It is an auspicious year for the United Nations, highlighted by the annual political debates at its General Assembly in New York over the last 10 days. The world organisation is called upon to help resolve conflicts in the Lebanon or Darfur and to mediate them in Iraq or Iran.
Its international agencies are involved in most of the world's most pressing problems such as climate change, migration and refugees, human rights, and overseeing achievement of the Millennium development goals to combat poverty set out in 2000. And a new secretary general is to be selected soon to replace Mr Kofi Annan after a distinguished eight years in the office.
Yet the UN is bedevilled by anachronistic structures put in place after the end of the last world war which inhibit it taking effective action on many of these issues. Huge intervening changes in the balance of power and cultural influence are not reflected in them. A substantial reform agenda discussed in detail over the last year is under-achieved. And Mr Annan's replacement will be decided by the same secretive process, in which the five permanent members act to secure their own interests.
This great contrast between the UN's potential role and its actual situation is nothing new, but rather a standing feature of its political reality. Nevertheless the tension between them is felt more intensely during periods of change like the present. The debate on UN reform demonstrated this, even though it got bogged down in completing plans to change the voting structure at the Security Council and make it more representative. India, Germany, Japan, Brazil or Indonesia have powerful claims on greater participation as populous nations outside the permanent structure. Smaller states like Ireland, which have steadfastly supported the UN's role and legitimacy, are frustrated by the lack of progress made.
In his speech to the General Assembly Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern concentrated especially on the crises in Darfur and the Middle East. Quite justifiably he lamented the failure to apply the principle of a responsibility to protect populations threatened with genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing to Darfur, insisting that the Sudanese government must live up to its obligations. Sustained pressure like this can make a difference if it is harnessed to effective networking within the UN and outside it. Realistically it is true that the UN is simply the sum of its national memberships; they see themselves in the mirror of its successes and failures. But at a time when President Bush's foreign policy unilateralism has failed and there is a vacuum of international leadership a more effective UN is more necessary than ever.