding all other concerns is the need to keep the UN functioning. The League of Nations failed to survive because it was not able to maintain a consensus among the major powers; the incoming secretary-general must place a heavy emphasis on nurturing a stable modus vivendi among the major powers.
Ban is taking the helm of an institution facing an existential crisis that is being addressed with the bandage of managerial reform.
Let us hope that he outsources the institutional reforms to able staff, while he concentrates on fostering a comity among the major powers that helps the UN reassess its crucial role in the world and starts a process of rehabilitation to restore it to its position as global peace bringer in an increasingly dangerous world.
Patrick M. Cronin is director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London; Raffaello Pantucci is a research associate at the institute.
