Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.?

America’s representative at the United Nations said yesterday that the organization must become better at solving problems and more responsive to U.S. concerns or Washington will seek other venues for international action.

Oh yes! PULEEEEZE let it be so!

During a luncheon with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said repeatedly that the Bush administration requires nothing less than “a revolution of reform” at the world body, encompassing everything from U.N. Security Council engagement to management changes to a focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general.

What a novel concept: efficiency at the UN. Talk about cleaning the Augean stables!

The Bush administration has been a principal advocate of management reform at the United Nations — supported by a mandate from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the passion of new management and budget czar Christopher Burnham, and crisply worded criticism from oil-for-food investigator Paul Volcker. But developing nations have mounted stiff resistance to many of the administrative changes sought by Washington — most of which call for reducing micromanagement by budget committees within the General Assembly.

This is easy to deal with – just close the purse on ’em:

Washington’s frustration with the General Assembly is well-known. Mr. Bolton said yesterday that the United States pays 22 percent of the regular U.N. budget, yet has only one vote out of 191 cast. “We have one-half of 1 percent of the total [votes], meaning we pay 44 times more than our voting power,” he said. “My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have. Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States.”

Sacrilage! The US Ambassador calling an ugly spade, an ugly spade – in this case the UNO (UN disOrganization).