We have grave concerns about the nomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And those concerns are expanding in Sudan, Congo and around the world.

Bolton’s philosophy and diplomatic track record do not hold much promise that the United States will use its influence within the United Nations to protect the victims of ethnic violence and genocide.

Bolton opposes the use of U.N. peacekeepers and has criticized the notion that the international community has a right to intervene in humanitarian catastrophes, like the genocide in Sudan, the ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans or in areas torn apart by civil war.

Considering the challenges facing the world today, his appointment is puzzling, unless it is meant to send a clear message to the international community: The U.S. intends to go it alone.

It’s true the United Nations needs a kick in the pants. The oil-for-food debacle – which the Security Council and United States turned a blind eye toward – and the ongoing revelations of sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers must be addressed. And Bolton certainly would bring a critic’s gaze to the post, but his disregard for the institution undermines his ability to advocate for reform.

The United States will need help from the world and, particularly, the United Nations. Especially in the Middle East, the U.N. can provide the expertise to shape the institutions of democracy in the West Bank and Gaza, in Lebanon and Iraq.

If we have learned anything in the war in Iraq, it’s that the United States is more formidable when it doesn’t go it alone. We will need friends and allies to stabilize the region and to protect endangered peoples around the world. We’re not certain Bolton can successfully bring them aboard and manage the already strained relationship with many U.N. member states.