ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2004, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former secretary general of the United Nations and now chairman of an outfit called the Egyptian National Human Rights Council, sat for an interview with Mihwar television in Egypt. He spoke in Arabic and, according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, had this to say about the United States: "It's a totalitarian regime."

The world's former top diplomat also declared that "outside America, the American policy isn't democratic" and worried about "the American tyranny."

Is such thinking prevalent at the top levels of the U.N.? Perhaps not. But it is not exceptional either.

In February 1998, as the United States threatened to enforce various U.N. resolutions on Iraq, Secretary General Kofi Annan negotiated yet another "last chance" deal for Saddam Hussein. Annan said of the Iraqi dictator: "I think I can do business with him." As the investigations into U.N. Oil-for-Food corruption continue we may yet learn that Annan was speaking literally. The most generous interpretation of that scandal is that numerous high-level U.N. officials were not corrupt, merely incompetent. In 2004, after the United States removed Saddam Hussein, Annan declared the war "illegal." That his opinion came in the middle of a presidential election focused on that war may or may not have been accidental.

Today, Annan runs a body mired in scandal. U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo have been accused of serial rape. The U.N. high commissioner for refugees, Ruud Lubbers, has just stepped down. An internal investigation accused him of a "pattern of sexual harassment" and of "intense, pervasive and intimidating attempts to influence the outcome of this investigation." Still, Annan allowed Lubbers to remain in his position, citing a lack of evidence against his friend. Only when the internal report was leaked did Annan insist that Lubbers submit his resignation.

And then, of course, there is the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which exists to encourage "the United Nations vision . . . of a world in which the human rights of all are fully respected and enjoyed in conditions of global peace." Among the nations currently on the commission making good on that pledge are such stalwart guardians of human rights as Cuba and Zimbabwe.

Things at the United Nations have gotten so bad recently that Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Bill Clinton, invited several former U.N. officials and the current secretary general to his Manhattan apartment for a three-and-a-half-hour discussion. Their goal was not modest. One participant told the New York Times the meeting was intended "to save Kofi and rescue the U.N."

Holbrooke did not mince words. "The U.N. cannot succeed if it is in open dispute and constant friction with its founding nation, its host nation, and its largest contributor nation. The U.N., without the U.S. behind it, is a failed institution."

Those are tough words. That they come from a former top adviser to U.N.-phile John Kerry underscores the gravity of the U.N.'s predicament.

Into this picture steps John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and now George W. Bush's nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Bolton has been expressing Holbrooke-like sentiments--and more--for over a decade. ("I don't do carrots" he famously said, when asked about taking a carrot-and-stick approach to North Korea.) One might call him prescient. But many Democrats and newspaper editorials are lamenting his nomination. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid called the nomination a "disappointing choice." A Los Angeles Times editorial called it a "severe setback" to Bush administration diplomacy. Kerry said the nomination was "inexplicable." Senate Democrats last week gave every indication that they intend to fight the nomination.