Matthew Yglesias smiles approvingly at this New York Times piece arguing that incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, incoming National Security Adviser James Jones and Defense Secretary Robert Gates all share a common determination to bolster non-military foreign policy spending. This means investing more to boost the State Department's foreign service, the incipient Office of Stability and Reconstruction, and foreign development aid among others.

You do not typically expect a Secretary of Defense to argue forcefully for the increase in spending for a government bureaucracy that the does not control. Robert Gates, though, is not an ordinary Secretary of Defense. In fact, he has been on the case (as have we) for quite a long time. Here is an except of a speech on the topic almost exactly a year ago.

Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year's budget for the Department of Defense -- not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion -- less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.

Despite new hires, there are only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers -- less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group. And personnel challenges loom on the horizon. By one estimate, 30 percent of USAID's Foreign Service officers are eligible for retirement this year -- valuable experience that cannot be contracted out.

Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other departments and institutions.

ABC News is reporting that Obama confidant, former Assistant Secretary of State and member of President Clinton's National Security Council, Susan Rice is slated to be the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. This is great news. The fact that President-elect Obama is entrusting US diplomacy at the United Nations to such a close adviser is a sure sign of the high priority to which the new administration will place US-UN relations. Deeper still, her background as a regional Africa expert will come in handy. About 2/3rds of all discussions at the Security Council are about situations in Africa.

More broadly, Rice is known in foreign policy circles as an innovative, forward thinking foreign policy wonk who pays special attention to the connectivity of today's threats and challenges. As a diplomat, I expect her to be fairly sharp-elbowed, which is not a bad quality for Turtle Bay!

Here is how UN Foundation head Tim Wirth described Rice to Spencer Ackerman a couple of weeks ago.

Rice saw connectivity in the world's problems, instead of viewing them through the traditional prism of individual state power.

"She was one of the few people to live in the foreign-policy world who understood global issues, transnational issues like human rights, climate change and terrorism," said Wirth, who worked with Rice when she was at the NSC and who now heads the United Nations Foundation. "The foreign-policy community is largely about political relationships. That's what drives the [typical] foreign-policy world. But the new one is transnational problems, problems that don't have passports."

UPDATE: I should also note that Rice has been a leading critic of the current administration's Darfur policy, which she described as a policy of "bluster and retreat." When she sets foot at first avenue, I expect her to focus like a laser beam on Darfur. The fledgling peacekeeping mission and stalled peace process could certainly use the help.

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA--It's something of an understatement to say that President-elect Barack Obama is admired here in Ethiopia. Outside the UNICEF headquarters, a young street vendor was hawking bootleg copies of Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. I passed on the DVD, but did pick up the Ethiopian version of Dreams From My Father. According to an Amharic speaking friend the Ethiopian publisher took some liberties with the title, which literally translates as "Secrets to Change and Greatness."

by John Anthony

In what can only be described as a bold challenge, and an even more surprising upset, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) today toppled the Dean of the House of Representatives, fellow Democrat, John Dingell (D-Detroit), for chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee's jurisdiction is expansive, including health care, environment and energy, all areas where President-elect Obama is likely to seek comprehensive legislation early in his first term.

Waxman is best remembered recently for his numerous hearings and oversight investigations of the Bush administration, most notably on issues pertaining to Iraq, and the faulty intelligence used as a precursor to the U.S. invasion. For most of his life, John Dingell has served as the auto industry's representative in Washington, fighting passionately for the interests and concerns of both automakers and their workers. During much of this time he also opposed meaningful increases in automobile fuel efficiency standards. 2007's spike in crude oil, rising concerns over global warming and national security considerations proved too much for Dingell and the auto industry to beat back from their Alamo-like position, and modest mileage improvements, 35 miles per gallon, fleet-wide, by 2020, were imposed.

Given today's results, it's clear that many Democrats weren't looking forward to another round vs. John Dingell and the Big Three. The U.S. transportation sector accounts for almost 30 percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions, and many climate change and renewable energy advocates are confident that Henry Waxman will wield a more progressive gavel over alternative energy and emissions reduction legislation.

(cross-posted at On Day One)

A sneak preview of an ad, signed by dozens of Republican and Democratic foreign policy luminaries, that will run in Thursday's New York Times.

In today's rapidly changing world of interdependence, globalization, and transnational threats, the United States must balance a strong military with creative diplomacy to secure America's interests. We must recognize that the United Nations is a critical platform and partner for advancing international cooperation on today's global threats and challenges, such as poverty and disease, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and climate change.

