RSS Feed MenuThe FT reports:
In the new spirit of multilateralism, the US mission at the UN put out a “progress report” last month that noted: “The United States mission to the United Nations is demonstrating to the world every day the changes that have come to US foreign policy under President Obama. … In word and deed, in substance and in tone, we are helping to show a different face to the world, and America has already won tangible results.”
How nice!
But the FT neglects to itemize what those “tangible results” might be. So let’s go to the report itself. Remember as you read, keep asking: is this a result? is it tangible?
USUN achieved a consensus in the Security Council to strengthen sanctions on North Korea in response to its recent missile launch.
Note: the Obama administration is not claiming that sanctions were actually strengthened – they weren’t – but only that it achieved a consensus that such sanctions should be strengthened at some future point. Which has not yet arrived. But the next sentence is even more amusing:
The U.S. Mission has also worked to promote solutions to the humanitarian crisis and end the genocide in Darfur, as well as to support the faltering peace process in Sudan; address the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka; strengthen essential peacekeeping operations in Africa; buttress the UN presence in Afghanistan; demand a halt to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, ensure humanitarian relief in Gaza, and reinforce Special Envoy George Mitchell’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East; support Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence; increase international efforts to help Iraqis displaced by the war; support a self-governing, independent Kosovo that protects all of its citizens; help young democracies such as Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone, and Liberia move successfully from war to peace; fight the scourge of piracy off the Somali coast; and cooperate with Russia to extend the mandate for the UN peacekeeping mission in Georgia.
Reading that long train of words, you would be naturally inclined to understand that the US mission to the UN has in fact addressed the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka – has in fact strengthened peacekeeping operations in Africa – has in fact buttressed the UN presence in Afghanistan etc. Read closer! Notice the semi-colons! Recall your grammar! The semi-colons substitute for the implied verb phrase “worked to promote solutions.” Written in full, the paragraph would read:
The U.S. Mission has also worked to promote solutions to the humanitarian crisis and end the genocide in Darfur, as well as to support the faltering peace process in Sudan; has worked to promote solutions to address the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka; has worked to promote solutions to strengthen essential peacekeeping operations in Africa; has worked to promote solutions to buttress the UN presence in Afghanistan; has worked to promote solutions to demand a halt to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, has worked to promote solutions to ensure humanitarian relief in Gaza, has worked to promote solutions to reinforce Special Envoy George Mitchell’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East; has worked to promote solutions to support Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence; has worked to promote solutions to increase international efforts to help Iraqis displaced by the war; has worked to promote solutions to support a self-governing, independent Kosovo that protects all of its citizens; has worked to promote solutions to help young democracies such as Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone, and Liberia move successfully from war to peace; has worked to promote solutions to fight the scourge of piracy off the Somali coast; and has worked to promote solutions to cooperate with Russia to extend the mandate for the UN peacekeeping mission in Georgia.
Note: the US mission to the UN has not in fact achieved any of these things. But it is working hard to generate progress to achieving these things. These are not results of any kind, tangible or otherwise. They are aspirations toward results.
What is tangible and real however is the price the US has paid for these non-tangible non-results. After long boycotting the UN Human Rights Council as a shameful arena for dictatorships to abuse the human rights idea, the US has abruptly changed course and sought a seat on the council. Campaigned for it too.
Claudia Rossett has nicely described the operations of this Council:
Excusing, glossing over or simply ignoring the violations of some of the worst abusers, the Council, as noted by a Geneva-based non-governmental organization, UN Watch, has devoted more than 80% of its country resolutions to condemning Israel, while “eroding free speech protections in the name of Islamic sensitivities and steadily eliminating country investigations in places like Belarus, Congo, Cuba, Liberia and Sudan.”
Now the US will participate. I’m sure Ambassador Rice will do her utmost to tut-tut at one-sided condemnations of Israel and to demur at attempts to use international law to punish publishers of the Danish cartoons. But she will legitimate these debates by her involvement. And after she negotiates her way to some shameful compromise – maybe substituting a motion to condemn the cartoonists for one to imprison them – she will then turn around and urge the United States to accept her half-measure.
For this result, the Obama administration grovels? That’s change all right, but not exactly an improvement.
barker13 // May 13, 2009 at 5:30 am
“Thanks” for depressing me before I’ve even finished my first cup of coffee, David.(*SIGH*)BILL
balconesfault // May 13, 2009 at 5:47 am
Is this what forming a “New Majority” is all about?Whining and kvetching?Wow – that should bring people through the door in droves.
balconesfault // May 13, 2009 at 7:14 am
Really … this is just ankle-biting. And independent voters are not persuaded by ankle-biting … it might be red meat for the troops, but it does nothing to expand the tent or generate new ideas. In fact, more likely to drive independents away than attract them.
sinz54 // May 13, 2009 at 7:24 am
Bulldoglover100: That kind of personal attack could get you banned from this blog.Don’t do it again.I want New Majority to remain a forum in which we can all express our ideas without having to be subjected to personal attacks and insults as a means of intimidation.
sinz54 // May 13, 2009 at 7:28 am
balconesfault: Well, here’s an idea.It’s a little early to be criticizing a new Administration for not having achieved tangible results in foreign policy. Obama has only been in office less than 4 months. What other Presidents achieved major foreign policy successes in their first 4 months in office?On the other hand, I am opposed to the U.S. dignifying the U.N. so-called “Human Rights Council” with its presence. It’s a “Human Rights Council” in Orwellian terms, comparable to the Ministry of Love being about something altogether different. Nothing good for the United States can come out of participating in that sham. Ambassador Rice will be sitting there with her hands in her laps, as both Israel and America are being blasted for their track records by regimes which aren’t fit to lick America’s boots.
BarbD // May 13, 2009 at 7:32 am
On the other hand, David, perhaps Susan Rice’s (and thus the US’s) presence on this council will have a positive impact over time on focusing the Human Rights Council on its mission. Or at the very least, ameliorating its worst abuses. We won’t know unless we try.
balconesfault // May 13, 2009 at 7:44 am
Barb has it right. Americans elected Obama. Presumably, that means some number of him were persuaded by his rhetoric – and his rhetoric pointed directly at actions like this. The fact is, if the US does participate but in a different way than David envisions, there could be a positive change. Maybe we don’t accomplish a thing. There is a difference in ideas between sinz’s “Nothing good for the United States can come out of participating in that sham” and barb’s “at the very least, ameliorating its worst abuses” – and truth be told, this last election was waged in no small part about those ideas. At this point, the patriotic thing to do is to note one’s scepticism, but hope for a positive to come out of it … but declarations of failure are somewhat premature, and can sound to outsiders more like wishing for failure than studied analysis.