After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, assimilating Muslim culture into the values of multi-culturalism has become difficult, not only in the US but in Europe as well. This was quite apparent during the recent spate of violence which occurred in parts of Europe following the Prophet Mohammed cartoon incident.

That in some European countries even today blasphemy laws exist to protect, for example, the Anglican version of Christianity from indignities hurled by others, was quietly forgotten and the Muslim response was seen by many as proof of the "unassimilable" character inherent in Muslim culture.

Graham Fuller refers to the raging debate between advocates of total assimilation of all people into a common founding Anglo-Saxon culture vis-a-vis those who would like the retention of different ethnicity and culture, ultimately enriching the American identity. But fears exist that retention of sub-national identities could put a citizen in a conflicting situation should he/she perceives a conflict in the policies of his/her country with that of the country of origin .

The Madrid, London and the most recent Mumbai terrorist bombings bring up the question whether national identity has been able to transcend the differences in race, religion, and culture.

In this complex global situation, the United Nations has to play its role as the only body whose legitimacy is accepted by all and which perhaps can act as a counter to the uni-polarity still advocated by neo-cons and new sovereigntists in the US who consider international law as too amorphous and intrusive to merit American consent and refuse to consider global concern as their own unless these concerns converge with American interests.

In September 2003, Kofi Annan, addressing the General Assembly, spoke of the challenges to be faced by the UN in the years ahead and created the high level panel on threats, challenges and change. The panel in its report identified six clusters of threats that would be faced by the world in decades ahead: war between states; violence within states, including civil wars, large scale human rights abuses and genocide; poverty, disease and environmental degradation; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and transnational crime. The interconnecticity of the world driven by constant force of globalisation means that a major terrorist attack anywhere in the industrial world would have disastrous consequences for the well-being of the people of the developing countries.

The high-level panel put emphasis for real improvement in the UN system for prevention of wars between and within states by improving the UN's diplomatic and mediation capacity. They suggested the adoption by regional organization of strong norms to protect governments from being unconstitutionally overthrown. In order to respond successfully to terrorism the panel felt that occasions may arise when the Security Council may have to be proactive needing a more expansive interpretation of Article 51 of the UN charter which provides for an inherent right of self-defense.

In addition, the panel report endorses the emerging norm of protecting civilians by the international community from being brutalized by dictators/tyrants and those who willfully and widely abuse the rights of the minorities in any country. The argument is that if the state fails to protect civilians then the international community has a responsibility to act through humanitarian intervention as a last resort.

As the Iraq imbroglio has demonstrated, the UN has often devoted too little attention and too few resources to the critical challenge of post conflict peace building. Successful peace building requires the deployment of well-resourced and well-trained peace keeping forces with clear mandate so that they can perform their duty, most difficult in most cases, which does not become controversial at a later stage.

The utter helpnessness of the Dutch peacekeepers at the hands of numerically more Serbs with better equipment rendering the Dutch virtual prisoners led to the massacre of innocent civilians at Srebrenica and the late response of the west and of the UN in the Rwandan crisis resulted in the horrendous killing, rapes and mutilation of inordinately large number on Rwandans will, for eternity, remain as black mark against the UN.

The immediate task before the UNGA and the Security Council is to appoint a new Secretary General, as Kofi Annan's second term ends in December. Article 97 of the UN Charter specifies that the Secretary General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the UNSC.

Since 1946 to 1996, the General Assembly adopted a passive role in the appointment of the UNSG because the UNSC used to send only one name for the appointment. In 1997, however, UNGA adopted a resolution which outlined a role for the president of the assembly in the appointment of the UNSG. The resolution authorized the president of the assembly to consult with member states to identify potential candidates and forward the results of the consultation to the UNSC.

The appointment of the new UNSG will be the first one to be made since the resolution was passed. The appointment of the UNSG, however, is subject to veto of the P-5. For example, in 1946 Trygve Lie was selected when all other candidates were opposed either by the US or the USSR; in 1953 Dag Hammerskjold was appointed after Canada's Lester Pearson was vetoed by the USSR; in 1991 Javier Perez de Cueller was eventually appointed after Kurt Waldheim running for a third term was vetoed by China, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania was vetoed by the US, and Sadruddin Aga Khan was vetoed by the USSR; and in 1996 Boutros-Ghali's reappointment was vetoed by the US.

Though in the past there was no fixed term of office of the UNSG, a resolution adopted in 1997 has made it mandatory that the duration of the term or terms of appointment, including the option of a single term, shall be considered before the appointment of a new UNSG. The UNGA also resolved that in order to facilitate smooth transition, the next Secretary General should be appointed no later than one month before the expiry of the term of Kofi Annan.

One of the most contested factors in the appointment of the next Secretary General would be the principle of regional rotation. Though Article 97 of the charter provides no guidance about regional rotation, Asia demands that it is now Asia's turn. After U Thant of Burma, who finished his term in 1971, there has been no Secretary General from Asia.

In February, the 53 member African group in the UN joined the 50 member Asian group to reaffirm Asia's claim for the top post. The principle of rotation was also invoked by the Latin American delegations at the time of the selection of Perez de Cueller. When Boutros-Ghali was vetoed by the US, it was understood that the next Secretary General would be from Africa.

Besides, if one looks at the terms held by Secretaries General from different regional groups, one would find that Western Europe had 6 terms, Africa had 3 terms, Latin America 2 terms, and Asia, comprising more than half of the total world population, had only 2 terms.

Three of the five permanent members of the UNSC (China, Russia, and France) have already announced that it is Asia's turn to lead the UN now. US ambassador John Bolton, known for his critical remarks about the UN, rejects the principle of geographic rotation and publicly hinted that the job should go to an Eastern European, although Eastern Europe as a geographical entity has virtually ceased to exist after the end of the Cold War.

Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who energetically supported Bush invasion of Iraq, is reportedly the favourite of the White House. This paradoxical US position on the issue is difficult to understand because no one is more vocal than the East Europeans to claim that they are now fully integrated into Europe and that "East" and "West" Europe are Cold War relics. Given China's almost certain veto to give the post to one outside Asia, Bolton's antics is not expected to succeed.

The announced Asian candidates are: Shashi Tharoor from India; Jayantha Dhanapala from Sri Lanka; Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai; and South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon.

Time is short for the world to decide on who will steward the United Nations in the turbulent times ahead. Bangladesh has been put in the unenviable position of having to choose one from among two South Asian candidates and two from countries which accord with Bangladesh's Look East policy.

But in the ultimate analysis, one would expect Bangladesh to take a policy which would not only bolster regional cooperation but would also be beneficial for our bilateral relations with our most immediate neighbour.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.