The battle for cinematic domination in the 2004 Altie Awards was fierce, with a field of movies as diverse as any in recent memory. The top two nominees for the Big Award -- "Lost in Translation" and "Return of the King" -- could not have been more dissimilar, one as demure and atmospheric as the other is pounding and epic.

For the second year in a row, however, loyal fans bestowed the coveted Big Award on the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. "The magnificent conclusion to one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of cinema," wrote one voter. Reader Ellyn O'Toole predicted that "the entire trilogy will be popular long after we are dead," provided, she added, the planet could survive the Bush administration.

Runner-up "Lost in Translation" was not without its staunch defenders. Wrote voter Mary Rusnak, "Sofia Coppola created a beautiful, subtle film with dynamic, convincing performances. She didn't need to rely on computer-generated special effects to do it, just her eye and her storytelling sensibility."

"Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," Robert Greenwald's bold documentary unmasking Bush administration lies, took top Altie honors for the Truth To Power Award. "Uncovered" had a huge lead over the runner-up, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," and also beat out "Fog of War," Erroll Morris' study of Vietnam war architect Robert McNamara.

As much as people loved "Uncovered," many also marveled at the unique distribution methods the Greenwald team used to bring their indie doc to a wide audience. "Important not only for its content, which history will confirm and current events already are, but for the [MoveOn.org] 'underground' house party distribution method," Mike Dixon wrote.

"This gets my vote for the sheer guts and marketing of this film through nationwide house parties," voter Noel Hermele wrote.

The You Can't Make This Stuff Up documentary award came down to a fight between the birds and the bees. Ultimately, "Winged Migration" won by a feather, with "Spellbound" the runner-up. "Fantastic, beautiful, charming, whimsical (how the hell did they do it?)," marveled voter James Sandrolini of the soaring documentary on the secret lives of birds.

While many readers were dazzled by Charlize Theron's metamorphosis into murderer Aileen Wuornos in runner-up "Monster," it was "Mystic River," Clint Eastwood's moody meditation on crime, punishment and redemption, that nabbed the Altie for Best 'Feel Bad' Movie. "It was a character study of the lives of working class people, which you do not see often in films," wrote Kathleen Clementi.

In the most surprising victory, voters passed over "Laurel Canyon" and gave the Altie for In the Spirit of Catherine Deneuve to the seductive mystery, "Swimming Pool."

"Charlotte Rampling did something in this movie that showed amazing courage for a woman of 58 years," wrote one voter. "Rampling was amazing, considering she was sharing most of her screen time with Ludivine Sagnier, that's pretty damn impressive to me," added another. Runner up in this category was "Calendar Girls," with Helen Mirren leading a group of Brits-of-a-certain-age who shed their frocks and knickers for a good cause.

Mock-doc "A Mighty Wind" -- "a very funny movie with a big heart," said one reader -- staged a come-from-behind win, stealing the Laugh Out Loud Altie from runner-up "Finding Nemo," by only 15 votes.

Voters decided that the characters played by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson in "Lost In Translation" deserved the Misfits Unite and Triumph Altie. Coppola's casting, wrote reader Ash Townsend "was purely genius." "Whale Rider" was the runner-up.

"Lost In Translation" also grabbed a second Altie in the Transformative Love category, ahead of runner-up "In America."

It wasn't much a contest in Guilty Pleasures, with "Pirates of the Caribbean" swashbuckling its way to nearly twice the votes of runner-up, "X-Men: X2." What was the main pleasure of "Pirates"? "Pretty people breaking the rules and saving the day," wrote Mary Mueller. Sounds guilt-free to us.

The 'Still Wishing You Could Get Your Money Back' Award was hotly contested, but when all the votes were in we were shocked, shocked, to find so many people still ruing the day they forked over 10 bucks for "Matrix Reloaded" -- which voter Don Friedkin dubbed "The Matrix Reloaded Redux Redundant All Over Again."

A somewhat lesser number of people were still mourning that their wallets were thinner after a painful viewing of "Terminator 3."

And last but not least, the honorary Democracy Works Altie goes to Caleb Kleppner and the crew at Center for Voting and Democracy, who generously donated their time to the Alties, tallying the votes with Instant Runoff Voting.

