n May 3, the United States was voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the first time since U.S. leadership founded the panel in ’47. The Commission is responsible for setting standards, appointing inspectors and passing resolutions to define and defend global human rights. Although it does not have the power to enforce resolutions and force states to respect human rights, the panel does have power to censure violators$mdash;$mdash;an act that nations such as China genuinely fear and take great pains to avoid. Other nations with questionable commitments to human rights such as Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Syria, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Singapore, remain on the Commission. So do notorious human rights violators like Sudan and China, making the U.S. expulsion all the more embarrassing and offensive.

Why did this happen? It was not the United States’ human rights policies that caused this, but rather growing international resentment of the U.S. and its conceit. Our allies and trading partners as well as our rivals are growing angry and frustrated with the Bush administration’s unabashedly unilateral approach to foreign affairs. Bush said during the second Presidential debate that America should be a "humble nation, yet strong" rather than "an arrogant nation," but his actions do not match his campaign rhetoric. In his first 100 days, Bush oversaw or pushed for the rejection of several important international agreements, including the Kyoto environmental protocols, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and the treaty to establish an international criminal court. Reneging on the Kyoto treaty was a particularly arrogant and shortsighted move by the administration, sending the message that profits for U.S. firms are more important than the environment and world health.

In addition to trampling all over international law, the United States has damaged its international reputation by becoming a deadbeat member of the United Nations. Having helped to create the U.N. and its budget, the U.S. has refused in recent years to pay its dues to the organization, crippling U.N. administrative and peacekeeping functions. Last year, the U.S. was on the verge of being kicked off the General Assembly until cooler heads finally prevailed in the House and Senate. Conservatives had led the move to hold back the dues, but were finally persuaded to vote for a debt-repayment program in exchange for a slightly reduced share of U.N. expenses and a package deal that axed U.S. aid to foreign family planning agencies. The agreement calls for the U.S. to make a payment of $582 million soon, with a later payment of $244 million to follow.

On May 8, in shock and outrage over the Human Rights Commission ousting, the House voted to withhold this later payment unless the U.S. is reinstated in 2002. Forget that this organization has very little to do with the larger U.N.- it is based in Geneva and contains members that are strictly government representatives- conservatives in the House and Senate have leapt on this incident as proof that the U.N. is stacked against us and should be punished and blackmailed into submission. Holding this opinion is vindictive and even childish. Failing to acknowledge any blame for the breach that has developed between the U.S. and its allies, these politicians would have the U.S. lash out indiscriminately. Unfortunately, withholding U.N. dues will not “get back” at anyone, least of all the Europeans who abandoned us in this vote. It will, however, hurt U.N. peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, as well as U.S. credibility. Once again, we will have backed out on an agreement and proved our detractors in the international community right.

What is most upsetting about this whole incident is that the U.S. is one of a few countries that does genuinely care about human rights. That is not to say that our record is pristine (we do need to reform our justice system and abolish the death penalty, for starters), but our government and our society respect human rights as a rule and are willing to fight for them. The latter characteristic distinguishes the U.S. from some of its more timorous European allies who prefer less confrontational (i.e. less effective) approaches to defending human rights. France, for example, has opposed many of our efforts to have countries singled out for human rights abuses. France brags of its “cooperation and dialogue” method with China, which is quite popular with the Chinese government as it continues oppressing its citizens without fear of censure. The U.S. has spearheaded many of the human rights battles that need to be fought; its removal will enfeeble the Commission to the benefit of rights violators.

So how should the U.S. go about repairing the damage that has been done? First, it must attempt to redress its current international image. It is wholly against our interests to be viewed as an arrogant, hypocritical and treaty-trampling monster. We must respect our agreements, pay our debts, work with our allies, and use our current hegemonic position to improve international organizations, not alienate them. Will these objectives be accomplished under the current Bush administration? Not bloody likely, but at least we’ll have ineffective, overpriced and arms race-inspiring missile defense.