The future of America’s relationship with the United Nations presented itself in two very different forms last week. On one hand, the John Bolton nomination remained simmering in the Senate, threatening to undermine the stability of U.S.-U.N. relations and the potential for comprehensive U.N. reform. Conversely, Ambassador Anne Patterson, an extremely effective Foreign Service officer who is minding the store in New York as acting permanent representative to the United Nations, has outlined a U.N. reform agenda that calls on the United States to play a leading role in remaking the international institution into a more effective partner for American foreign policy.

If President Bush is serious about his post-reelection declaration “to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations,” he will withdraw Bolton’s nomination and follow Ambassador Patterson’s eloquent vision of U.N. reform. America would be better suited if it worked cooperatively with the international community to make the United Nations a more productive institution, rather than following John Bolton’s antagonistic, bullying approach.

At the core of Ambassador Patterson’s plan is the belief that, “U.N. reform must be viewed and dealt with as a whole.” She calls for reforms that not only consider U.S. needs, but also offer something to nations across the globe. “We know that if reform is to succeed it must be a collective endeavor,” writes Patterson, “Our final product, however, can only be as good as the work and preparation that go into it.”

Patterson supports her vision by illustrating a number of important reform topics and foreign policy issues on which the United States and the United Nations are key, if not natural, allies. A recommitment to international economic development is needed, Patterson writes, to help “countries make and implement the rights choices leading to good governance.” A Democracy Fund at the United Nations should be established, to “signal that member states are committed to supporting democratic institutions.” A new Human Rights Council should replace the Commission on Human Rights, so that it no longer is a safe haven for today’s worst human rights offenders. Additionally, Patterson embraces a vision of a world where international community should be prepared to step in when “national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens.”

Such a comprehensive outlook—which paves the way for more cooperative, effective U.S.-U.N. relations—should be commended. Through Ambassador Patterson, the Bush administration has demonstrated its capacity to be a team player on the issue of U.N. reform. As the September Summit—the largest gathering of world leaders in history—approaches, the reform issue will heat up. Unfortunately the important step forward—this breakthrough in building international consensus—remains threatened by the Bolton nomination.

John Bolton lacks both the credibility and finesse to deliver on any ‘cooperative’ reform agenda. At the most basic level, his disdain for international law and institutions threatens to alienate America at the biggest international institution of all: the United Nations. Bolton has said—among other things—that the payment of legally-obligated U.N. dues was superfluous and that “there is no reason to consider treaties as ‘legally’ binding internationally and certainly not as ‘law’ themselves.” He has even claimed that “there is no such thing as the United Nations… [But] merely an international community that occasionally can be led by… the United States when it suits our interests.”

Yet the primary case against Bolton does not rest upon his anti-U.N. ideology. It is Bolton's bullying of employees and questionable use of intelligence that has gained the most traction among his critics. In New York, this translates into lack of style and credibility—both frontline assets for successful ambassadors. Bolton’s shortcomings will not only handicap him, but will damage the United States’ negotiating capacity at a time when the future of the United Nations is at stake. The reasons President Bush seems to hold on to Bolton—a fear of being labeled a lame-duck because of setbacks on Social Security, Iraq and in the polls—are not enough to sacrifice the potential of forging a consensus that will fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape for the rest of the century.

The United States’ U.N. reform agenda, as laid out by Anne Patterson, is ambitious. It will most likely evolve over the summer. The September Summit will begin a process that, with success, will conclude with an effective 21st century United Nations capable of meeting the tall expectations of citizens of all nations. There is a strong desire for a transparent, democratic United Nations that can stop genocide, coordinate development and promote democracy. President Bush must now step forward and join Presidents Roosevelt and Truman as a leader with a world-building vision. But first he will have to take one step back and nominate a U.N. ambassador with a reputation for cooperation rather than contention.

Don Kraus is the Executive Vice President for Citizens for Global Solutions .

Sam Stein, an Edward Rawson Fellow at Citizens for Global Solutions, contributed to this piece.

READ ON THE TOMPAINE.COM WEBSITE

Contact:

Don Kraus
Executive Vice President
202 546 3950 ext 103

Sam Stein
Communications Associate
202 546 3950 ext 123