Those in Washington who profess to care most about the United Nations are holding up the appointment of John Bolton as the country’s permanent representative to the world body. As they resist confirming President Bush’s nominee, America’s clout at Turtle Bay erodes. But in the meantime, America could do a lot worse than acting ambassador Anne Patterson.

Unlike a permanent ambassador, an acting representative cannot demand that policies be enacted that would advance America’s interests at the United Nations. Such a caretaker has less direct access to leaders in Washington than a trusted presidential appointee would were he confirmed. And worse: Foreign diplomats are aware of the caretaker handicap, which diminishes the acting ambassador’s sway – and therefore, America’s – at Turtle Bay.

Yet one American diplomat, who requested anonymity, told me, “There is an advantage to working under the radar screen” and said that Ms. Patterson utilizes her circumstances to advantage.

The last permanent representative, John Danforth, left office in January. Other senior diplomats at the American mission stepped down shortly afterward, vacating key roles. Ms. Patterson has plodded on, relying on her organizational skills and the easy manner that has made her a popular Turtle Bay figure. Her Arkansas drawl sounds almost exotic at Turtle Bay, and the 5-foot-1 American caretaker is seen as a disarming, non-confrontational facilitator. Despite her gentle nature and the relative lack of authority that comes with being a placeholder, she does not shy from the leadership expected from an American representative.

Last week, she sought to harness the outrage precipitated by the London bombings and reintroduce a convention against terrorism. Consecutive administrations have tried to enact such a convention, only to be rebuffed by an Arab-led coalition that balked at a simple definition of terrorism – arguing, for example, that suicide bombers in Israel should not be considered terrorists. Secretary-General Annan, however, has expressed his support for a convention, including in his proposed U.N. reform package.

Nevertheless, few at the world body believed that last week was the appropriate time to break the impasse. British ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said that the attacks in his country did not represent “a moment to exploit.” A lone Ms. Patterson said, “It’s not easy, as you know, which is why the convention has been delayed for so many years.” She is far from giving up.

America has leverage on the anti-terror issue: India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany, as well as certain African nations that often vote with the bloc that opposes a terror definition, are itching to gain permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. The American strategy, devised at the State Department with input from Ms. Patterson, is to delay support for any of those countries, except for Japan, while promoting reform, such as the institution of a terrorism convention.

America also supports abolishing the disgraceful Human Rights Commission, creating a new peace-building commission, and, most importantly, making the United Nations itself more accountable and transparent. Whenever asked – and she often is – about Security Council enlargement, Ms. Patterson says the other points of reform are more urgent.

Some conservatives on Capitol Hill have criticized Ms. Patterson. They cite her 2000-03 stint as American ambassador to Colombia. Mexico at the time was attempting to convince America to negotiate with the leftist narco-terrorist group known as FARC, as right-wing murder squads committed heinous crimes. All these forces while America was fighting an uphill war on drugs – a huge Colombian export – led Ms. Patterson into diplomatic waters difficult to navigate and accusations that she downscaled the drug eradication program.

The Bush administration backs her current work, and Ms. Patterson plots U.N. policy almost daily with Secretary of State Rice. Meanwhile, whenever Manhattan cocktail party conversation turns to the United Nations, few recognize Ms. Patterson’s name, but all like to believe that they are experts on Mr. Bolton. Like everyone else, Ms. Patterson follows the twists and turns of the nomination. She cannot afford, however, to be perceived as an interested party. A recent stream of press requests for sit-down interviews, including one from myself, was rebuffed by Ms. Patterson and her spokesman, Richard Grenell.

In Washington, some expect a quick recess appointment. But Mr. Bolton, who still has grander career ambitions, could conceivably turn down such an appointment and the stigma it carries. As for Anne Patterson – her stint as acting ambassador has turned her into an administration favorite.