Evelyn Leopold, a member of Reuters' team at the United Nations, offered up a quote in an article she wrote on John Bolton's resignation that I think well encapsulates the problem with our now private sector-bound ambassador. It's from Edward Luck, the noted expert on UN affairs who was also my professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA):

Several diplomats distinguish between Bolton's work in the 15-nation Security Council and that in the 192-member General Assembly, dominated by developing nations.

"In some ways, he seems to have been more an ambassador to the Security Council than to the United Nations as a whole and I think he has done very well there," said Edward Luck, a Columbia University professor and U.N. expert.

But the problem, Luck said, is his actions in the General Assembly, which is increasingly polarized between developing and developed countries over changes to U.N. management practices, finances and a new human rights body.

"He is very good on preaching on reform but not good at doing it" raising the question of "whether he wants to strengthen it or find excuses for abandoning it," said Luck. [emphasis added]

My contract at the United Nations ended on Friday, apparently just as Mister Ambassador was handing in his regretfully accepted letter of resignation.  I wanted to offer up a moment from my time at the Organization from Bolton's tenure that I think demonstrates very well what Professor Luck was talking about.

The Fifth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly is concerned with administrative and budgetary matters.  During the past three months, I've been covering sessions of the Fifth Committee's for the UN's Department of Public Information, producing sometimes daily run downs of what transpires in the UN's most technical of committees.  When matters of UN reform are at stake, they come to the Fifth Committee first, where they are banged out into what tends to be their final form.

Three weeks ago, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution authorizing the establishment of a fact-finding mission on the Israeli assault in the village of Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip.  No bother to pro-Palestinian forces within the UN - they went around the Security Council and rolled a draft resolution up to the General Assembly to establish the mission.  The only problem was that the much maligned UN Human Rights Council had already agreed to create just such a body.

It was up to the Fifth Committee and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions with which it works to determine the budgetary implications of this mission, and also to assess whether or not it was truly needed by the UN, given the parallel work of the Human Rights Council.  

What transpired in the Fifth Committee was essentially the kind of thing that Mr. Bolton has long criticized the UN for - a wanton disregard for an efficient and legitimate process in favor of a politicized outcome that begged why resources and time were being wasted on such a trifling matter.  You can read about the day's trainwreck-like events here.  If you read on, you will see the South African delegation, which currently chairs the Group of 77 which often locks horns with the US, criticizing the the Advisory Committee for devoting so much effort to clarifying the activities of this fact-finding mission.  But the kinds of questions the Advisory Committee was asking were entirely responsible:  how expensive is the mission?  where will it go?  what resources already exist in the region from which the mission can draw upon?  will the mission overlap with that of the Human Rights Council.

The G-77's leadership has considerable gravitas in the Fifth Committee.  But its persuasive power was enhanced when the South African Ambassador to the UN arrived to take the chair in the place of his usual representative to the Fifth Committee.  Ambassador Kumalo proceeded to shout down all questions raised by delegations, based on the Advisory Committee's input, as an attempt to politicize the technical subjects in front of the Fifth Committee.  Kumalo silenced all debate with his shrill remarks, including those raised by America's younger diplomatic representatives in the Committee that day.

Where was Ambassador Bolton?  Well, for a moment it seemed things might get interesting.  I stepped away from the Committee room during one of the day's many breaks in action and saw Secret Service agents standing outside the door.  And the Ambassador stuck his head in for a few moments and talked to people on the side of the room before the proceedings resumed.  But when it came time to conclude the deliberation of the draft resolution, to vote on it, and to explain the reasoning for the votes, Mister Ambassador was nowhere to be seen.  Later when the matter was taken up by the General Assembly, Mr. Bolton did speak.  But as is so often the case, the real work had already been carried out in the Fifth Committee, and Ambassador Bolton had nothing to say about it then.

I think in a significant way, South Africa's monkeywrenching set the precedent that day that if you want to sabotage efforts to implement UN policies in an efficient and legitimate manner, you can always accuse other parties of being political.  By bringing so much gravitas to bear, they were able to stifle all debate of whether or not the General Assembly's Beit Hanoun mission needed to exist.  Bolton was unwilling to wade into this fray, and say that precious time and resources were being wasted in the name of a redundant, politicized mission, the main intent of which was to criticize Israel.

When Professor Luck said at the start that Bolton seems to believe himself to be Ambassador to the Security Council first and foremost, I think this incident makes it easy to see why sincere efforts of the US and other parties to reform the UN in the past year and a half have slipped away so much.  Mister Bolton would not deign to complete the heavy lifting needed to sustain UN reform.  If the work of the international organization is ever going to get where it needs to be, it won't come from the likes of diplomats like Bolton.  I hope that President Bush makes us all better off by appointing someone who understands the role that America is capable of playing promoting UN reform.