Think tanks, nongovernmental organizations and activists yesterday urged the United Nations to change its antidrug programs, pointing to a lack of progress in recent years against drug use and trafficking.

"After years of continuous setbacks, and with billions of dollars spent on destroying crops and putting people in jail, it is now time to look at more promising alternatives," the European Drug Policy Fund said in a statement distributed in Vienna as delegates from 116 countries gathered for talks about the U.N. anti-drug campaign that started in 1998.

Modeled on the U.S. anti-drug effort, the U.N. plan calls for increased interdiction efforts and a focus on law enforcement to stamp out the global drug trade by 2008. Critics say the approach is failing by all current measures, however, and call for an overhaul of U.N. drug policy.

The Open Society Institute, a foundation backed by financier George Soros, said U.N. drug control treaties that encourage tough law enforcement undercut health care efforts in poor countries and worsen the HIV/AIDS problem.

"In countries that are experiencing a rapid increase of drug use, the reflex reaction is to become tougher on drugs," said OSI drug abuse expert Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch. "Locking up users in prisons is not a solution. It only serves to drive users underground, making them less likely to seek out what few services do exist for them," Malinowska-Sempruch added (William Kole, Associated Press, April 15).

Last week, U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said in a report to the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs that worldwide efforts against illicit drugs have shown "signs of progress" in demand reduction, supply reduction, international cooperation and overall drug control policy (UN Wire, April 9).

Transnational Institute, an independent think tank based in Amsterdam, reviewed the report and said last week that "encouraging progress cannot be substantiated on the basis of available evidence. Levels of cultivation of coca and opium poppy as well as the supply of cocaine and heroine have shown fluctuations but the trend seems to be relatively stable. No indications point at any substantial decline. The situation regarding the supply of cannabis and synthetic drugs has even deteriorated."

The institute suggested the commission "start to acknowledge that international drug policy should shift its focus to reducing the harm of drugs for users and society as a whole" (Transnational Institute release, April 8).

As we reach the brink of a widely unsupported U.S. invasion of Iraq, millions of Americans and many more people around the world are scrambling desperately to find the combination of protests, pleadings and symbolic acts that will throw a wrench into the gears of the war machine. And while getting President Bush and his war hungry claque to listen to the overwhelming cries of protest from every corner of the globe has proven extremely difficult, this is not the time to ease the pressure.

Instead, we need to ratchet up the peace effort, joining the broad coalition Win Without War in intensified nationwide opposition to this war. On the eve of this weekend's demonstrations in Washington, Los Angeles and other cities, plans include sustained local mobilizations, vigils and other live and virtual actions in cities and towns throughout the country. Growing participation by artists and musicians will add to efforts by faith-based organizations, women's, environmental, peace and civil rights organizations and labor unions.

Probably the most visible global event this weekend will be nearly 2,000 candlelight vigils held Sunday in more than 80 countries to oppose a U.S. invasion. Initiated by MoveOn.org, the Archbishop Desmond Tutu and many faith-based organizations in the United States are participating in the protest vigils set to begin in New Zealand on Sunday night and to continue sequentially in time zones all over the world. In Washington, the vigil will take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with musicians Peter, Paul and Mary scheduled to perform.

"It's up to you to make this happen and organize a vigil in each community," said MoveOn's Wes Boyd. "We're hoping that thousands of small groups around the world will be inspired to come together and stand for peace in this moment of darkness and rekindle the light of reason and of hope. It's time to renew our commitment to building a positive world for our children."

For more information about how to make this happen in your community and to join with millions of others around the globe, go to www.globalvigil.org

There will also be a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign launched in Washington, set to begin Monday and continue throughout the week. Actions will also take place at Congressional offices throughout the country during this same period. The campaign was intiated by by United for Peace and Justice and the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition.

This Saturday, March 15, join a rally in Washington DC organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R. The "Emergency Convergence" on the White House starts at noon on Saturday. Parallel actions will take place in San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities. Visit United for Peace and Justice and Not In Our Name to find events in your area, and get involved -- this might be our last weekend before the war starts! Code Pink is also organizing contingents to join the Washington, DC action. You can sign up for CODEPINK email updates at http://codepink.kintera.org/updates.

