I’ve been trying to figure out what bugs me so much about John Bolton’s tone and message on UN reform. To this point, most of his public pronouncements on UN reform – with a few critical and painful exceptions – have been in line with Administration policy. But Bolton’s statements always disturb me more than, say, those of Secretary Rice, Deputy Asst. Secretary Mark Lagon, or Senator Lugar – all outspoken proponents of UN reform.

Then it hit me. Bolton forgot the most important lesson of third grade. 

In third grade (or so), we’re taught the importance of constructive criticism. In other words, we learn to offer feedback in ways that will help other parties accept it.

Here’s an example. If I want to accomplish UN reform, I might say something like, “The United Nations is engaged in one of the most important debates in its history: how to reform itself, strengthen itself as an institution, and ensure that it addresses effectively the threats and challenges of the 21^st century.”

Ok, I didn’t write that myself. That’s from the State Department fact sheet on U.S. priorities for UN reform. If I were writing it, I might emphasize the importance of a strong and effective UN for U.S. foreign policy as George Mitchell and Newt Gingrich did in their task force’s report.  That’s constructive criticism, because it’s likely to be taken well and acted upon.

Now we come to Ambassador Bolton, who, as I mentioned last week, was preparing to make an ill-advised appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Bolton said the U.S. was leading the way on UN reform and confronting a “culture of inaction” at the United Nations. He also used the talk to repeatedly disparage the UN, conflate its failures, de-emphasize its value to U.S. foreign policy, and claim credit for the positive steps that have been taken. He’d have you believe that the UN is kicking and screaming as the U.S. pulls it toward empowerment and greater relevance.

If this is what some regard as tough, straight talk, I say nonsense, - first of all, because it’s simply not true. Kofi Annan started this round of reform proposals over a year ago, bringing together a high-level panel that included Brent Scowcroft to issue some recommendations. He then released In Larger Freedom, a comprehensive plan to achieve UN reform.

Also, it’s important to remember that misconduct in the UN system to this point has been investigated by the UN on its own initiative.  

This is no secret in the State Department. Most U.S. officials go out of their way to recognize the leadership of the UN – and Annan in particular – for ending the inertia on UN reform.

Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but either way, Bolton’s remarks are a far, far cry from constructive criticism. It couldn’t even be called casual, mindless criticism.

In fact, it's destructive.

Bolton’s dark picture of the UN may be a crowd-pleaser at CPAC – though I hope and believe that many conservatives share my belief in the value of the United Nations – but it doesn’t represent the views of most Americans, and it doesn’t help us achieve results.

I have no problem with an Ambassador who holds conservative views. I have a serious problem with someone who sees himself as a conservative first and an Ambassador second holding that office.

Anyone who’s ever spoken in public knows it’s hard to tailor your message to different audiences. That’s why Ambassadors shouldn’t speak at political events. In a world where every word of every statement of public officials is scrutinized for meaning, the temptation to adjust the message to please political audiences – and set back the priorities of the administration – is simply too great. 

Evidently, Bolton has the opposite problem. No matter where he is, his instinct is to speak to CPAC first and to the world second. That’s what I call destructive criticism, and there’s no place for it in the U.S. State Department.