President Obama’s pledges of multi-lateralism and respect for the views of other nations suffered a major setback on Wednesday at the United Nations. Amazingly, he did even worse than President Bush when votes for a resolution to condemn the unilateral US embargo of Cuba increased from 185 to 187 in favor, 3 opposed.

Continued accommodation to the dwindling special interest minority of Senator Bob Menendez and other hard line Cuban Americans is undermining the international credibility of the President.

Most Americans, including government officials, may not pay much attention. However, this annual General Assembly debate signals that no US foreign policy is as universally disliked as our trade war against Cuba.

The margin of the US defeat reflects the first dramatic failure of the Obama Administration to live up to its promise to improve US standing in the world.

The tragedy is that the White House could have easily influenced the vote by making straightforward reforms on travel consistent with its own values and goals and the opinion of two-thirds of Americans.

Ironically, had they done so, the New York Philharmonic would have been able to provide a counterpoint to the UN vote, performing a magnificent concert in Havana at the end of this week. (See a regretful post from Havana on progressoweekly.com.)

The President also could have addressed humanitarian concern about the embargo by licensing sale and donation of construction, medical and agricultural equipment and supplies in response to last year’s triple hurricane devastation.

US hypocrisy in defense of the embargo is equaled by Israel’s hypocrisy in voting with us. Its own citizens, unlike Americans, are free to vacation, invest and work in Cuba.

Dr. Susan Rice, the US representative to the UN, appeared to miss the point entirely when she opened her UN speech in a Ronald Reagan tone:

Here we go again. I suppose old habits die hard.

The hostile language we have just heard from the Foreign Minister of Cuba seems straight out of the Cold War era and is not conducive to constructive progress.

Does she not realize that the rest of the world sees us as enmeshed in a cold war mind set regarding Cuba? Most of her speech was not as objectionable, but it manifests a defensive insularity about the limited significance of Obama's initiatives to date. (Full text here and Cuba's response.)

Reasons for hope may be found in a post-vote interview with Associated Press by Cuba's Foreign Minister:

Rodriguez told AP he was "a little bit surprised" by the vehemence of Rice's initial comments, saying he knew and respected her and held her in high esteem.

"She is an articulate person, a decent and well-meaning person, like president Obama," he said. "And we respect both of them for that."

He added that Cuba recognizes there may be opportunities for talks with the Obama administration that were not possible with the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Ted Piccone summarizes the underlying problems nicely in a Brookings Institution blog:

If anything, the president seems to have limited his options by locking himself in to a policy of mutual reciprocity that lets Havana determine the pace of progress in unfreezing 50 years of icy relations. On more than one occasion, the president has reiterated his view that, in return for letting Cuban-American families travel and send remittances to their loved ones on the island, the Castro regime must take the next step toward better relations. He reportedly asked his Spanish counterpart, Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, to tell President Raul Castro to get moving on democratic reforms. According to an unnamed U.S. official quoted in El Pais, Obama said, "We're taking steps, but if they don't take steps too, it's going to be very hard for us to continue." Of course, the fact that financial donations from pro-embargo Cuban Americans to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which happens to be led by pro-embargo Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), have jumped six-fold since 2006 also may have something to do with this approach. It at least seems to reaffirm another old cliché: money talks. full text

I am not yet prepared to conclude that the Obama Administration has sold its principles for a mess of Miami pottage. But the President must quickly send a signal more compatible with the values and aspirations he voiced at the United Nations, several international venues, and during his campaign.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development

Links

To hear the entire embargo debate, go here and look for 28 October, 27th plenary meeting.

Illustrations of the humanitarian and developmental cost of the embargo in the 117 page annual report by the Secretary General of the United Nations here

Rep. Jim McGovern and Steve Clemmons suggested the US should have abstained, as posted on thewashingtonnote.com

My further pre-vote thoughts here

State Department spokesman on the vote during daily briefing