"War is not inevitable," says United for Peace and Justice. "Congress has the constitutional power to stop this war and has been silent." The organizers say they plan to "fill . . . jails until they answer the people's call for peace and justice!"

Meanwhile, last Monday, primed with more than one million signatures on an international antiwar petition gathered in just five days, leaders of America's antiwar coalition, Win Without War and Jessica Lange of Artists United to Win Without War, tried to communicate a clear message to the UN: to back tough inspections, and not war.

Working Assets has a campaign to raise money to place anti-war billboards in high-traffic areas from New York to Crawford, Texas (home of Bush's ranch). The first billboards, already up, say "Support Our Troops: BRING THEM HOME NOW."

Yet another campaign from Working Assets takes an additional step, and hopes to have Saddam Hussein indicted for war crimes.

Elsewhere, the veteran Australian peace activist Helen Caldicott has mounted a worldwide campaign urging the Pope go to Baghdad as a human shield.

"To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action, he must hear from you and millions of others around the world who have already been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace," said Caldicott. "A mountain of surface mail, email, faxes and phone calls are our devices to inspire him."

There is precedent for a pope halting an invasion. According to the Melbourne daily paper The Age, in 452 Pope Leo the Great visited the camp of Attila the Hun and persuaded Attila not to invade Rome.

Ultimately, however, it is unlikely such a hero is going to step forward to stop the bombs from raining down on the civilians of Iraq. Rather, it is up to the collective will of all of us and the world to say, "This will not stand."

Do what you can today.

Reporters Without Borders is publishing for the first time a worldwide index of countries according to their respect for press freedom. It also shows that such freedom is under threat everywhere, with the 20 bottom-ranked countries drawn from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The situation in especially bad in Asia, which contains the four worst offenders -- North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.

The top end of the list shows that rich countries have no monopoly of press freedom. Costa Rica and Benin are examples of how growth of a free press does not just depend on a country's material prosperity.

The index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about the whole range of press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offences and regulation of the media). The final list includes 139 countries. The others were not included in the absence of reliable information.

In the worst-ranked countries, press freedom is a dead letter and independent newspapers do not exist. The only voice heard is of media tightly controlled or monitored by the government. The very few independent journalists are constantly harassed, imprisoned or forced into exile by the authorities. The foreign media are banned or allowed in very small doses, always closely monitored.

Right at the top of the list four countries share first place -- Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands. These northern European states scrupulously respect press freedom in their own countries but also speak up for it elsewhere, for recent example in Eritrea and Zimbabwe. The highest-scoring country outside Europe is Canada, which comes in fifth.

Some countries with democratically elected governments are way down in the index -- such as Colombia (114th) and Bangladesh (118th). In these countries, armed rebel movements, militias, or political parties constantly endanger the lives of journalists. The state fails to do all it could to protect them and fight the immunity very often enjoyed by those responsible for such violence.

Costa Rica Better Placed Than the United States

The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.

The highest-ranked country of the South is Costa Rica, in 15th position. This Central American nation is traditionally the continent's best performer in terms of press freedom. In February 2002, it ceased to be one of the 17 Latin American states that still give prison sentences to those found guilty of "insulting" public officials. The murder in July 2001 year of journalist Parmenio Medina was an exception in the history of the Costa Rican media.

Cuba, the last dictatorship in Latin America, came 134th and is the only country in the region where there is no diversity of news and journalists are routinely imprisoned. In Haiti (106th), journalists are targeted by informal militias whose actions are covered by the government.

Italy Gets Bad Marks in Europe

The 15 member-countries of the European Union (EU) all score well except for Italy (40th), where news diversity is under serious threat. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is turning up the pressure on the state-owned television stations, has named his henchmen to help run them and continues to combine his job as head of government with being boss of a privately-owned media group. The imprisonment of journalist Stefano Surace, convicted of press offences from 30 years ago, as well as the monitoring of journalists, searches, unjustified legal summonses and confiscation of equipment, are all responsible for the country's low ranking.

