On the face of it, the decision to nominate John Bolton as the United State's representative to the United Nations is a disastrous one.
After all, Mr Bolton's reputation as a bull in the diplomatic china shop - and a critic of the UN bureaucracy - is well established. One of his famous pronouncements about the international body suggests that 10 storeys of its New York secretariat building could disappear and not be missed. Another compares the UN to an overgrown coral reef.
But at a time when the debate over how to help the UN live up to its grand original mission is set to gather pace - and Secretary-General Kofi Annan is planning to deliver a speech on proposed reforms - perhaps having the plain-speaking Mr Bolton at the UN may not be a bad thing.
Dismay over growing irrelevance and drift at the UN stretches far beyond Washington. The unfolding scandals over peacekeepers' misdeeds and corruption at the agency's Iraqi oil-for-food programme have not helped. Many see this year's discussions as crucial to ensuring the world has a UN with greater moral authority and credible means to enforce its decisions.
So long as Mr Bolton can be an effective advocate for the necessary bold action - while not alienating the other diplomats - his presence might yet have some positive results. It will be a question of whether he shoots from the hip or takes more careful aim.
There is room for scepticism about the Bolton appointment and his commitment to multilateralism. His support for US withdrawal from the International Criminal Court and his readiness to assert US leadership in world affairs raises doubt about his belief in multilateralism.