The UN cannot succeed without strong U.S. leadership and support. The next President has a unique opportunity to revitalize the U.S.-UN relationship as a symbol of America's commitment to constructive international cooperation. This investment will pay off substantially by helping to enhance our standing internationally and strengthen our ability to keep America safe and strong.

The letter, sponsored by the Partnership for a Secure America and the UN Foundation and spearheaded by former Democratic Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Republican National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, also includes the signatures of various high-profile Senators, Representatives, and officials from both parties. These foreign policy experts express a UNanimoUS (UN-U.S., get it yet?) consent that the incoming Obama administration should, among other important steps, pay U.S. debts to the UN on time, seek a seat on the Human Rights Council, and provide concrete support for UN peacekeeping.

If you can't wait to see the ad in tomorrow's Times, check out coverage in WaPo and Reuters, or take a look at the pdf version.

The blogosphere is abuzz with speculations on who will attain which cabinet posts. Rather than engage in any uniformed speculation myself, let me point readers to Spencer Ackerman's excellent profile of Susan Rice. Rice was a member of President Clinton's National Security Council and served in the State Department. She's known in foreign policy circles as a forward thinking pragmatist. She was a close adviser to President-elect Obama during the campaign and will likely assume an important foreign policy making role in the new administration.

Former Sen. Tim Wirth, the Clinton administration's undersecretary of state for global affairs from 1993 to 1997, said Rice saw connectivity in the world's problems, instead of viewing them through the traditional prism of individual state power.

"She was one of the few people to live in the foreign-policy world who understood global issues, transnational issues like human rights, climate change and terrorism," said Wirth, who worked with Rice when she was at the NSC and who now heads the United Nations Foundation. "The foreign-policy community is largely about political relationships. That's what drives the [typical] foreign-policy world. But the new one is transnational problems, problems that don't have passports."

The Enough Project's Gayle Smith, David Sullivan, Andrew Sweet just released a new report, "The Price of Prevention: Getting Ahead of Global Crises," which argues that rather than simply responding to crises as they arise, America's foreign policy apparatus should be overhauled and focus on conflict prevention. Read the full report to see how doing so would save a lot of money and a lot of lives.

The report is part of the Center for American Progress' Sustainable Security series. What is sustainable security? Gayle Smith explains:

It's veterans day here in the United States. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America chose this day to launch a new social networking site for veterans, Community of Veterans.

Jeet Heer has more on the origins of Veterans Day.

(cross-posted at On Day One)

As rumors swirl about whom U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama might appoint to high-profile Cabinet positions, there has been comparatively little gossip about who will, most literally, be the face of the next administration to the rest of the world. Whether or not Obama makes the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN an official "Cabinet" position, he or she will play a tremendous role in rehabilitating the United States' reputation and pushing through solutions to the biggest global problems.

Two names that have been floated for the post are Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK and a prominent Obama supporter during the primaries, and Susan Rice, a former Africa specialist in the Clinton administration. While Kennedy's appointment seems unlikely, the only question about Rice, a seasoned foreign policy hand and member of Obama's closest circle, is probably where she ends up in the administration.

(And if Caroline doesn't make it, Robert Kennedy, Jr. is purportedly being considered to head the Environmental Protection Agency.)

(photo from flickr user Vaguely Artistic under a Creative Commons license)

Given the level of enthusiasm in the country, this should not come as a surprise.

Mothers in Kenya have marked Barack Obama's historic win in the US presidential elections by naming their newborns after him and his wife.

More than half of the babies born in a Kisumu Hospital [near the village where Obama's father was born] on the day after the election were named either Barack or Michelle Obama.

These baby Baracks and baby Michelles join a number of 10-month old "Kofis" -- a name popularized after former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan came to Kenya in January to mediate after the country's contested elections.

(Image from flickr user theeyesview under a Creative Commons license)

The Secretary-General congratulates U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama.

"As Secretary-General of the UN, I look forward to working with the new administration to fulfil our common goals and enormously important objectives," Mr. Ban told reporters in New York. "This is, I believe, an historic opportunity."

He recalled previous statements by Mr. Obama, who was elected last night and will take office next January, in which he spoke about the strong stake the US has in the UN.

This will be a "good opportunity not only for, not only the United States, but the United Nations as a whole to resolve all issues through dialogue," the Secretary-General said, expressing confidence that there will be greater cooperation between the Organization and the US.

The world is ready to work together.

