SUGGESTIONS have been greeted scorn and disbelief in New York that if the UN Secretary General, Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali, wanted to be re elected this year he would be smart politically to have rewritten and toned down a sharply critical report on Israel's attack on the UN base at Qana, southern Lebanon.

Ms Sylvana Foa, his press secretary, said it would be a "very very sad day indeed" if facts uncovered by a UN investigation were suppressed just because a member state threatened to deny him a second term".

That unmentionable member is, of course, the US, which rapped Dr Ghali for lending his imprimatur to the report, prepared by a Dutch general and a British colonel from their on the spot inquiry into the circumstances of an artillery barrage that left more than 100 Arab refugees dead and stirred worldwide outrage.

Washington has not yet, at least not publicly, translated its recurrent irritations with the UN chief into a threat to employ its Security Council veto to thwart his presumed hopes for a new mandate. (He has not so far announced formally that he will seek another term and any hint of American opposition would probably dissuade him.)

But even before this latest incident, there was an impression in the UN that a few major players on the world stage would be more than happy to have someone else lead the world body into the 21st century, preferably a tough manager willing to impose badly needed reforms. But who?

Unless a successor to the Egyptian diplomat is another African, the African states may consider themselves cheated, since election for successive five year terms is a UN tradition, although neither Norway's Trygve Lie nor Sweden's Dag Hammarskjoeld completed 10 years. (Lie resigned and Hammarskjoeld died in a plane crash).

One idea being canvassed is to reappoint the ageing Dr Ghali for just two years - he will be 74 in November - and then adopt as policy a seven year, non renewable term for future holders of the office, as a Ford Foundation report on UN reform has recommended. That could open up possibilities for a number of potential candidates, including the President, Mrs Robinson.

During a UN visit last October, she flatly denied any interest in the job in a reply to a reporter's question that was little short of Shermanesque: "I am not a candidate, don't wish to be and would not wish to have any persuasion in that direction." But this and similar subsequent statements have not impressed those who still believe she could be persuaded if support for her candidacy were to develop.

Ireland is one of the UN's most respected members, whose citizens have made notable contributions to the world body, including supplying commanders and troops for several peacekeeping missions. Mr Frederick Boland was president of the General Assembly during the riotous session in 1960 when the Soviet Chairman, Mr Nikita Khrushchev, used a shoe to bang his desk for attention.

Nobel Laureate Mr Sean MacBride was the first UN commissioner for Namibia, preparing the political ground for its eventual independence. Also, it is customary for the Irish delegation to manifest a refreshing independence in its votes on some politically motived resolutions.

NOT surprisingly, Irish Americans in the US, Senator Edward Kennedy among them, would like Mrs Robinson to run. She has another important backer in Sir Brian Urquhart, an architect of UN peacekeeping and currently one of the more vigorous advocates of change in an outdated system for choosing the Secretary General, which he considers skewed against ability as long as the political profile is acceptable.

Yet Mrs Robinson's name is mentioned rather infrequently when diplomats ponder in the UN corridors whether Dr Ghali may be dumped and, if so, who will replace him. This is because many delegates cling to a belief that he will survive Washington's displeasure and be reappointed.

Polls still show strong support for the UN among the US people. However, given the preponderance of Congressional critics and the blatant hostility heard on many talk shows, the percentages are hard to credit. Mrs Robinson, with her well known attachment to human rights, would surely be a plus for the UN in terms of US support and respect.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Dr Ghali is eventually rejected or that he decides not to run, Mr Kofi Annan, the undersecretary general for peacekeeping, has to be considered a strong possibility for the succession. A Ghanaian who speaks fluent French, he came up through the UN ranks and is universally respected for his sagacity. (By accident or by design, he managed not to have his name associated with that Qana report although the Fijian UN battalion that was attacked is under his authority.)

Judge Richard Goldstone, the UN's Bosnia war crimes prosecutor and a South African, has been mentioned as a long shot who might receive President Nelson Mandela's backing. The odds are against the well liked Mr Olara Otunnu, a former chief delegate of Uganda (and candidate for the secretary generalship in the last run), as well as another former contender, Mr James Jonah, from Sierra Leone.

The list of possible entries grows. Canada's Mr Maurice Strong, who left high school to become a UN security guard, later made a fortune in the power industry and returned to the UN as the first head of the UN Environment Programme, is a perennial.

A newcomer is the socially conscious Mr Juan Somavia, Chile's UN delegate and president of the Security Council at the time of the Qana attack, after which he lectured hesitant council colleagues on their duty to let considerations of morality override political bias.

Mr Gareth Evans, Australia's Foreign Minister until the change of government, was and still may be seriously interested. But his angry response to the French nuclear tests in the Pacific would likely be rewarded with France's veto.

There are strong doubts that China would look favourably on Mrs Sadako Ogata, a Japanese former diplomat who is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Moreover, Tokyo's aspirations to a permanent seat in the Security Council may have a higher priority than promoting a Japanese, and a woman at that, to the secretary general's office.

When she was in Oslo last month, Ms Madeleine Albright, the US delegate to the UN and no friend of Dr Ghali, had a long talk about UN affairs with Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway's left of centre prime minister, adding to speculation that Washington might support her candidacy.

There is no doubt about Mrs Robinson's appeal, helped by the fact that the UN is desperately trying to narrow its gender gap at the top levels. But until the US shows its hand, which may not even be soon, she and all other potential rivals to the incumbent secretary general will have a hard time promoting whatever UN ambitions they may cherish.

In a way, Dr Ghali was elected by default in 1991 and not entirely to the satisfaction of the African states. When they argued for "Africa's turn" they were not expecting that the first African secretary general would be a light skinned Egyptian.

Sorbonne graduate and Francophile, he was France's No 1 choice but not much favoured by the US or the UK. However, neither worked very hard to find an acceptable alternative and in the end he was considered the least objectionable, or the least threatening among the several candidates from Africa.

Because the US president is elected for four years and the secretary general's term is for five, both races coincide every 20 years. This year, this may be an advantage fort Dr Ghali since who shall run the UN for the next five (or two) years is certainly not President Bill Clinton's most pressing concern. So in case of better the devil you know," there could be a new mandate for Dr Ghali.

The secretary generalship has been termed an oddball job; that of a leader who, strictly speaking, is not supposed to lead. The charter only states that he or she must be the UN's chief administrative officer, a role to which no occupant has been willing to confine himself, Dr Ghali perhaps least of all.

Trading on connections made during many years as Egypt's deputy foreign minister and later deputy prime minister, he prefers to conduct sensitive political negotiations one on one with presidents and cabinet officers, to the distress of senior subordinates who are often not even informed of the outcome of such discussions.