The United Nations last week released the final report from its “Global Compact” summit in Shanghai. The compact is a set of 10 principles covering human rights, labor, the environment, and corruption. The United Nations is seeking support for the compact from non-governmental organizations and corporations. Surprisingly, it has found plenty of corporate support for its moral vision of the world.

For the past several decades, American administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have had substantial differences with the United Nations and its member organizations over a wide range of policies. The administrations have had good reason to be skeptical of new U.N. policy initiatives that might harm American interests. Any administration would see the Global Compact for what it is: a document that supports the U.N. institutional political agenda. Many American corporations are less circumspect.

The United Nations rarely deals directly with corporations on policy matters. But in 1999, Secretary-General Annan, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, challenged corporations to support a U.N.-sponsored document that evolved into the Global Compact. Of course, it is difficult to imagine areas where the world body would have less moral authority than human rights, labor, the environment, and corruption. Never mind. Corporations around the world, including many in America, saw advantages in playing politics with the United Nations.

The principles in the Global Compact are written in U.N. double-speak. Consider the first: “Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights.” Human rights, or so it appears, are derived from international proclamations. There is no mention of the sanctity of life or well-being of individuals anywhere in the document. In fact, individuals are mentioned only insofar as they are parts of corporations or other groups, clearly consistent with the U.N. view that individuals are defined by the groups to which they belong and not vice versa.

The second human rights principle, discussing “complicity” in human rights abuses as defined by international organizations, is even more sinister. The divestiture movement literature provides the international for “complicit” corporate behavior for human rights. While not necessarily supporting divestiture, corporations that participate in the U.N. Global Compact lend their good names to principles that could easily provide the foundation for the divestiture movement.

The 10th principle is about corruption: “Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.” The language is clear and transparent, but ironic, when you consider who sponsored its creation.

The language of the Global Compact was negotiated over several years and designed to get new companies to participate. At least 84 American corporations signed on. They include Cisco, Coca-Cola, Deloitte & Touche, DuPont, Gap, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson Controls, KPMG, Nike, Pfizer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and Starbucks.

Not surprisingly, most of these companies have a substantial international presence and may feel particularly vulnerable to pressure from the United Nations. Moreover, as an institution, the United Nations spends more than $18 billion annually. Some businesses may seek to curry favor with the world body by publicly embracing its policies.

Most participating corporations promote the U.N. Global Compact through “corporate citizenship” Web pages. Corporations are anything but irrational, and these corporations obviously believe the public relations benefits outweigh any potential harm that could come from customers or investors closely examining the principles themselves.

If the American president asked corporations to sign a Global Compact that promoted an American governmental vision of the world, Americans would be rightfully alarmed. Corporations properly do not sign political frameworks orchestrated by our government. But corporate leaders, vigilant in preventing our government from overstepping its bounds, appear naive when it comes to the United Nations.

Similarly, American consumers and investors would be surprised if a corporation, in listing its goods deeds, trumpeted its support of a political manifesto that is designed to promote the interests of the federal government. Surprisingly, many American companies perceive an advantage in trumpeting their participation in drafting a similar document for the United Nations.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.