{"text":[[{"start":5.9,"text":"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."}],[{"start":45.6,"text":"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. "}],[{"start":64.5,"text":"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."}],[{"start":90.05,"text":"The secretary-general’s role today is a thankless one. The shareholders, in the form of the General Assembly, are divided and disillusioned; the board, in the form of the five permanent members of the Security Council, or at least three of them, the US, China and Russia, heed the forum only when it suits them; funding is straitened; its staff are in despair over cuts and a loss of morale; the public see it as a zombie organisation past its prime if not its time."}],[{"start":117.85,"text":"It is easy to see why some are tempted to cite the precedent of the UN’s forerunner, the League of Nations. Set up idealistically after the first world war, it was formally closed only in 1946 but it had long since lost its way and its role against the backdrop of fascism’s rise. Likewise, the architecture of the UN is now clearly outdated. Yet the world needs a body to address pressing global issues, from climate change to war. Trump’s “Board of Peace” is no alternative."}],[{"start":146.95,"text":"In this context the choice of the next secretary-general is vital. So far four candidates have applied. They should be bold in their proposed reforms. There is an unquestionable need to rein in the UN’s ambitions. It should refocus on its founding primary mission: peace and security. It may find itself ignored in the great powers’ wars, but there are a host of other conflicts, for example Sudan, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo, that need renewed UN focus. So, too, can the UN reform its humanitarian role. It could consider ceding parts of its sprawling development agenda to the development banks. There is also a pressing need to reduce its notorious bureaucracy. "}],[{"start":189.89999999999998,"text":"Other contenders are thought to be holding off from applying, assuming that the P5 will stitch up the succession to suit their ends. Is this then a moment for the UK and France to show their mettle? Their membership of the P5 is a legacy of 1945. The big three members, China, Russia and the US, will be keen to do a deal behind doors. London and Paris should make clear publicly that they will not slavishly fall into line, and that the General Assembly must have a say."}],[{"start":223.29999999999998,"text":"Now, sadly, the conditions are not right for a radical new vision of the UN to be enacted. But it is vital to keep the organisation alive until better conditions for substantive reform exist. For this modest but essential ambition to be achieved the best possible candidates should be encouraged to compete."}],[{"start":249.39999999999998,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1777900652_5691.mp3"}