They are willing to support the United Nations as the basis for attacking Iraq, but generally see that body as a threat to US sovereignty. These "new isolationists" are mostly young Republicans, but they have been joined by the leadership in a trend that has brought expressions of concern from corporate and political leaders. PNS commentator Sanford Gottlieb is author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?" published by Westview Press, and has worked for over 30 years for private organizations in the field of international arms control.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Six months before his death, the late Sonny Bono urged his fellow Representatives to pass a law to protect "our nation's land and America's heritage from the United Nations' sovereignty grab."

Bono's appeal came during a debate on one of half a dozen attempts in the House last year to restrict or end U.S. participation in the U.N. Even as Saddam Hussein was blocking U.N. inspectors, a faction in Congress was busy rejecting the world body -- so effectively that the U.N., far from grabbing power, was already weakened in its peacekeeping role by U.S. reluctance to pay off its big backlog in dues.

Anti-U.N. votes in the house, and opposition to the chemical weapons treaty in the Senate, are but two signs of a creeping isolationism. These new isolationists may reject the label, but the trend is unmistakable.

It may seem like something of a paradox that many of those who follow this line also support military action against Saddam. But these new isolationists bear little resemblance to the legislators of the 1930s who opposed military preparedness. Today, this growing bloc is anchored by -- but not limited to -- relatively junior right-wing Republicans who happily vote for mammoth military budgets at Cold War levels. They are essentially go-it-aloners who are ready to endorse military forces so long as U.S. troops are not used in ground combat -- bombing is OK.

The core of this bloc is chiefly concerned with such social issues as abortion and property rights and shows little interest in foreign affairs beyond world trade. They are "pro-U.S.," suspicious of diplomacy and speak frequently of "national sovereignty," and generally oppose arms control treaties, multinational peacekeeping and U.S. leadership on global problems.

In the House, one Republican sponsored amendment demanding US withdrawal from the U.N. garnered 54 votes -- only half as many as a measure asking for a study on the U.N. becoming a part-time body and moving its headquarters. A move to block payment of $100 million owed by the U.S. for U.N. agencies and peacekeeping amassed 165 votes. The amendment that spurred Bono's eloquence eliminated funding for several UNESCO programs -- and it passed, 222 to 203.

Newcomers are not the only ones rebelling against the complexities of today's interconnected world. The Senate Republican leadership almost sank the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty negotiated by the Reagan and Bush administrations and supported by Colin Powell, U.S. chemical manufacturers, and the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

First Jesse Helms, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, nearly succeeded in preventing any vote on ratification. After months of bickering, the combined efforts of pro-treaty GOP Senators Richard Lugar and John McCain, a tepid endorsement by Majority Leader Trent Lott, and the belated involvement of President Clinton, the matter finally did come to a vote. Then 26 of the 55 Senate Republicans opposed the treaty, including the entire leadership except majority leader Trent Lott. This made it difficult to muster the 67 votes needed for approval, but the measure passed -- and work can now begin on a global system to verify compliance with a ban on chemical weapons.

A bill agreeing to pay off the U.S. dues backlog did make it out of the Senate, but was killed in the House when a majority tied this to an unrelated dispute.

This narrow view can prevail in Congress because most Americans are indifferent to what happens abroad, and generally satisfied with the situation at home. And the media, for the most part, barely covers events outside the United States -- at least until a crisis erupts.

To the establishment, this is a "dangerous drift toward disengagement from the responsibilities of global leadership" in the words of a two-page ad in the Washington Post February 11, signed by 91 top corporate executives and 45 former public officials, led by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. "This kind of modern isolationism seriously damages American interests."

For all its economic and military power, the United States cannot by itself cope with an Asian financial crisis, weapons of mass destruction, ethnic wars, population pressures and climate change. Problems that fail to stop at national borders require U.S. leadership -- and much of the burden will have to be shared.