What's behind Bush's new reliance on the UN?

(This is a shortened version of a piece I wrote for Slate. You can read it in full here)

In his farewell speech last week, the president of the 60th U.N. General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden stressed that "[t]he challenge is whether we have the collective will to combine together for the greater good. The challenge is whether the multilateral system?primarily the United Nations?can rise to the occasion."

But ask the average American, and you'll get the feeling that this constant testing of the United Nations is a waste of time. In a poll conducted by the Hudson Institute earlier this month, 75 percent said they "believe the UN is no longer 'effective' and 'needs to be held more accountable.'" President Bush echoed these feelings last Friday, when he said, "I think a lot of Americans are frustrated with the United Nations, to be frank with you."

However - frustration aside - Bush will go to the United Nations this week (The piece was written before the speech. S.R.) in search of action and relevance. Initially the most hostile and suspicious of American presidents regarding the United Nations, in the past couple of months President Bush has asked for its help repeatedly - and on an increasing number of issues. Just look at the list: sanctions on Iran, genocide prevention in Sudan, stability in Lebanon, accountability in Syria, dismantling nukes in North Korea, and on and on.

There are many possible - sometimes contradictory - conclusions from Bush's new reliance on U.N. action. Is it the administration's weakness and lack of energy that forces it to go to New York looking for solutions? Or is it the wisdom that comes with experience and renewed realism? A similar set of questions can be asked about the United Nations itself - with contradictory conclusions: Does it work better now because the United States is more cooperative and attentive to its allies and partners? Or is it the Bush administration's tough stance that made the United Nations comply, so as not to lose relevance altogether?

"If you want to test a man's character, give him power," Abraham Lincoln once said. It seems this is exactly what the Bush administration is doing with the United Nations. But there's a cloud hanging over its motivations. Does Washington go to the United Nations when it concludes that it's the best way to achieve important goals and to exhaust all the possibilities before it decides to act unilaterally? Or because it is the easiest way out?