U.S. HAS LOST NOT 1 BUT 2 SEATS ON KEY U.N. PANELS

Diplomacy: Expulsion From Drug And Rights Boards Reflects Rise Of
Europe, Frustrations With American Hubris

WASHINGTON--The vote wasn't mentioned at the time, since attention
was instead focused on the stunning U.S. loss of a seat held for half
a century on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. But on the same day,
in the same room, the United States also lost its seat on the U.N.
International Narcotics Control Board.

It was a humiliating defeat. The United States not only played the
key role in founding the board in 1964, but a senior American
diplomat had co-chaired the board for the past decade.

Once again, America's allies had assured the State Department that
they backed the U.S. candidate for both a seat and a top job. Once
again, the United States was shocked by the outcome. The State
Department acknowledged Monday that the defeat on Thursday was "very
regrettable."

What's happening to the singular leadership of the world's only
superpower? For starters, it's no longer so singular.

"There's no permanent seat for anyone. You have to earn your seat
year to year," said Pierre Schori, Sweden's U.N. ambassador, whose
country was among those that won seats on the human rights panel.
"Global problems need global solutions.

You can't go it alone any longer in this globalizing world."

Washington's main mistake was assuming that, in the end, no country
would really dare to kick the United States off two U.N. bodies in
which it had long played a powerful role, said William Luers, a
former ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela and now president
of the United Nations Assn. of the United States of America.

Hubris was exacerbated by tactics. Consolidating support has been
"particularly difficult" because the new administration has not
placed the U.N. at the center of its foreign policy, Luers said.

The Bush administration may be paying a price for some of its policy positions.

"I think there's a sock-back for the unilateralism and the allergies
to treaties that this administration is developing," said former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "People are concerned about
several unilateral moves the United States has taken recently."

The list of such acts is long and growing. The latest was President
Bush's speech last week on missile defense. After promising to
consult with allies before he took any major step, he instead
signaled his intention to withdraw the United States from the
Antiballistic Missile Treaty--and only this week dispatched teams
around the world to explain the move and the administration's plans
for an alternative approach to defense.

"Anti-American attitudes have always existed. What's new is that they
have acquired new expressions and new reasons--and a new willingness
to express them short of bombing the World Trade Center or the USS
Cole," said Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine in
Washington. "It's a mistake for the world not to have the U.S. in
both these bodies, but at the United Nations we're also operating in
the world of symbolism."

An increasing number of countries, even allies, appear to be willing
to see the United States as just another country, and not the world's
largest economic, political and military power.

"We don't want to punish the United States for what it's doing or the
stands it's taking. What we want is dialogue and engagement with the
U.S. to change its views on [the] Kyoto [Convention on Climate
Change] and on capital punishment," Schori said. "It's time now for
an ongoing dialogue between countries that respect each other."

The subtle power shift is due in part to the rise of the European
Union, which is turning out to be a rival for position and leadership
in international organizations. As a bloc, its countries are
increasingly exercising new muscle--and often against the United
States.

"It's a trend that has been coming on for some time," Albright said.
"It was starting when I was there. They didn't want to talk to us
until they had a [joint] position, and then they didn't want to talk
to us afterwards."

As a bloc, the EU countries pay more dues to the United Nations than
the United States, and they want that reflected within the U.N.
hierarchy and various U.N. commissions and agencies, Albright said.

The defeats on the two U.N. bodies are the "residue of U.S.
arm-twisting" last year on long-deferred U.S. dues to the United
Nations, Luers said. After imposing more than a dozen conditions,
Washington finally agreed to pay roughly a third of its $1.6 billion
in late dues. The Senate approved the deal, only to have it languish
in the House.

"And now it's unlikely Bush will try terribly hard to get it
through," Luers said. "I wish I thought the two U.N. votes would be a
wake-up call or a learning experience, because I don't think this
administration wants the United States to be a pariah. But I fear we
may get caught in a trap of recrimination and retribution between the
U.N. and Washington." The State Department also may not have
campaigned as hard as it should have for the panel seats, U.N. envoys
from other countries said.

Both boards are elected by the U.N. Economic and Social Council,
which has 54 members. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was told
that the United States had locked up 43 votes for the Human Rights
Commission--only to receive 29. Washington had a smaller guarantee
for the narcotics board, but also received fewer votes--only 21.

U.S. officials tried to play down the impact of the vote on the
narcotics board, as they did with the human rights commission vote.

"We intend to continue our engagement on the international narcotics
issues," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday.
"We'll continue our cooperation with and strong support for the U.N.
international drug control program as well as with the International
Narcotics Control Board."

Others downplay the importance of the body, which tracks both legal
and illegal drug control.

But Washington lost a presence and vote on two of the issues it has
identified as critical to U.S. policy in the 21st century--narcotics
control and human rights.