John Bolton at Chatham House, London.
Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
As a member of the Bush administration, John Bolton initially had little appeal to multilateralists. Minds were not changed when, on being nominated by George Bush to be Washington's man in the UN, his most widely quoted remark was that "it wouldn't make a bit of difference" if the body's 39-storey NewYork headquarters lost its top ten floors.
Now that he works there, Mr Bolton has not lost any of his trimming urges. Speaking today in London, he set out the US vision for UN reform. The language was a little mellower than before ("reforming the United Nations is not a one night stand, reform is forever") but the drive was that he wanted it smaller: a reduction in the committees attached to the general assembly, a rethink of the role of some of the agencies and, as far as the development goals go, keeping trade negotiations firmly in the grasp of the WTO.
This thinking goes against the grain of the UN's own vision for its future.
The UN sees itself becoming larger in one very important way - expanding the security council to reflect the world as it is today rather than the geopolitics of 1945.
An expansion could take in India, South Africa and Brazil as permanent members but the only country Mr Bolton is interested in is Japan, the second biggest contributor to the UN budget after the US. A security council of 15 could expand to 16 or 17, he said, but anything approaching 25 members would simply not work, he told the audience at Chatham House.
Mr Bolton wants to deliver a "more agile, more responsive" UN to his masters in Washington, one that the US could use to solve international problems. He believes - perhaps surprisingly - that the body could handle something like the oil-for-food programme again if it learnt from its mistakes, but makes no secret that the US would only use the UN when it suited its policy interests. "We pursue our foreign policy interests in a variety of ways," he said of the á la carte approach. Putting the UN into unilateralism, you could say.
One questioner asked if the US should not pursue more than its national interest. Mr Bolton looked surprised. "Would you prefer that the US pursued its own interests or think for the whole world?" he asked back. "I think if you think about it for a second you will say 'Please pursue your national interest!'."