France, in 11th place overall, comes only 8th among EU countries because of several disturbing measures endangering the protection of journalists' sources and because of police interrogation of a number of journalists in recent months.

Among those states hoping to join the EU, Turkey (99th) is very poorly placed. Despite the reform efforts of its government, aimed at easing entry into the EU, many journalists are still being given prison sentences and the media are regularly censored. Press freedom is especially under siege in the southeastern part of the country.

Elsewhere in Europe, such as Belarus (124th), Russia (121st) and the former Soviet republics, it is still difficult to work as a journalist and several have been murdered or imprisoned. Grigory Pasko, jailed since December 2001 in the Vladivostok region of Russia, was given a four-year sentence for publishing pictures of the Russian Navy pouring liquid radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan.

The Middle East and Israel's Ambivalent Position

No Arab country is among the top 50. Lebanon only makes 56th place and the press freedom situation in the region is not encouraging. In Iraq (130th) and Syria (126th), the state uses every means to control the media and stifle any dissenting voice. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein especially has set his country's media the sole task of relaying his regime's propaganda. In Libya (129th) and Tunisia (128th), no criticism of Col. Muammar Kadhafi or President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali is tolerated.

The political weakening of the Palestinian Authority (82nd) means it has made few assaults on press freedom. However, Islamic fundamentalist opposition media have been closed, several attempts made to intimidate and attack local and foreign journalists and many subjects remain taboo. The aim is to convey a united image of the Palestinian people and to conceal aspects such a demonstrations of support for attacks on Israel.

The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.

Good and Bad Examples in Africa

Eritrea (132nd) and Zimbabwe (122nd) are the most repressive countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The entire privately-owned press in Eritrea was banned by the government in September 2001 and 18 journalists are currently imprisoned there. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is notable for his especially harsh attitude to the foreign and opposition media.

At the other end of the spectrum, Benin is in 21st place despite being classified by the UN Development Programme as one of the world 15 poorest countries. Other African states, such as South Africa (26th), Mali (43rd), Namibia (31st) and Senegal (47th), have genuine press freedom too.

This Saturday, Oct. 26, tens of thousands of students, peaceniks, priests, union members, war veterans and working moms and dads will gather in Washington D.C. and San Francisco to protest the war on Iraq. It will be the latest and biggest in a series of protests that have been spontaneously emerging across the nation over the past few weeks.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal Washington think-tank that compiles a list of anti-war events planned throughout the country over the next two weeks, says it can barely keep up. "People are organizing at all levels," co-director Amy Quinn told the Washington Post. "I'm not surprised that people are coming out against the war. I am surprised at how organized and vocal people are."

And organizers predict that the Oct. 26 march will be huge. The vote in Congress authorizing Bush to attack Iraq may have been the tipping point for an anti-war movement that has been steadily gaining momentum with each passing week.

"The vote closed all doors. The only real option left for people in terms of stopping the war is to take to the streets," says Global Exchange peace coordinator Kristi Laughlin. The International ANSWER Coalition, a broad-based alliance of activist groups organizing the protest, says it is "confidently expecting" up to a hundred thousand people to show up and be counted.

Many of the marchers will not be lifelong activists, but ordinary Americans who are tired of being ignored by D.C. politicos more interested in expediency than in the nation's welfare. With help from local groups, ANSWER is organizing 250 buses to transport people from around the country to Washington and San Francisco. A demonstration that large should serve as a richly deserved wake-up call to the Bush administration and the Democrats who scurried to join the war effort.

Some recent articles, for example, have raised questions about the participation of fringe groups in organizing these demonstrations. But as many point out, what matters is not the presence of a few radical groups but the remarkable diversity of the participants from all walks of life and every political stripe, both seasoned activists and first-time marchers -- veterans, concerned parents, religious leaders, people of color, teenagers and women. Even Bush's own United Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his plans for war, saying it is "without any justification according to the teachings of Christ." "It is hard to dismiss these people as just kooks," Laughlin says.

The escalating anti-war movement is well aware that Bush's new war will make the world a more dangerous place. If the U.S. makes war on Iraq, we all stand to lose whatever peace and security we now have. Some of the demonstrators may have differing political beliefs, but they are united in their conviction that war with Iraq is not the answer and dissent is democratic. If you, your family, friends and colleagues share this conviction, please join the demonstrators and march for peace this Saturday.

