This week at Turtle Bay, signs are indicating that the Kofi Annan era is finally ending and that Ban Ki-moon is quietly taking charge, preventing some last-minute attempts by the secretary-general’s aides to create facts on the ground and leave their mark behind.

One such attempt — a plan to promote the secretary-general’s personal representative in Lebanon, Geir Pedersen, to coordinate all activities in the country — was scuttled last week when it reached the ears of Mr. Ban’s aides, several officials told me. I reported about that attempt in this column last week.

Mr. Annan’s top aides quietly promoted the idea to key diplomats and were set to announce today the appointment of Mr. Pedersen as special coordinator for Lebanon. One person whom they had not consulted was the American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. After learning about the appointment, Mr. Bolton and some of Mr. Ban’s aides separately intervened and effectively put a stop to it.

And wisely so. Lebanon is on the verge of civil war again. Over the weekend, talks of government reshuffle collapsed, and all Hezbollah ministers resigned. Next up are planned street protests and counterprotests that might easily lead to protracted violence and the familiar Lebanese specter of armed clans clashing. This week’s events might determine the success or failure of the Cedar Revolution, the valiant attempt at independence of Syria and of Iran’s aspirations for regional hegemony.

Part of the recent unrest has to do with a Turtle Bay plan, conceived by the Security Council, to set up a tribunal of international and Lebanese jurists to try suspects in the Hariri assassination and other politically motivated killings. The pro-Syrian forces in Beirut oppose the tribunal, fearing the possible criminal convictions of top Damascus officials.

As this demonstrates, Lebanon is one of the world’s hotspots where the United Nations has become a key player. Any last-minute appointment there might send the wrong message.

A Norwegian diplomat whose term in Beirut was marked by little success, Mr. Pedersen has become too cozy with Hezbollah and its allies in the Lebanese capital.

Like some Europeans and many in Mr. Annan’s inner circle, Mr. Pedersen believes Hezbollah’s assurances that once Israel is stripped of this or that asset — assets that Jerusalem sees as necessary for defending the Jewish state’s northern border — the terrorist organization would then give up its menacing army and turn into a purely political party, playing nice with other Lebanese politicos.

Thus, Israel currently must end its flights over Lebanon, which violate Security Council resolutions, before the disarming of Hezbollah, through a “political dialogue,” could be achieved. Mr. Pedersen’s reflects this thinking in public pronouncements that detail every Israeli cross-border flight but decline to weigh in on the illegal flow of arms into Lebanon across the Syrian border.

That flow of arms was detailed recently in a Security Council briefing carried by Mr. Pedersen’s fellow Norwegian, Terje Roed Larsen, who currently serves as another of Mr. Annan’s envoys to the region. An old Middle East hand, Mr. Roed Larsen has grown increasingly open-eyed about the region’s realities. He has consistently highlighted the dangers in allowing an army answerable to Iran and Syria to grow unchecked inside Lebanon.

Mr. Larsen’s subtle but honest reporting to the council about arms violations by Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian masters has naturally ruffled some feathers in Beirut. Even more so, it caused some upset among the Damascus Baathists, who have briefly declared him a persona non grata.

Mr. Annan’s diplomatic style shuns anyone who rocks the boat too much. Although publicly supporting him, Mr. Annan’s team soon eased Mr. Roed Larsen out of the inner circle of decision makers. His fellow Norwegian, the Hezbollah-friendly Mr. Pedersen, became the top go-to man. Finally, last week’s attempt to promote Mr. Pedersen was seen mostly as means to isolate Mr. Roed Larsen and push him out altogether.

It was then that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Ban’s aides intervened. The decision on whether either of the two Norwegians would lead the Lebanese policy — or neither — should not be made in the final weeks of Mr. Annan’s term. It should clearly be left for Mr. Ban to sort out.

It is not clear how Mr. Ban plans to handle diplomacy on such flashpoints as Lebanon. Mr. Annan, however, has not been so tremendously successful there that his diplomatic style must be closely followed by his successor.