Diplomatic flurry at UN office

When US President George W. Bush made his temporary appointment of John Bolton as the nation's representative at the UN, he said Bolton is "a blunt guy" who can "get the job done" at the UN.

Many doubted Bush's opinion on Bolton, fearing him to be the worst possible choice. One Republican senator was quoted as saying Bolton is "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be".

It would seem that such fears have been confirmed, since his abrasive style has led to much unease between the US and the 191-member General Assembly, whose consensus is needed to pass many of the reforms the US has been pressing for.

More than pressing, in fact, because the US has given an ultimatum to the UN that certain measures must be taken by the end of this month, or they will stop funding the UN.

The US contributes 22 per cent of the UN's $3.8 billion annual operating budget; Japan, which is the second largest financial contributor to the UN coffers, is supportive of the demands for administrative reforms in the UN, although the General Assembly has voted most of them down.

Against this backdrop is the new argument between UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown and Ambassador Bolton. Malloch Brown attacked the US for "too much unchecked UN bashing and stereotyping over the ears".

It is not a new charge being laid at the door of the US, but it was said in such a manner and by so senior a member of the UN, that Bolton felt obliged to respond. To which he has done, in atypical style, threatening severe consequences (unspecified) for the UN.

Of course, the UN has heard it all before from US ambassadors: As we pay the piper, you must play our tune.