For more information on how you can participate in the protests, visit the InternationalAnswer.org website.

About 29 million gallons of petroleum enters the oceans off North America each year, shows a new study by the National Research Council. The report finds that about 85 percent of that pollution can be blamed not on massive oil spills, but on the lesser amounts released by airplanes, swept into polluted rivers and from the largest culprits: recreational boats and runoff from the land.

The amount of petroleum released into North American and global waters is less than previously thought, the committee found. At the same time, however, new studies show that the environmental effects of a major oil spill are longer lasting than once thought and that even small amounts of petroleum can seriously damage marine life and ecosystems.

"Oil spills can have long lasting and devastating effects on the ocean environment, but we need to know more about damage caused by petroleum from land based sources and small watercraft since they represent most of the oil leaked by human activities," said James Coleman, chair of the committee that wrote the report.

"This doesn't mean we can ignore hazards from drilling and shipping, however," Coleman cautioned. "Although new safety standards and advances in technology reduced the amount of oil that spilled during extraction and transport in the last two decades, the potential is still there for a large spill, especially in regions with lax safety controls."

About 47 million gallons seep naturally from the seafloor into the North American oceans, more than all human sources of petroleum pollution combined. That puts North America in a better position than the world as a whole: worldwide, about 210 million gallons of petroleum enter the sea each year from human caused petroleum sources, with an additional 180 million gallons coming from natural seepage, the report says.

Of the human caused petroleum pollution entering the oceans around North America, less than eight percent comes from oil tanker or pipeline spills, says the report by the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC), titled "Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects."

The report, which relies on data from a variety of sources, is said to be far more accurate than the NRC's last such assessment in 1985.

Oily Waters

Oil slicks visible from the air and birds painted black by oil get the most public attention, but it is consumers of oil -- not the ships that transport it -- who are responsible for most of what finds its way into the ocean, the NRC says.

Oil exploration and extraction are responsible for only three percent of the petroleum that enters the sea, with their effects concentrated where oil drilling rigs are at work in the Gulf of Mexico and in waters off southern California, northern Alaska, and eastern Canada.

The bulk of the 29 million gallons from humanmade sources comes from individually small source that, combined, account for about 25 million gallons of ocean petroleum pollution.

For example, oil runoff from cars and trucks is increasing in coastal areas where the population is growing and roads and parking lots are expanding. More than one half of the land based oil contamination along the North American coastline occurs between Maine and Virginia, where there are dense seaside populations, many cities, several refineries, and high energy use, the report notes.

Rivers polluted by oil in wastewater or the improper disposal of petroleum products are also a major source of oil entering the sea.

Older two stroke engines still found on many recreational boats and jet skis were purposely designed to discharge gasoline and oil. Land runoff and recreational boating account for nearly three-quarters of the petroleum released into the sea each year through human consumption.

Other sources of oil from human activities include military and commercial jets that occasionally jettison excess fuel over the ocean and ships that release oil from their engines while in port or at sea.

The impact of an oil spill on marine life is not directly related to the size of the spill, since even a small spill in an ecologically sensitive area can have long term impacts, the NRC found. A spill's influence also depends on the type and amount of toxics present in the petroleum product being released.

The riskiest toxics are a class of organic compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. Growing evidence suggests that PAHs and other toxic compounds can have adverse effects on marine species even at very low concentrations. This means chronic releases from runoff and recreational boating may inflict more damage than previously thought, and that the effects of large spills may last as long as residual oil persists in the area.

Gulf of Mexico Impacted

The Gulf of Mexico is the most heavily impacted of North America's ocean waters, the NRC learned. About 20 percent of the land based petroleum entering North American coastal waters ends up in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf also receives most of the oil and gas that is emitted by recreational boats and jet skis, and oil drilling rigs concentrated in the Gulf spill thousands of gallons each year.

The amount of petroleum released during oil drilling has dropped in recent years, but the threat of a spill cannot be ignored, the NRC warns. The report recommends that the U.S. Minerals Management Service promote extraction techniques that minimize accidental or intentional releases of petroleum.