The front page of newspapers from the United States and around the world. Via Media Tumblr. Check out the Newseum for more.

The money quote:

"To all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

The English language Pakistani newspaper The Dawn offers a great round up of world leaders' reactions to Obama's Victory:

'Your brilliant victory rewards a tireless commitment to serve the American people. It also crowns an exceptional campaign whose inspiration and exaltation have proved to the entire world the vitality of American democracy,' French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a letter to Obama.

'By choosing you, the American people have chosen change, openness and optimism,' Sarkozy added.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised Obama's 'energising politics... his progressive values and his vision for the future' as congratulations poured in before the final result was even announced in the race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

China's President Hu Jintao said in a written message: 'In a new historical era, I look forward to... taking our bilateral relationship of constructive cooperation to a new level.'

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso pledged to work with the new US leader to strengthen relations.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon congratulated Obama on his 'triumph' and invited him to visit the United States' southern neighbour.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Obama's victory was a landmark for equality.
'Twenty-five years ago Martin Luther King had a dream of an America where men and women would be judged not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character,' Rudd told reporters. 'Today what America has done is turn that dream into a reality.'

Because of the centrality of two eastern states (Pennsylvania and Virginia) we should know by the early evening whether this is going to be a late night or an early night. Either way, UN Dispatch will be up until the polls close and a winner is declared. I'll be covering the elections from an international viewing party at the Historic Sixth and I Synagogue in Washington, DC (co-sponsored by Humanity in Action and L'Institut Montagne) and from the Democratic National Committee election watch party where I'm credentialed as media. Finally, readers in the Netherlands should attend the President's Night 2008 party at the Melkveg with which I will be corresponding throughout the evening via phone.

For people on the go tonight, check out UN Dispatch's twitter feed for updates throughout the evening.

Interested in what the rest of the world thinks about today's elections?

Check out MorningSide Post for international live blogging; PRI's The World for the global elite's take; and Voices Without Votes to see how bloggers around the world are reacting to today's historic elections.

Soon the election will happen, and America will have chosen its next President. The constant horse race polling will stop, but the speculation will not. Of course, this speculation will obviously not be about who will be the next President, but rather who will advise, represent, and generally surround that president. Of particular interest to us here at UN Dispatch, is the President's selection of a new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Of course, we have no idea who it will be, but it is interesting to think a bit about the position, and maybe that could give some insight into who might best fill the role.

What is not widely known about the position of Permanent U.S. Representative to the UN, or Perm Rep, is that it (like a few other major government posts) can be elevated to a cabinet-level position, should the Commander-in-Chief so desire. Indeed, the position has been part of the cabinet under some administrations, beginning with that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his Perm Rep, Henry C. Lodge. Other administrations, including Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, have also had UN Ambassadors as part of their cabinets, a group that includes names like Adlai Stevenson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Bill Richardson, among many others. Some administrations have also included the Perm Rep in the National Security Council, making the Perm Rep a key adviser to the President on matters of security and foreign policy.

So beyond speculation of who the U.S. Ambassador to the UN will be, speculation should also consider what the position will be. Would an Obama administration include the Perm Rep in the cabinet? Would a McCain administration include the position as part of the National Security Council? Do the answers to those questions make a major difference in who should be selected?

What do you think?

(Cross-posted to On Day One)

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to drop its long-standing embargo against Cuba...for the 17th year in a row. In what an L.A. Times editorial termed one of "New York's rites of autumn," the lopsided vote -- 185 countries voted in favor, three opposed, and two abstained -- demonstrated the international consensus that U.S. policy toward the communist Caribbean island only grows more archaic by the year.

One need not agree with the GA president's rather silly statement that Cuba is "a champion of the values that the world needs for the survival of the human species" to concur that sustaining an embargo that only harms the Cuban people and does not even let Americans travel to the country makes little to no policy sense. Here's the New America Foundation's Steve Clemons on how easy it would be for the next president to improve the U.S. relationship with Cuba:

If this year's vote is any indication, the United States is not getting any more support for its outdated embargo as the years go by. One more country than last year voted for the resolution, and the Marshall Islands flipped to the "abstained" column -- leaving only Israel, Palau, and the United States sticking with this Cold War relic.

