Kofi Annan’s term as secretary-general of the United Nations will end in 2006. His ability to lead the U.N. is seriously impaired. He no longer has the confidence of America because of his failure to create a consensus on Iraq among the permanent members.

Even more damaging are the revelations concerning the bribery that occurred at the Security Council with regard to the oil-for-food program, which may explain the refusal of a number of member states, e.g., France, China, Russia, and Germany, to join America in its efforts to compel Iraq to comply with the terms of U.N. Resolution 1441.

The charges of venality and corruption relate to these nations and the U.N. bureaucracy. The latter, headed by Benon Savan, until recently in charge of the oil-for-food program, according to the New York Post, “may have profited by up to $1 million personally.”

The monies were used to corrupt members of the Security Council and, according to the Post, “Saddam Hussein not only skimmed off a fortune from the program, upwards of $10 billion, he also threw around bribes and lucrative oil contracts designed to ‘persuade’ nations like France and Russia to undermine economic sanctions.”

More recently, the Associated Press reported, “Over more than a decade, Saddam Hussein’s government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, including the humanitarian oil-for-food program, congressional investigators estimated yesterday. That’s double the $10 billion the Iraqi president previously was alleged to have siphoned off. The earlier estimate included only the oil-for-food program. The new, higher number includes illicit profits from efforts like the illegal smuggling of oil in the years of sanctions that preceded the humanitarian program that began in 1996.”How could Mr. Annan been so out of touch as not to be aware of what was happening?

Now, there is an ongoing investigation by Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, retained by the U.N. for that purpose, who is also looking into the involvement of Mr. Annan’s son, Kojo, not known as an expert in petroleum, whose “Swiss-based firm, Cotecna, was awarded a $4.8 million contract shortly after Kojo Annan was hired as a consultant,” according to the Post.

How can the U.N. recover its centrality in world affairs, relating to war and peace and uplifting economically the populations of the world’s nations? Clearly it won’t happen under Kofi Annan, whose term is shortly coming to an end. But it could happen under a new U.N. administration led by Bill Clinton. He is admired throughout the world as a person capable of bringing people together, expressing in clear, understandable language the most complex of ideas and achieving consensus under the most difficult of circumstances.

Mr. Clinton has become one of the most important and persuasive political voices of our time in both America and worldwide. His selection as secretary-general of the U.N. would revitalize the U.N., restore its reputation, it now being seen by many as a monument to hypocrisy as well as a paper tiger.

The condition of decadence and irrelevance is emphasized by the U.N. action or the lack thereof following the adoption of U.N. Resolution 1564 on September 18, 2004, co-offered by France and America to take measures to deal with the ongoing genocide taking place in the province of Darfur in the Sudan. The violence has been directed by the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, and its paramilitary Arab irregulars called janjaweed, against its own citizens.

It is estimated that a million or more black Africans – men, women, and children – have been put at great physical risk. Hundreds of thousands have been uprooted and become refugees; thousands have been assaulted, raped or killed in order to spread chaos and fear. An interesting question, which I cannot answer, is how many more innocent Africans have been added to the rolls of those suffering or dying since the resolution was adopted.

If Mr. Clinton were in charge, he would be speaking out on this issue daily. He would shake the world by the shoulders. If he could not effect a major change for the better, he would, I have no doubt, resign, making the Security Council even more aware of the need for immediate action.

The interesting question that, of course, would be raised, whether President Bush – fresh from a resounding electoral victory – would be supportive of such an effort. There are those who believe the president’s partisanship would preclude such an appointment. On the other hand, his victory has given him great leeway here. In one stroke, he could transform a widely held negative opinion that he is overly partisan and narrow into a new and I believe correct view of him, that he is committed to multilateral approaches where appropriate and practical, that he is not an ideologue, but incisive and shrewd.

It would show that in fact he possesses a special clarity on some of the major issues facing America, indeed, civilization itself. It would demonstrate unequivocally that he is committed to making the U.N. relevant in order to make the world a better place and that he would do so without regard to narrow partisan considerations. It would contradict the widely held view in Europe concerning his unwillingness to reach out to others who are not already his supporters and, in the process, he would enhance his own legacy in dramatic fashion.

To elect Mr. Clinton, those of good will at the U.N. should start now in their plans to bring that about. Starting immediately might cause Mr. Annan to consider resigning before his term expires.

Mr. Koch is the former mayor of New York City and a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP.