Bolton Parses U.N. Reform
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

After America’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, meticulously edited a Turtle Bay reform proposal last week, critics immediately accused him of trying to wreck a world summit scheduled for mid-September by Secretary-General Annan. After the Washington Post said Mr. Bolton created “turmoil” on the eve of the summit, the Guardian of Britain weighed in with the headline, “Bolton Throws U.N. Summit Into Chaos.”
It should come as no surprise that America took on the task of paring down yet another overreaching U.N. reform proposal. In some cases, the 39-page Turtle Bay draft got dangerously close to suggesting world government; in others, it was all about redistributing wealth. At times, it was simply written in poor English.
The idea for a gathering of more than 170 heads of state to reshape Turtle Bay was born as the United Nations’ prestige waned due its inability to act on Iraq. This failure, along with Mr. Annan’s bombastic declarations on the legality of the war, led some to scrutinize Turtle Bay.
Previously considered a noble Nobel laureate, Mr. Annan’s standing was suddenly re-examined, and he was found to have allowed his underlings and family to frolic in the world’s financial playgrounds. Findings by the Volcker committee in early September, as well as other oil-for-food investigations, will determine whether his transgressions went further.
Mr. Annan and his aides fell back on a reliable diversion: U.N. reform. Together, they produced a booklet titled “In Larger Freedom.” Unable to clean its own house, Turtle Bay purported to set the entire universe straight: World poverty would be slashed by half. The environment would be cleaned up. Human rights would be respected. International law would be enforced. Something called the “digital divide” would be eliminated.
A U.N. General Assembly “outcome document” was written, based largely on “In Larger Freedom.” After glazing over the tedious text, most world diplomats said, “Sure, whatever.”
But Mr. Bolton sharpened his red pencil. He deleted references to the International Criminal Court and the so-called “millennium goals” of imposing a universal 0.7% of GNP tariff on wealthy nations. He also crossed out items that hinted at narrowing America’s right to go to war whenever it deemed doing so a necessity. He cut the term “foreign colonial occupation,” which the United Nations applies not to Tibet but to its favorite colony, Palestine.
His fellow diplomats were astounded. Mr. Bolton even bothered to correct a typo – changing “accordin” to “according.” They realized that the text all of them were about to approve without the benefit of a careful read – assuming that it was not going to matter in the real world, anyway – was open for debate.
On Friday, the president of the General Assembly, Jean Ping of Gabon, announced that a core group from 30 countries would work day and night to reword the complex proposal. Mr. Ping rejected an alternative suggested by Mr. Bolton: to replace the original lengthy document by a less ambitious short statement of reform principles.
Mr. Bolton’s exercise underlined one strength that the new American ambassador brings to the table, one largely overlooked by detractors who portrayed him as an anti-U.N. simpleton. Agree with him or not, the Senate confirmation hearings brought out Mr. Bolton’s mastery of the details of the inner workings of world institutions, rarely matched by any of his critics.
Last week, he did not take all his marbles home and refuse to play, but instead showed Turtle Bay that America can shoot with the best of them. Owning the largest marbles, of course, makes him the most fearsome shooter on the playground.
Like the majority of the ideas suggested in “In Larger Freedom,” the so-called outcome document is now doomed to collapse. Next month’s summit is not expected to define terrorism or abolish the notorious human rights commission. The Security Council will not be enlarged. Even creating a new peace-building bureaucracy is now in trouble.
World leaders might conduct some corridor negotiations, but Turtle Bay will not magically turn into the center of the diplomatic universe. After all the pomp and circumstance of the mid-September summit, the cry of reform will subside. Member states, it will be said, are not ready or unable to remake their fast-diminishing world body. What Mr. Annan will be left with is Mr. Volcker’s report and other oil-for-food investigations.