cannabisnews.com: U.S. Has Lost Not 1 but 2 Seats on Key U.N. Panels U.S. Has Lost Not 1 but 2 Seats on Key U.N. Panels Posted by FoM on May 08, 2001 at 16:18:00 PT By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer Source: Los Angeles Times 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. Diplomacy: Expulsion from drug and rights boards reflects rise of Europe, frustrations with American hubris.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: Robin Wright, Times Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, May 8, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:U.N. Human Rights Commissionhttp://www.unhchr.ch/International Narcotics Control Boardhttp://www.incb.org/UN Cut US Off As Drug Monitor http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9627.shtmlU.S. Loses Seat on U.N. Narcotics Control Boardhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9625.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by jorma nash on May 08, 2001 at 17:19:53 PT The vote wasn't mentioned at the time, The vote wasn't mentioned at the time...and just why not????was the cumulative effect of this and the human rights vote so humilitating the tyrants-that-be couldn't bear to haveboth stories break at once? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 08, 2001 at 16:53:22 PT About Time Couldn't have happened to nicer guys...ha, ha!Like I've said before, drug warriors get out your resume paper.ha, ha. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: