Bolton at bat: in February, the American ambassador was president of the Security Council.

JOHN BOLTON brought the gavel down at 10 A.M., right on time--but he was the only one in the room. That's how the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations started his month as president of the Security Council. The presidency of the Council rotates monthly, going through all 15 members, in alphabetical order (according to English). February was the turn of the United States, and thus of Ambassador Bolton.

He maintained to one and all that starting on time was "a form of discipline," and also "a matter of courtesy." The United Nations is famously sluggish and unwieldy, and Bolton wanted to shape it up a little. On that first day, the Council got going about 10:15. But the members were more punctual thereafter, as Bolton says, in a post-presidency interview: "We were hitting somewhere between 10 and 10:05 every day." And "people appreciated it," this change in the U.N. style.

John R. Bolton is one of the most amazing weapons in President Bush's foreign-policy arsenal. Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation, so Bush gave him a recess appointment, last August. That term will expire when the current Congress expires (probably at the end of this year). Whether Bolton stays on or not, he is certainly making the most of his time at Turtle Bay.

He had a good month, as president, but "not as good as it could have been," he says. The presidency of the Security Council is not the most spectacular position on earth, but it has its uses, "particularly on the procedural side of things," as Bolton notes.

So the ambassador--in an indication that a new sheriff was in town--started on time. He also arranged for daily briefings from the U.N. Secretariat. If the Security Council was to make decisions, it needed to he up to date on U.N. happenings, around the globe. And Bolton encouraged members to dispense with prepared statements, and simply talk: diplomat to diplomat, nation to nation. Some people grumbled about this, and others smiled on it. Denmark's amhassador--a woman named Ellen Margrethe Loj--told reporters that the U.N. should not continue as it has for 60 years, with no change whatsoever. "Sometimes we have to be a bit more modern."

Will Bolton's reforms stick, or at least have some lingering effect? During February, the Chinese ambassador was heard to remark that they would simply "fade away." But Bolton expects the Secretariat briefings to continue, even if in "scaled back" form--"something like twice a week." People found the daily briefings "too much work, heaven forbid." And Council members may actually have gotten used to starting on time, or at least less tardily.

WONDROUS SIGHTS

When Bolton was at bat, you saw any number of things you don't see every day at the U.N. He held a meeting on sexual exploitation by U.N. peacekeepers around the world. And he held a meeting on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Auditors had examined $1 billion in contracts, finding that $300 million of that sum was lost. Bolton noted that the U.S. contributes 27 percent of peacekeeping funds--meaning that all of those monies go to waste. Of this remarkable fact, Bolton said, "The U.S. taxpayer considers it important."

Other, perhaps smaller, matters arose in February. For instance, the Security Council put out a very strong statement on Iraq, praising and encouraging democracy there and condemning those who would kill it off. Would that have happened absent the Bolton presidency? Bolton observes that "something would have happened," but "we put a strong emphasis" on the matter.

And would Sudan--the genocide in Darfur--have been spotlighted and debated? "It would have come up, but with less saliency, is the best way to put it." And, Bolton continues, "this is a good example of what the presidency can do": allow a nation to "push," although a successful outcome is far from guaranteed.

For a year and a half, Darfur has been policed--more like watched--by a pathetic, paltry force from the African Union. The United States is a leader in wanting to replace that band with a U.N. force, larger and more capable. In the end--by the end of February--Bolton could not get the Security Council to move on Sudan: either on sanctions against individuals committing atrocities or on a statement supporting a U.N. force. But he tried.

In a press conference, Bolton said the Council had raised alarms over Darfur, but "if the Council doesn't mean what it says and isn't willing to take steps to persuade people to follow what it says, its credibility will decline." At another press conference, a reporter mentioned the opposition of Sudan's president to U.N. troops. In his response, Bolton said that the U.S. was looking for a way "to stop the genocide. That's our objective. And one can only hope that the government of Sudan shares the objective that its own citizens should live."

A Bolton press conference is typically a very entertaining--in addition to a very informative--event, by the way. Bolton is as blunt as the president he works for. He is happy to remind people that Iran is a champion sponsor of terrorism. He is now and then a touch sarcastic: Reporter: "Are you still for [a particular proposal]? There had been some talk that you'd pulled back from that." Bolton: "Well, I don't know who's doing the talking." And did I mention blunt? A reporter asked whether the U.N. Human Rights Commission should meet before talks on reforming it had been concluded. "Well," said Bolton, "I've said in private consultations that it might be worthwhile having the commission meet again to remind everybody how bad it is so that we can get on the track of real reform."

