The world's most prestigious prize was created just 100 years ago For years, the UN was treated as an unwanted stepchild by Washington, something to be tolerated at best and a convenient scapegoat when things went bad (as they often did). In recent years, the Clinton administration's efforts to raise the UN's profile ran headlong into Congress's refusal to pay the American share of its UN dues. And as recently as a few weeks ago, the Bush administration brushed aside any thoughts of a major UN role in the war against terrorism.

Why the sudden change of heart? As the magnitude of Washington's war on terrorism becomes clear, so, too, the recognition that the US is going to be dependent on other entities to assist it. In addition to the purely military action -- an American show with Britain in a supporting role -- the campaign will entail everything from freezing financial assets of the terror network at home and abroad to routine police work in the dozens of countries in which terrorist cells are thought to exist. The task is too large, even for the world's only Superpower, and the administration has suddenly discovered the virtues of burden-sharing.

The burden being thrust on the UN is formidable. At his October 11 press conference, Bush outlined his vision of a postwar Afghanistan. The country would have 1) a new government in which no favorites would be played among its volatile ethnic mix; 2) it would be a "stable" country that wouldn't threaten its neighbors with terrorist activities; and 3) it would be a country in which it would be "helpful" if drug-trafficking could be removed. "I believe the United Nations could provide the framework necessary to create these conditions," the president said.

Throughout its blood-soaked history, Afghanistan has defied the very concept of "stability." On occasion, its warring factions of have cooperated in driving out foreign invaders - the British in the 19th century, the Soviets in the 20th. But once the foreigners were gone, the old rivalries resurfaced. The overthrow of the Taliban, a government most Afghans appear to hate and fear, will have been accomplished largely through Washington efforts. This will be a heavy legacy for whatever nation-building activities the UN launches. And whether the UN, or anybody else, is up to the task, is another question.

It will be recalled that the UN did not do itself any honor in its peace-keeping efforts in Somalia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and keeping the peace is the first step on the road to the nation-building Bush wants the UN to carry out. Needless to say, the chaotic circumstances prevailing in a post-Taliban Afghanistan will hardly provide a fertile field for success.

For the UN and Kofi Annan, it is one thing to bask in the glory of a Nobel Peace Prize, it is quite another to take on the responsibility of overseeing and reconstructing a country where chaos and bloodshed have been the norm for centuries. Afghanistan could be an opportunity for the UN to rehabilitate itself after its failed peace-keeping efforts of the last decade. At the same time, however, it could prove to be the same quagmire that has bedeviled other attempts to impose a semblance of order and stability. Time will tell whether Bush has done the UN a great favor or a gross disservice.

(Dr. Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.)