THE secretary-general of the United Nations is sometimes described as a “secular pope”. The position is imbued with moral authority; the holder watches over an enormous flock; but he has no instruments of hard power. The title seemed to fit Kofi Annan, the seventh secretary-general, more than most. Soft-spoken and calm, Mr Annan had the demeanour of a monk. And with popish assuredness he set about trying to establish the UN as the world’s moral arbiter. But he was often frustrated by the countries on the Security Council, which wield the real power.

Mr Annan died on August 18th, aged 80. Many will remember him for drawing attention to the plight of the poor, the sick and the victims of war. He took over the UN in 1997, becoming the first sub-Saharan African to lead the organisation, and served two five-year terms. With his neatly trimmed goatee and moustache, and well-tailored suits, he was charming and eloquent. Many remarked on how unflustered he always appeared, despite serving during a tumultuous decade that saw al-Qaeda attack America, and America attack Iraq. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2001 (an award he shared with the organisation) for his work to revitalise the UN’s institutions and renew its sense of purpose. For all his efforts, though, these days the UN feels all but marginalised in world affairs.

Mr Annan was an unlikely choice for secretary-general. Born in Ghana, he rose through the ranks of the UN, whereas past leaders had been prominent national politicians or diplomats. His four-year stint as head of peacekeeping operations was marred by bloody failures. The most shameful episode occurred in 1994 in Rwanda, where a small UN force was stopped by Mr Annan from taking action to prevent a genocide that left 800,000 people dead. Blame should be shared, said Mr Annan later. The bloodshed would have been difficult to stop and the world was reluctant to intervene. “All of us must bitterly regret that we did not do more to prevent it,” he said.

UN peacekeepers were again criticised during the wars of the former Yugoslavia. When Bosnian Serb forces surrounded the UN-protected “safe haven” of Srebrenica in 1995, peacekeepers from the Netherlands handed it over without a fight, leading to a massacre of civilians. European powers opposed backing the troops on the ground with air strikes. In the end, Mr Annan sidestepped his boss, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and approved a NATO bombing campaign against the Serbs. The forceful action endeared him to America, which was looking to replace Boutros-Ghali.

But America would later challenge Mr Annan’s view of the UN as “the sole source of legitimacy” for foreign interventions. When NATO launched a bombing campaign in defence of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1999, Mr Annan said it was “tragic that diplomacy has failed”, while admitting “there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace.”

A more serious test came in 2003. As America confronted Iraq over its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Mr Annan pressed Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, to give UN weapons inspectors access to his facilities and urged America to give them time. Any plans for military action must go before the Security Council, said Mr Annan (who knew that the council would vote against them). When America invaded without UN approval, Mr Annan said the action was illegal, leading to a torrent of criticism from Republicans, who noted that the firm employing his son had benefited from UN contracts in Iraq before the war.

“The attacks [on Mr Annan] reflected the US at its worst, Kofi at his bravest, and the UN at its most vulnerable, trying to maintain international law against a lawless White House,” wrote Jeffrey Sachs, a former economic adviser to Mr Annan. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq. The war, though, also reflected the impotence of the UN. It was helpless in the face of Saddam’s brutality and America’s aggression.

Defenders of Mr Annan would often note that the big powers criticised the UN for inaction, then stopped it from acting, depending on their national interest. Little has changed. Mr Annan did not have troops under his command. He relied on America for much of the UN’s budget.

Mr Annan’s greatest achievement, he said, was getting all UN member states to agree on the Millennium Development Goals, a set of global targets for things such as reducing poverty and child mortality. Up until his death he continued to champion the cause of the downtrodden and seek peace in places such as Libya, Myanmar and Syria. He was a force for good, said António Guterres, the current secretary-general. But, his critics noted, not without flaws. “In many ways,” said Mr Guterres, “Kofi Annan was the UN.”

Correction (September 6th 2018): The original version of this article said that Mr Annan wore a goatee. An alert reader has pointed out that he sported a Van Dyke, which is a goatee plus moustache. Sorry to split hairs.