Other federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should also continue to work with state environmental agencies and industry to minimize the potential for spills from pipelines and other coastal petroleum facilities.

While new shipping standards have helped reduce oil spills and deliberate discharges from tankers and other ocean going vessels, about 2.7 million gallons of petroleum still spill into North American waters while being transported to market. The report cautions that large tanker spills are still possible, particularly in areas without stringent safety procedures and inspections.

To better monitor how much oil consumers and industry are depositing in the ocean, the NRC recommends that federal agencies work with state and local environmental bureaus to develop a system for documenting sources of runoff. The report also calls on the EPA to continue efforts to phase out older, inefficient two stroke engines, which power many jet skis and other small watercraft.

The report also says federal ocean management agencies should try to develop more accurate techniques for estimating the amount of oil that seeps into the ocean from geologic formations beneath the seafloor. This would help researchers distinguish the effects of petroleum released by natural processes versus human activities, and study how marine life responds to the introduction of oil.

Altered Ecosystems

Where oil seeps naturally into the ocean, local marine ecosystems have been altered, the report says. For example, in seepage areas in the Santa Barbara Channel off California, there is little biodiversity, with just bacteria and a few invertebrate species surviving in the petroleum slurry.

Research conducted in the wake of the EXXON Valdez spill in 1989 shows that large oil spills can be devastating to the marine environment. They kill fish, mammals, birds and their offspring, destroy plant life, and reduce the food supply for organisms that survive.

Spills also disrupt the structure and function of marine communities and ecosystems, although more research is needed to better understand how spills affect overall populations, the NRC says.

Less is known about how chronic releases from sources such as land runoff and inefficient two stroke engines on boats and jet skis affect marine ecology. The report calls for the federal government, in cooperation with academia and industry, to launch a major research effort aimed at better understanding how chronic releases of petroleum affect the marine environment, particularly when organisms in already polluted waters are exposed to the multiple toxics found in oil.

The NRC report is available online at http://www.nap.edu

Once upon a time, a young American could proclaim "Ich bin ein Berliner" and Germany and all of Europe would be thrilled. On Thursday the crowds were out on the streets of Berlin for another American president -- but to revile George Bush, not to praise him.

Rank ingratitude for all America did for Berlin and Germany during the Cold War? Perhaps, and certainly many Europeans of a certain age would beg to differ with the protesters. Nevertheless, the demonstrations are as symptomatic of the times as the rapture that greeted John Kennedy in Berlin 39 years ago. The harsh truth is that for all the platitudes we hear about how shared values, heritage and interests make Europe and America partners for all eternity, the glue that binds them has rarely been thinner.

In some ways there is nothing wrong with this. The Soviet Union, the common threat that made the transatlantic alliance necessary, has disappeared. Painstakingly and not without immense problems, the European Union is forging its own political identity, which in the nature of things is shaping a different European world view.

But that alone does not explain today's chill -- and it certainly does not explain how, in a few short months, the Bush administration has managed to exhaust the huge stock of European sympathy and solidarity that it was given after Sept. 11.

If anything, that horrific event has strengthened all the disturbing trends that were apparent in Washington beforehand -- unilateralism, highhandedness, a disdain for any treaty that might, even marginally, tie the administration's hands, and a tendency to interpret the verb "consult" to mean making a weary pretence of listening to the views of others before doing exactly what it intended to do anyway.

The attacks on Sept. 11 seem only to have hardened the assumption in Washington that what's good for the U.S. is, by definition, good for everyone else. It has hardened the conviction that it is America's manifest destiny to launch a war against Iraq, whatever its allies and the United Nations might think, and whatever the destabilising effects across the Middle East. Mr. Bush talks of a Palestinian state, but undoes that good work by imposing his simplistic with-us-or-against-us template of the "war against terrorism" on a conflict that has infinite shades of grey.

And the charge of hypocrisy must now be added to the charge of selfish shortsightedness for the rejection of the Kyoto treaty and the new International Criminal Court. The country that tells other countries to open their markets has closed its own to steel imports and brought in farm subsidies that would make the inventors of the Common Agricultural Policy blush. Here any pretence of world leadership is dropped. The name of the game is pandering for votes in states that might help Mr Bush and the Republicans in the elections of 2002 and 2004.