BUTTERFLIES AND CATERPILLARS

Ah, yes, the Human Rights Commission. As you may know, this august body includes some of the most brutal, oppressive, and murderous regimes on the planet: Sudan, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia. Kofi Annan was putting it mildly when he said in January that the Human Rights Commission "casts a shadow over the entire U.N." Almost everybody describes the commission as "discredited"--even the New York Times, which has used the word without quotation marks in at least one news story.

So Secretary General Annan wanted reform--a new type of commission--and so did the United States. In a speech at the beginning of the year, Bolton said, "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect." The Americans put forward a proposal, and it is multifaceted. The main elements, however, are these: Instead of the current 53 members, make it 30; and have countries be elected by two-thirds of the General Assembly. Both of these changes would make it harder for the worst regimes to land on the rights panel. And, at the least, bar those governments under Security Council sanctions for violating human rights from serving on the Human Rights Commission.

On February 23, the U.N. brass, in the person of Jan Eliasson, president of the General Assembly, responded with a proposal that said: 47 members, rather than 53; voted in by an absolute majority; and even those under sanctions are eligible. Bolton said no way--the United States would not accept that proposal, in fact would vote against it, if it came to that. He told the press that it wasn't enough that the Eliasson proposal, on the whole, wasn't as bad as it could have been. He also said, "We want a butterfly. We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success."

(I later ask whether that is an expression from his growing up, or from somewhere else in American culture. Bolton says no, he made it up, and will have to accept paternity, for better or worse.)

Bolton made clear that he--i.e., the United States--was willing to negotiate with other member states, but not with Mr. Eliasson, acting as a "facilitator." International agreements ought to be between nations, he argued. You sit down across a table, with red pencils, and jaw it out. Annan supports the Eliasson proposal, and so do many nations--most nations. The United States, incidentally, has no veto in the matter: It would be one of the 191 members of the General Assembly, voting on the proposal. Many conservatives believe that, if the proposal goes through, the United States should refuse to participate--should leave the human-rights panel as it did UNESCO, under Reagan, back in '84.

For their stance, Bolton and the administration received support from an unexpected quarter: the New York Times. That Bush-despising, Bolton-despising newspaper editorialized, "When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America's ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected."

Bolton later sought to reassure NATIONAL REVIEW that, despite the Times's approval, he and his people had not "gone soft in the head."

But the Times, as it concluded the editorial, took care to offend: "Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles."

Stubbornly soft in the head were usual suspects such as Archbishop Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and the leaders of the EU, all of whom urged acceptance of the Eliasson proposal. Carter practically pleaded with U.N. members to defy the United States. This recalled his actions in 1990, when the first President Bush was trying to rally the Security Council for what would be the Gulf War, Desert Storm. Carter wrote members of the Council, urging them to thwart the United States. The government in Washington found out about it when the Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, and said (essentially), "What gives?"

As of this writing, it is unclear what will become of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

NO TEARS

During his month as president, Bolton let his hair down a little, with his fellow Council members: He took them to a professional basketball game, at Madison Square Garden, where the Miami Heat beat the New York Knicks, badly. Bolton pointed out that basketball, while an American game, has become very much an international game. And did you hear about Miss Universe? This young lady--Natalie Glebova, a Russian-born Canadian--happened to be touring the U.N., and Bolton showed her around the Security Council chamber. "That could have been the highlight of the month," he says.

By the accounts of even some critics, Bolton has had a very strong tenure as ambassador. He has been firm, and yet not outlandish, refuting the worst fears of the critics (to the extent those critics were honest). Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was a rare Republican critic. You may recall that he nearly cried, when speaking against Bolton on the floor. But on a visit to Turtle Bay last month, he sounded different. He said, "I think [Bolton] is really working very constructively to move forward.... At this stage of the game I'm pleased with the progress that is being made here and the team that he has gathered together."

Bolton appeared to relish his time as Security Council president, and his admirers relished it even more. Bolton seemed to feel a sense of urgency about his month, hearing the clock tick. On February 27, talking to the press about Sudan, he said, "With 36 hours left in the presidency, we're still prepared to move ahead." On February 28, he said, "We've pushed hard, and we're going to continue to push hard, even though tomorrow is March 1." Given his status as a short-timer--a recess appointee--Bolton may never get another crack at the Security Council presidency, as the 15 nations take their turns. Whatever the case, he made the most out of February 2006.