Snub at the U.N.

Four Western countries competed last week for three places on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and when the votes were counted the United States had placed an ignominious last, losing the seat it has held 1947. The voting had nothing to do with this country’s human rights record. Instead, as private comments made clear, it was payback time for what a growing number of states deplore as a new go-it-alone approach to global affairs.

China and Cuba lobbied to have the U.S. dropped from the panel that Washington has often used to criticize both countries. In the end, though, it was a withdrawal of support by some traditional friends that cost this country its seat. Despite written pledges of backing from 41 of the 53 commission members, only 29 actually delivered their votes.

Recent decisions that the European allies object to include the Bush administration’s rejection of the Kyoto treaty, which aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; its opposition to creating an international criminal court; and its move toward scrapping the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. On these and other issues, the administration of course has the right to act in what it sees as the nation’s best interests. But as a world leader and senior partner in the Western alliance, the U.S. also has an obligation to consult with its friends and prepare the way diplomatically when it knows its plans are controversial. It is its manner of acting--not just its actions--that evokes resentment.

The Human Rights Commission’s work is largely symbolic, but it is a forum where abuses can be publicized and victims recognized. In that, the U.S. has often taken the lead. The commission promises to be a weaker body without American participation, perhaps even, as some fear, an irrelevant one.