A reformed Security Council and a broader consensus on the threats now facing humanity would be an important step forward,writes Andrew Cottey.
United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan's recent visit to Ireland highlighted the fact that reform is now firmly at the centre of the global body's agenda.
In his speech to the National Forum on Europe at Dublin Castle, Annan called on the UN's members "to find common ground" on reforming the organisation and make 2005 "a year of bold action".
Ironically, the Iraq war is the proximate cause of renewed interest in reforming the UN. Before and during the war - in the first half of 2003 - many observers argued that the crisis was a fundamental setback to the UN, perhaps even the organisation's death knell.
The US decision to use force without authorisation from the UN Security Council stretched the right of self-defence far beyond any previously accepted definition and seemed to set a precedent for unilateral great power interventions. The leading US neo-conservative Richard Perle celebrated the death of "the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order".
In response to the September 11th terrorist attacks and the Iraq war, Annan took the initiative by establishing the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to explore the UN's response to the security problems of the 21st century. Other powers such as Britain, France and Germany have been quietly supporting efforts to adapt the UN to a new era.
As its problems mounted in Iraq, even the Bush administration was forced to return to the UN, seeking and obtaining a Security Council resolution endorsing the presence of the US-led military presence in post-war Iraq.
The high-level panel is formally mandated to examine the security threats facing the international community in the 21st century and explore new responses to these challenges, but most attention is focusing on its likely proposals for reforming the UN Security Council.
The Security Council is the key decision-making body of the UN, with the power to impose decisions on member states and to authorise the use of military force. The Security Council is currently dominated by its five permanent members, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, who each have a veto over its decisions. The make-up of the Security Council reflects the global balance of power after the second World War when the UN Charter was written.
Reports suggest that the high-level panel is likely to recommend expanding the membership of the Security Council to include countries such as Germany, Japan and India, either as permanent members or as semi-permanent members with a right to pursue renewal of that status.
The seriousness with which such ideas are being taken is indicated by the fact that Germany, Brazil, Japan and India have recently agreed to support each other's bids for membership of the Security Council.
In the past candidates have tended to compete; now - recognising that crunch time may be approaching - the best-placed countries are seeking to strengthen their diplomatic hand.
The high-level panel may also address the issue of the veto. Since the veto also applies to revisions of the UN Charter, the existing five permanent members are unlikely to surrender the power they hold. New permanent or semi-permanent members, however, may not be given the veto, while the existing permanent members may be asked to limit the circumstances in which they may use the veto.
Of course, such proposals may come to nothing. The UN General Assembly has been considering Security Council reform since the early 1990s. Any reform of the UN Charter requires the support, not only of the Security Council but also of two thirds of the General Assembly. Once the high-level panel publishes its report in December, the real diplomatic wrangling will begin, with countries such as Pakistan and Italy likely to counter India and Germany's bids for permanent membership of the Security Council with alternative reform proposals.
Nevertheless, the widespread recognition of the need to strengthen the UN in the wake of the Iraq war, to adapt the organisation to new security challenges and the likelihood of a broadly supported report from the high-level panel, may create the momentum necessary to make reform a reality.
Next year will be the 60th anniversary of the United Nations: next autumn's meeting of the General Assembly could be one of the most important in the UN's history.
The high-level panel will also have important things to say on other issues. While acknowledging the threats posed by terrorism and proliferation, it is likely to emphasise the importance of a broad definition of security encompassing civil wars, poverty, global warming and HIV/AIDS.
The panel may stress the need to strengthen the UN's capacity to support state-building in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and enhance ties with regional organisations like the European Union which can supply the UN with peacekeepers, police, economic aid and material support for democracy promotion.
Even major reforms will not solve all the UN's problems. The UN will continue to be the subject of its member states, reflecting their conflicts, divisions and failures.
Nevertheless, a UN with a reformed Security Council, a broader consensus on the full range of threats facing humanity in the 21st century and a strengthened capacity to support state-building would be an important step forward.
By a strange twist of fate, one outcome of US President Bush's misguided war in Iraq may be a modernised United Nations better able to address the challenges of the 21st century.
Andrew Cottey is a lecturer and Jean Monnet chair in European Political Integration in the Department of Government, University College Cork