The belief that the United Nations is a beneficial international organization may be a popular one in many political science courses, but there is a large and growing contingent of policy makers who find the UN to be a deleterious institution. These policy makers see the United State"s involvement in the UN as a detriment, forcing cooperation with sworn enemies.

This sentiment has only been strengthened by the recent vote that removed the U.S. from the UN"s Human Rights Commission and its International Narcotics Control Board. There has been an immediate outcry about this act, which has created the first HRC without the U.S. since its inception in 1947.

The response was quick. On Thursday, the House voted to withhold $244 million in back dues that the US owes the UN.

On one hand, it"s hard to look at this development without a wry smile the U.S. has always had a holier-than-thou attitude regarding foreign nations, especially in terms of human rights abuses. The U.S. rebuked Europe by pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty, refused to support a recent anti-land mine initiative and is one of the few developed nations that still practices capital punishment and the "War on Drugs" (initiated by Bush the Elder) has been an unarguable failure.

When looked at from this angle, it"s obvious why some of the United States "friends" have turned their back on us and the House"s response seems to be a petty attempt at holding the U.S. above the standards of any other nation.

But on the other hand, it"s also hard to look at this development without a tinge of fear. Since the end of the Cold War (which Bush Junior is not-so-subtly trying to re-thaw), America has emerged as the only major world power, placing it in a precarious position. Without a valid balance of power, the U.S. no longer has a tangible "Red" enemy to face and there is a growing cluster, comprised mostly of developing nations, who vilify America and align themselves as hard-lined anti-Americans. This cluster of nations has clearly been growing, and the ousting of the U.S. from the HRC and the INCB is indicative of their growing discontent.

When looked at from this angle, the United States removal looks like a concerted effort by these nations to snub their noses at America while skirting their own questionable national practices.

Take, for example, the nation most often pointed to by critics of the vote Sudan. Sudan has been criticized for human rights violations that stem from the civil war that has been endemic in the nation for 17 years. These violations, detailed by Leonardo Franco in his 2000 report to the HRC itself, include a regime of torture and persecution of political dissenters, the forced and violent removal of citizens, the bombing of civilian populations, the abduction of women and children into labor and sexual slavery and the attack of secular and religious humanitarian workers.

The list of nations elected to the HRC reeks of human rights violations: Sierra Leon (which was ranked 174th out of 174 nations by the UN"s 2000 Human Development Report), Uganda (where government sanctioned violence against citizens is common, but rarely punished), Pakistan (where blasphemy laws have led to the imprisonment and execution of non-Muslims) and Armenia (where religious tensions between the Armenian Orthodox majority and the local Muslim population has caused countless casualties).

It"s not that the United States position as the world"s strongest power has been directly threatened by this vote. But the growing strength of terrorist nations aligned against America is certainly a worthy concern.

The House"s response is founded in blind patriotism and fails to address the concerns at hand, but they have a point. If the UN is to be a humanitarian institution, then why is it so willing to give so much consideration to nations who go against this fundamental belief?

Manish Raiji, Daily Editorial Writer