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If this year's vote is any indication, the United States is not getting any more support for its outdated embargo as the years go by.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.Embedded video from CNN VideoUPDATE: 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 spokesperson from the Russian UN Mission believes that that this letter was received in error. The letter contains no honorifics to describe Ambassador Churkin nor does it refer at all to Russia. It is simply a generic fundraising letter--albeit sent to the top Russian diplomat at the United Nations.
The Russian Mission to the United Nations has not heard from the McCain-Palin campaign since issuing the statement this morning.
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 Day One)
Via Chris Borgen at Opinio Juris, it seems that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, as Governor of Alaska, has supported the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty that has struggled to overcome opposition in the U.S. Senate for years.
From Palin's position governing a state on the Arctic, this support makes sense. Ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty -- which a broad swath of American legislators, on the left and the right, have endorsed, and 155 countries across the world have adopted -- would put the United States back in the game of staking and negotiating claims on vital ocean territory up North.
Fully adopting UNCLOS is, to be blunt, a no-brainer. In addition to the increased access to the ocean's resources that it would grant the United States, it would protect a threatened environment, enhance oil production, and further U.S. military interests -- benefits that have created a diverse coalition of supporters among environmentalist, oil companies, and the U.S. Navy. Due to a stock of unfortunately durable myths, though, the treaty has been stalled for over 20 years. The Better World Campaign offers an excellent run-down of these myths and their clarifications, but an equally strong defense comes directly from Governor Palin, as quoted by Chris.
[R]atification has been thwarted by a small group of senators concerned about the perceived loss of U.S. sovereignty. I believe quite the contrary is the case. If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, we will be denied access to the forum established by the international community to adjudicate claims to submerged lands in the arctic.
What also makes Palin's support curious is the rather ambiguous position of her running mate, John McCain. McCain was long an earnest advocate for Law of the Sea, but he seems to have taken both sides of the issue over the course of the past year or so.
Far more than expertise on Russia, an understanding of the benefits of the Law of the Sea treaty would be a tangible addition that Governor Palin will hopefully bring to the GOP ticket.