Europe, to be sure, is not without blame for the sorry state of the relationship. Inevitably but maddeningly, it still speaks with many voices. Its collective failure to modernise and strengthen its armed forces is a scandal that undercuts Europe's claims to equal partnership and its ability to defuse the world's crises, of which the most dangerous is now Kashmir. There, too, America must lead, because there is no one else.

But the onus in Europe this week is on Mr Bush. He should relearn the traditional sense of "consult" -- to listen to the views of others, and take them into account -- and admit that sometimes they may have a point.

News that the United States has been voted off the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN international drug monitoring board has elicited vows of revenge from conservatives in Congress. They threaten to withhold payment on the long-unpaid dues owed the UN. They blame our adversaries -- China, Cuba, Sudan and others -- for the insult. But the secret votes enabled allies as well as adversaries to vent their mounting exasperation with US policies. At the last session of the commission, the United States stood virtually alone as it opposed resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a human right to adequate food and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, while it continued to resist efforts to ban landmines.

The global outrage is by no means limited to US policies on the Human Rights Commission. In barely 100 days in office, the Bush Administration has declared the Kyoto accords on global warming dead, spurning eight years of work by 186 countries. It banned US support for any global organization that provides family planning or abortion services, even as an AIDS pandemic makes this a matter of life and death. It bade farewell to the antiballistic missile treaty, while slashing spending on nuclear safety aid for Russia. It casually bombed Iraq, helped shoot down a missionary's plane over Peru and enforced an illegal and irrational boycott of Cuba. It sabotaged promising talks between North and South Korea, publicly humiliating South Korea's Nobel prizewinning president, Kim Dae Jung. The nomination as UN ambassador of John Negroponte, former proconsul in Honduras during the illegal contra wars, is an insult. "There is a perception," said one diplomat in carefully parsed words, "that the US wants to go it alone."

Our lawless exceptionalism is a deeply rooted, bipartisan policy that didn't begin with the Bush Administration. Under previous Presidents, Democratic and Republican, Washington denounced state-sponsored terrorism while reserving the right to bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan or unleash a contra army on Nicaragua. It condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait while reserving the right to invade Panama or bomb Serbia on its own writ. The United States advocated war crimes tribunals against foreign miscreants abroad while opposing an international criminal court that might hold our own officials accountable. Our leaders proclaim the value of law and democracy as they spurn the UN Security Council and ignore the World Court when their rulings don't suit them. The Senate refuses to ratify basic human rights treaties. The US international business community even opposes efforts to eliminate child labor. And of course, there are those UN dues, which make us the world's largest deadbeat.

Worse is yet to come. US policy is a direct reflection of its militarization and the belief that we police the world, we make the rules. The Bush Administration plans a major increase in military spending to finance new weapons to expand the US ability to "project" force around the globe -- stealth bombers, drones, long-range missiles and worse. The tightly strung Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sounds increasingly like an out-of-date Dr. Strangelove as he pushes to open a new military front in space, shattering hopes of keeping the heavens a zone of peace.

As the hyperpower, with interests around the world, America has the largest stake in law and legitimacy. But the ingrained assumption that we are legislator, judge, jury and executioner mocks any notion of global order. From the laws of war to the laws of trade, it is increasingly clear that Washington believes international law applies only to the weak. The weak do what they must; the United States does what it will.

After the cold war, we labeled our potential adversaries "rogue nations" -- violent, lawless, willing to trample the weak and ignore international law and morality to enforce their will. Now, in the vote at the UN, in the headlines of papers across Europe, in the planning of countries large and small, there is a growing consensus that the world's most destructive rogue nation is the most powerful country of them all.

This is not a role most Americans support. Public interest groups and concerned individuals will vigorously remind Congress of the widespread popular backing in this country for paying our UN dues, for global AIDS funding and other forms of international involvement. Unilateralism must be opposed in all its guises, from national missile "defense" to undermining efforts to curb global warming. The United States was founded on a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Let's keep it that way.