The folks trying to stop John Bolton from becoming U.N. ambassador might want to consider that the alternative could be much worse from their point of view.

If they are able to block President Bush’s choice for the job, he could give up on reforming the United Nations, writing the body off as a real player in international affairs. Bush could do that by appointing a typical milquetoast diplomat whose specialty is shuffling papers, who would go along to get along.

Let’s be clear here. The anti-Bolton people, for the most part, are Democrats who think Bush has not made U.S. foreign policy responsive enough to world opinion, as expressed by the United Nations. They don’t like Bolton because he not only shares the president’s views and values, but he would be a forceful and effective advocate for them at the world body.

A salvage mission?

If these folks expect Bush to change his tune, they are dreaming. Yet they should be happy Bush cares enough about the United Nations that he wants to fix its multitude of flaws.

Just writing off the United Nations might be popular among many of Bush’s core supporters – as well as a growing number of Americans who are troubled by the increasing revelations about U.N. corruption.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. House of Representatives, frustrated with the United Nations, Friday voted to withhold half of America’s U.N. dues unless the world body enacts sweeping reforms pushed by its U.S. critics. The U.N. ambassador is the president’s voice there and, as much as any other administration job, needs to be someone who reflects Bush’s viewpoint on foreign affairs and the usefulness of the world body.

For the most part, Bolton’s critics are using the issue of his personality as a subterfuge. They like the U.N. efforts to oppose Bush’s invasion of Iraq and its general anti-Bush administration slant.

Bolton admittedly has rough edges, but the argument that his personality makes him unqualified to be a diplomat is horse hockey. Bolton is committed to serious U.N. reform and has a reputation for getting jobs done, even at the risk of making some people unhappy.

Bush would prefer a corruption-free United Nations committed to building a world in which democracy and capitalism are the overarching values-a vision the president sees as lacking there currently. He thinks Bolton is the right man to implement that goal, as apparently do Bolton’s critics, who are more unhappy about the message than the messenger.

Yet only a committed one-worlder who thinks nationalism is evil sees U.N. reform as unneeded.

Anti-American bent

Many who share Bush’s vision see the United Nations as dominated by those with an anti-U.S. slant and instinctive belief that talking is always better than acting, even in the face of serious threats.

They can’t understand why Americans should pay the largest share of the United Nations’ bills, 22 percent of its $1.1 billion operating budget, plus 27 percent of the money it is spending on peacekeeping.

The other reason for unhappiness with the United Nations involves allegations of corruption that began with its Oil for Food program for Iraq. Congressional investigators allege that Saddam Hussein skimmed $17 billion from it with the cooperation of U.N. officials.

Yet for some reason, many Democrats don’t seem as exercised about the U.N. mess as are congressional Republicans who argue that Secretary-General Kofi Annan – an outspoken critic of Bush’s policies – must bear responsibility for the corruption.

The House of Representatives vote to slash the U.S. financial contribution to the world body unless it makes sweeping reforms had a partisan twinge. Republicans voted to make those cuts mandatory. The main Democratic alternative would have softened the bill by making such action at the administration’s discretion.

The Bush administration actually opposes the tougher measure, and there is no Senate companion bill, so it’s unlikely to become law. Yet the legislation shows the depth of the congressional unhappiness with the U.N.

The vote follows a report that a newly uncovered memo seemed to link Annan to the contract given to his son’s company that is under investigation in the oil-for-food scandal. Investigators have just begun a new probe of Annan’s role.

It also follows release of a congressional report calling for an overhaul in the U.N. bureaucracy.

The anti-Bolton crowd ought to acknowledge they are just trying to make life as difficult as possible for Bush. That may be good domestic politics for Howard Dean’s party, but it’s lousy for U.S. foreign policy.

Unless, of course, they want Bush to write off the United Nations.