Sixty years ago, when the United States led in the establishment of the United Nations, we had a vision that attracted others—a vision of equality, justice and opportunity for all. If we lose sight of this founding principle, a principle fundamental to U.S. values, we will lose the support of other nations when we need it most. John Bolton, the Bush administration’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, does not believe in this vision, nor in the United Nations itself—except as an occasional prop for American self-interest.

Bolton, who has said that, “There is no such thing as the United Nations,” and “There is no reason to consider treaties as ‘legally’ binding,” clearly does not understand that working with other nations increases our strength, expands our options, and shares the costs and risks (listen to Bolton in his own words at www.stopbolton.org). President Bush has recognized the need for international cooperation and admitted to faults in his first term’s “go-it-alone” foreign policy strategy. After re-election, he stated, “second terms in the White House open the way for second thoughts,” adding that he “is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations” charting a new course for his second term.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed the president’s message throughout Europe, saying, “It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance.” Back in Washington, she brought her own team into the State Department and denied its leading ideologue, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a promotion. The message was clear: We were returning to a pragmatic foreign policy that values international cooperation.

And then the sky fell. Secretary Rice announced John Bolton’s nomination to the post of UN ambassador. Many were shocked, not only because Bolton’s beliefs are antithetical to the very position for which he was tapped, but because the move appeared so inconsistent with the hopeful direction in which the second Bush term began.

Beltway watchers have speculated that Vice President Cheney engineered this dramatic U-turn. After all, the administration still owes Bolton a political debt for his role in halting the Florida recount in the 2000 elections. Cheney, who consistently voted to cut funding for the United Nations while a member of the House, perhaps saw Bolton as an ally in opposing the new multilateralism of Bush’s second term. Additionally, Bolton, a protégé of Jesse Helms, would be particularly adept at deploying anti-UN voices in Congress—like Tom Delay—to champion a unilateralist agenda.

Although the Bush administration’s motive is still unclear, the consequences of Bolton’s nomination are unambiguous. Bolton’s legacy could be ending the United States’ 60-year relationship with the United Nations—an outcome relished by his supporters, precisely because it comes at a time when real UN reform is within reach.

In March, Secretary General Kofi Annan released a report entitled In Larger Freedom , promoting a reform agenda to be considered by world leaders at the 60th anniversary summit scheduled for September. Bolton would be a divisive character to have at the United Nations in the midst of this fragile reform process. He carries baggage that will further split the U.N. Security Council, rather than unite it behind American interests. Bolton, who said, "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member (the United States),” would alienate allies like Japan and Germany who are lobbying for permanent representation in an enlarged Council. Bolton’s ardent position calling for “diplomatic recognition of Taiwan,” as “just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs,” would harm the U.S.-Chinese relationship at the Security Council, on which China is a veto-carrying permanent member.

Those familiar with international diplomacy understand the potential damage a man like Bolton can do. This is why 61 diplomats (49 of whom served in Republican administrations) have signed onto a letter opposing the Bolton nomination. They voiced concern with Bolton’s career in government service during which time he led the campaign against ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, blocked international efforts to limit sales of small arms in internal wars, negotiated a toothless treaty with Russia on eliminating nuclear weapons, and managed U.S. opposition to the Landmine Treaty.

Bolton has also been a longtime opponent of the International Criminal Court. In 2002, he delivered the order withdrawing U.S. support from the ICC treaty, and called it, “the happiest moment of my government service.” Last week, the Security Council voted to give the Court jurisdiction to try the mass murderers and war criminals responsible for the genocide in Darfur, a conflict that has cost the lives of 300,000 Sudanese. Despite President Bush’s concerns about the ICC, the United States abstained from using its veto, and allowed the resolution to pass. If Bolton were the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it is impossible to imagine this outcome.

Bolton’s supporters have said that he would be a strong voice for the United States at the United Nations. They have likened the nomination as a “Nixon goes to China” situation, believing that this long-time U.N. critic would be a constructive voice for U.N. reform. However, when Nixon went to China, he truly believed it was in the United States’ interest to mend fences. Bolton has spent his career, both in and out of government service, caustically disparaging the United Nations and belittling international agreements.

This week, the Senate will consider whether John Bolton is the right person for the job. When Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., originally heard about the nomination ,he said, “We need alliances, we need friends. To go up there and kick the U.N. around doesn't get the job done.” But one week later, after meeting with Mr. Bolton, Sen. Hagel found reason to rescind his earlier comments and support the nomination. Reasonable senators should not be fooled by a confirmation conversion and must look beyond partisan politics. If the Senate is serious about repairing America’s global standing and getting other countries to do their share in solving the world’s most pressing problems, its only choice is to decisively reject this nomination.

Don Kraus is executive vice president of Citizens for Global Solutions .

Simon Weber of Citizens for Global Solutions contributed to this piece.

READ ON THE TOMPAINE.COM WEBSITE