In the next few weeks, a new secretary general of the United Nations will be chosen by the security council. In a world racked by violent divisions surpassing anything witnessed since the organisation was created "to end the scourge of war," the secretary general can play a much more important role than is currently the case in easing global tensions and in making the weak and the dispossessed feel that their voices are being heard.

But world opinion will play no role in electing the figure who can lay claim to being our only global voice. The election process is secretive in the extreme. It is conducted behind closed doors, and no discussion of the candidates takes place in the security-council chamber. The council's five permanent members will not dilute their power to choose a leader who will at crucial moments put their interests above those of the rest of humanity.

Since 9/11 the US has demanded complete fealty from the organisation and Kofi Annan has been even less able than previous secretaries general to be seen as independent. But in his first term, he was as effective a leader as any the organisation has had. The key to his success was a single-minded clarity about his central goals: to strengthen the UN by building an intimate relationship with the US, and to ease Israel's isolation at the world body.

The relatively unknown Annan quickly became a statesman more popular than most world leaders. Three exceptional individuals made this transformation possible. John Ruggie was the strategic agenda-setter. Edward Mortimer was the speech writer who brought intellectual gravitas. Shashi Tharoor was the communicator who mesmerised media and public alike with his articulation of Annan's vision - and with his own brilliance.

Shashi, as he is universally known, is now in the race to succeed his boss. A prodigy with real-world credentials, he obtained his PhD from the prestigious Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston at the age of 22, and immediately joined the UN where he became chief of the refugee office in Singapore at the height of the "boat people" crisis. He rose rapidly, becoming the youngest head of department appointed from within the ranks. The World Economic Forum in Davos named him a "global leader of tomorrow". A creative and instinctive reformer, he transformed into a key UN player the large communications department he heads. He is eloquent, devoted to human rights and, despite his strong dash of third-worldism, his centrist political views would make him acceptable to the US.

Shashi at first seemed an unlikely prospect for a position, which has always gone to someone from the foreign-policy circuit. He has no high-level diplomatic experience. He is a senior insider in an organisation that has failed to deliver the far-reaching overhaul it needs. He is also Indian, which could mean that Pakistan and its friends in the Muslim world would be resistant to his candidature.

Ironically, his prospects jumped when India announced its support: the world's largest democracy is now a growing world player with burgeoning US ties. Shashi came a close second to South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki-moon in a security council straw poll last month.

That is no guarantee of success, of course. It is possible the next secretary general is not even among the currently declared candidates. But if elected, Shashi could make a difference to the institution's future. His skills of persuasion might convince the US that its constant demands for compliance are counterproductive: a UN without credibility is of no use to the US, as we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. And the backing of a strong and independent government such as India's, which enjoys the additional advantages of being a leader of both the Non-Aligned and the Group of 77 developing countries, would also enable him to resist undue US pressure.

His being an insider is not a problem. Indeed, if the goal of overhauling this immensely complicated institution is not to gut it but to strengthen its ability to be a more effective player, then the right person from within is needed.

Shashi's being an Indian Hindu should not worry Pakistanis or Muslims. From what I know of Shashi, being Indian has made him much more, rather than less, sensitive to Muslim suffering. And also as an Indian, Shashi would be very keen to promote better relations with Pakistan, which the vast majority of the two peoples ardently desire