UNITED NATIONS — Governor Richardson of New Mexico yesterday became the first presidential candidate to adopt a pro-U.N. agenda as part of his campaign to win the White House in 2008.

The Democrat is considered a long-shot presidential candidate, but with his centrist views on foreign policy and some domestic issues, a sharp tongue, and strong support from an increasingly powerful Hispanic voting base, he is not out of contention.

The Democratic nominee in the 2004 presidential election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, criticized President Bush for not working closely enough with the United Nations to shore up international support. That message did not help him win the presidency, but Mr. Richardson, who served as America’s ambassador to the United Nations in 1997–98, struck a similar theme yesterday.

“I would use the United Nations,” he told reporters. “The United States should build international support for its policies. It should do it at the U.N.”

Mr. Richardson greeted veteran U.N. reporters warmly during a press gathering after he met with Secretary-General Ban. The self-described “governor with a foreign policy” had requested a meeting with Mr. Ban to brief him on Mr. Richardson’s recent trip to Sudan.

Mr. Richardson said he had known Mr. Ban, who formerly served as South Korean foreign minister, from earlier negotiations on North Korea. He added that Mr. Ban’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, “was a very good secretary-general,” as well.

Despite the fact that U.N. Security Council members such as China and Arab U.N. member states have blocked any strong U.N. action to end the genocide in Darfur, Mr. Richardson told The New York Sun that “the U.N. is the best vehicle” to deal with Sudan.

Mr. Richardson said in a statement that on his recent trip to Khartoum he “secured a commitment from” the Sudanese president “to agree to a 60-day cessation of hostilities in the Darfur region.”

He acknowledged that one Darfur rebel group with which he had negotiated the agreement later announced that there was no agreement. But Mr. Richardson said that though the agreement was fragile, it could still be used to advance a political process, which would culminate in a mid-March “peace summit” among the rebel groups and the government in Khartoum.

The governor steered clear of criticizing Mr. Bush, saying the administration’s Sudan policy “is heading in the right direction.” He also complimented the work of the presidential envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios.

A senior administration official who briefed reporters yesterday said America, the European Union, the African Union, and the Security Council — including China — are using “multiple poles of pressures” on the Sudanese government. But the official, who requested anonymity so that he could speak freely, acknowledged that none “of them has succeeded yet.”

Mr. Ban traveled to Washington recently, where he asked Congress to remove a cap it set that allows the administration to pay no more than 25% percent of the United Nations’ annual peacekeeping budget. America currently pays $1 billion a year for U.N. peacekeeping, but because of the mandatory cap, it will not pay the U.N.-requested 27%, which adds up to $20 million more a year.

“My hope is that Congress will increase that budget,” Mr. Richardson told U.N. reporters. “I can also tell you that a Democratic Congress is better that a Republican Congress” in terms of supporting the United Nations. Democratic legislators will be “more positive toward a peacekeeping budget,” he said.

Senator Biden, a Democrat of Delaware who is also a candidate for president, said recently that he would introduce an amendment to remove the U.N spending cap. The Bush administration supports the removal of the cap, as well.

A congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Sun yesterday that if the State Department pushes strongly enough, the cap could be lifted during the upcoming budget negotiations.

In contrast to Mr. Richardson’s sunny view, the mood at the United Nations yesterday was decisively sour on Washington. “I wouldn’t call it anti-American,” the senior administration official said. But many diplomats at the United Nations are suspicious of Washington: “They either say we are clumsy or that we are so clever, we are cunning.”