According to Kofi Annan himself - speaking to the BBC on taking over the UN's top job - confrontation is not his style:

"When it comes to toughness, or firmness, I think those who know me know that even though I get people to work together and I am by nature a conciliator, I can be firm when it is necessary. And I can hold the line when issues or principle are involved. And let me say that I'm not one of those who believes that you have to pound the table or shout to be tough!"

Mr Annan was a UN diplomat for three decades before he won election to the Secretary Generalship. He has held senior positions in some of the UN's most difficult departments, and before his election was head of UN peacekeeping.

'Non-confrontational style'

According to Dr Mats Berdal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, it was in peacekeeping that Mr Annan won his reputation for getting results without confrontation, and where he won the support of many nations that later voted for him as Secretary General:

"He has a very non-confrontational style of management. He gets on very well with most members of the Security Council, particularly with troop contributing countries. He's sensitive to their concerns and responds very quickly to any queries from them."

"Mr priorities will be ... working to redefine the UN's goals"

Mr Annan's selection as successor to Boutros Boutros Ghali of Egypt was a messy and much criticised process. The decision, just two weeks before the post became vacant, ended weeks of wrangling within the Security Council. In particular, Washington, which backed Mr Annan, had engaged in a war of nerves with France, which had threatened to use its veto to reject his appointment. After days of informal voting, France suddenly withdrew its objections with no explanation, leaving the way clear for the 58-year-old Ghanaian diplomat. The United States - the richest and most influential UN member - backed Kofi Annan because they saw him as the man to reform the bureaucratic and inefficient UN structure.

Make-or-break time for UN

Mr Annan took over the UN's top job at what many people considered to be the make-or-break moment in the organisation's history. Weighed down by the peace-keeping responsibilities that it had to shoulder in the post-Cold War new world order, and confronted by serious global social and economic problems, the UN was stretched beyond its capabilities.

Speaking shortly after his selection, Mr Annan set out his agenda: "I think my priorities will be working with the member states of the organisation, to redefine the goals of the United Nations. As we move into the 21st Century, I think it is important that we ask ourselves: what should the United Nations be doing?"

Mr Annan has also shown he can get tough

Reaching consensus on that was not going to be easy. Developing countries are always keen to see the UN doing more to tackle poverty and related issues, while much of the Western industrialised world is more concerned with matters such as human rights and democracy.

Mr Annan unveiled a wide-ranging reform package, designed to cut waste and increase the responsiveness of the UN to crises such as the one over Iraq.

"The reforms I am proposing are bold reforms. They are the most extensive, far-reaching reforms in the 52 year history of our organisation. The aim is simple, to transform the organisation, to bring greater unity of purpose, greater coherence of efforts and greater agility in responding to an increasingly dynamic and complex world."

Defusing a crisis

He had earlier showed that he could get tough with the US when he asked it to pay the $1.3bn dollars it owes to the UN. And this despite the fact that the US had single-handedly vetoed a second term for his Mr Boutros Ghali.

Mr Annan displayed agility and toughness in defusing a crisis over Iraqi weapons inspections, early in 1998, with a high profile mission to Baghdad in the face of threatened air strikes on Iraq.

Although the deal he sealed there did not resolve the long-running stand-off between Iraq and the UN, it averted immediate military action and was seen as a triumph for diplomacy.

He himself ascribes the successful resolution of such crises to the negotiating power of the UN:

"The resolve and the determination to carry through has paid off, but it also proves that diplomacy sometimes works, and you don't always have to fight to win."