With the recess appointment of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the burden is now on him to prove that he can be effective in the job. That’s no small task for the most controversial person ever nominated to the post.

Some of Bolton’s predecessors have been controversial – Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Andrew Young and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, most notably – but their appointments were not as highly contested as Bolton’s was.

For Bolton the easy part should be erasing concern about the allegations of bullying and sexual harassment that undermined his nomination. He will presumably be on his best behavior. Even the international diplomacy should not be especially difficult. Bolton is, after all, experienced in international affairs, and the diplomatic corps is trained specifically to deal with representatives of countries whose policies and attitudes they dislike.

Bolton’s greatest challenge will be to focus clearly and effectively on the winning issue of U.N. reform.

Under the microscope

But what makes the United Nations so tricky for American ambassadors is the fact that it is located in the United States. As a result, the ambassadors have to navigate not only the intersecting currents of the policy issues but the combustible mixture of the intense media coverage that exists in New York and the presence of domestic special-interest groups that have often staked out hard and fast positions – on the left and the right – and are determined not to let them change.

Former U.S. Ambassador Andrew Young, for instance, resigned during the Carter administration after meeting informally with a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization three days before Young was to take up his rotation role as president of the U.N. Security Council. A resolution harmful to the interests of the United States and Israel was to be introduced on the first day of the U.S. presidency, and the informal meeting was designed to defuse it.

After the meeting, Young called the Israeli ambassador to fill him in on the discussion. The Israeli representative understood. He knew that the meeting was in Israel’s interest; he trusted Young as a long-standing friend of Israel, and he recognized that informal conversations are part of the environment that makes the U.N. most effective.

But word of the meeting leaked out to a U.S. reporter in Israel and soon became known to Jewish leaders in New York, who were outraged. How could an American ambassador have met with the PLO – even informally? (This was 15 years before Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin would share the Nobel Peace Prize.)

To avoid similar problems, Bolton will have to navigate the waters of the U.N. – with all of its special interest groups gearing up on many issues to preserve their official positions. They all know that his standing is weakened by the controversy over his nomination and the fact that President Bush’s recess appointment was required to put him in the job.

If Bolton takes a position that any one group doesn’t like, and there is evidence of his bullying or harassing others, he will be finished. Rumor alone could be devastating to him.

Restoring confidence in U.N.

What Bolton should now do is focus on the one thing that virtually everyone – regardless of political affiliation – wants: reform at the United Nations. The institution has been badly damaged by the oil-for-food scandal. It desperately needs reform.

Part of that reform is fiscal: ensuring that the member states’ money is well spent. The United States has long had issues with the United Nations’ efficiency; restoring fiscal confidence among the United Nations’ largest donors is crucial.

But the oil-for-food scandal has shaken the United Nations like no other issue. Corruption appears to have taken place on a scale previously unimaginable, and the U.N. Secretariat was either asleep at the wheel or participating. The organization needs to come clean, let the world know what happened and then ensure that it cannot happen again.

If Bolton can focus on reform – and not become sidetracked by a conservative political agenda – he can be successful. If he appears instead to be advancing a more political agenda, his weaknesses will be exploited by those opposing his views. And in that case, the glare of the New York media can be immobilizing.

Ambassador Bolton is no doubt grateful to the Bush administration for standing by him, but the challenge of being effective in the aftermath of such a contentious and unusual appointment process still has to be overcome. Focusing on reform of the United Nations is the key. Significant progress on that alone is enough to expect from a person whose appointment expires automatically in 17 months.