(cross-posted at On Day One)

Via Yglesias, Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel offers a defense of the United Nations. From the New Yorker:

Critics have suggested that McCain's League of Democracies could diminish the role of the United Nations. When I mentioned this to Hagel, he said, "What is the point of the United Nations? The whole point, as anyone who has taken any history knows, was to bring all nations of the world together in some kind of imperfect body, a forum that allows all governments of the world, regardless of what kinds of government, to work through their problems--versus attacking each other and going to war. Now, in John's League of Democracies, does that mean Saudi Arabia is out? Does that mean our friend King Abdullah in Jordan is out? It would be only democracies. Well, we've got a lot of allies and relationships that are pretty important to us, and to our interests, who would be out of that club. And the way John would probably see China and Russia, they wouldn't be in it, either. So it would be an interesting Book-of-the-Month Club.

"But in order to solve problems you've got to have all the players at the table," Hagel went on, his voice rising. "How are you going to fix the problems in Pakistan, Afghanistan--the problems we've got with poverty, proliferation, terrorism, wars--when the largest segments of society in the world today are not at the table?" He paused, then added, more calmly, "The United Nations, as I've said many times, is imperfect. We've got NATO, multilateral institutions, multilateral-development banks, the World Trade Organization--all have flaws, that's true. But if you didn't have them what would you have? A world completely out of control, with no structure, no order, no boundaries."

At a Nothing But Nets event in Atlanta on Wednesday, some amazingly talented students from the Ron Clark Academy offered their take on the presidential campaign. From CNN.

UPDATE: Inspired by the kids? Then check out Nothing But Nets, an organization that raises money to send anti-Malarial bed-nets to Africa. Malaria needlessly kills one million people each year, the vast majority of whom are children under five years old. Simple bed nets save lives. One $10 donation buys a net large enough to cover a family of four for up to four years.

Send a net. Save a Life.

UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro fears, with good reason, that the triple whammy of the financial crisis, global food shortage, and climate change will jeopardize countries' abilities to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Not so fast, the Bush administration has admirably responded.

From President Bush:

"America is committed, and America must stay committed, to international development for reasons that remain true regardless of the ebb and flow of the markets."

And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

"Some will ask the inevitable question in these troubled times: 'How can we afford it?'" she said. "I would ask instead, 'How can we not afford it?'"

Secretary Rice's point should be sharply compelling -- given the benefit to national security that so-called "soft" power brings -- but in an election, the first question appeals a little too easily to voters. This is likely why Senators Obama and Biden have already admitted that their plans to double foreign aid will have to be "delayed," while the McCain camp has been murky on the subject.

The Bush administration will not be the one determining the level of foreign aid over the next four years, but even here, the rhetoric may overshadow the substance. While the United States still gives over $20 billion in development assistance -- more than any other country -- it cut this budget by 3.5% in 2007. Still, both campaigns could do well to listen to a little lameduck optimism here.

The Russian Mission to the United Nations issued a bizarre statement to the UN press corps today stating simply, "We have received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting financial contribution to his Presidential campaign. In this connection we would like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations or the Russian Government do not finance political activity in foreign countries."

Intrigued, I called the Russian Mission and a press officer there directed me to this item on the Mission's website. It seems that the McCain-Palin campaign sent a generic fundraising letter to Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly I Churkin. The letter, dated September 29, 2008, reads in part:

Dear Friend...Today I am reaching out to you to ask you to sign and return the enclosed 2008 Pledge of Support along with a campaign contribution of $35, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, $2,500 or even $5,000 to the McCain-Palin Victory 2008.

As we have already witnessed, this has been an extremely tough, hard-fought campaign, and it will be to the very end.

In recent years, elections have been fought within the margins of small differences. This one clearly will not be. The differences between our Republican candidates and that of the Obama Democrats could not be greater. And we intend to fight as hard as we can to ensure that our principles prevail.

The Russian Mission to the United Nations has not heard from the McCain-Palin campaign since issuing the statement this morning.

Tonight's Debate is supposed to be about domestic policy, but we'll chime in when we can onTwitter.

You may recall that in the Vice-Presidential debate, Governor Palin came down hard against the Government of Sudan and even recommended a no-fly-zone over Darfur. Since then, the intrepid ABC news investigative team discovered that "Palin owns up to $15,000 in Legg Mason International Equities, which the McCain-Palin campaign specified is the Legg Mason International Equity Fund. That Fund owns shares in two companies the Genocide Intervention Network labels 'highest offenders' because, in that organization's judgment, they empower the government of Sudan at the expense of the country's marginalized populations."

Upon learning of the Legg-Mason-Sudan connection, a McCain-Palin spokesperson said that the Governor will divest from the fund. This sets a great example. Thanks, Gov.

(cross-posted at On Da