In the first six decades after the United Nations’ foundation in 1945, the role of secretary-general was rightly seen as one of the more influential, important and at times even glamorous global roles around. In the cold war the superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, sometimes rode roughshod over the UN’s prescriptions and flouted the secretary-general’s appeals. But there was a general understanding that the UN was a vital forum for debate at moments of global crisis: it was the body that would not just try to prevent war, but honourably pick up the pieces after conflicts and try to shore up peace.
How distant that era seems. The contest has officially started for candidates for the 10th holder of the post. It comes, however, as the UN is most notable for its absence from the global stage. The comparison between its performance in America’s last two major Middle East wars is all too telling.
In the countdown to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W Bush’s administration felt the need to try to seek UN approval. The then secretary-general Kofi Annan’s opposition posed major problems for the US. So weakened is the UN now that Donald Trump’s administration has not even felt the need to pay lip service to the idea of seeking UN approval for the war against Iran.