GOOD

At the U.N., “America Is Back”

The former ambassador didn't even like the United Nations. Can Susan Rice repair America's relationship with the rest of the world?

In ordinary times, the appointment of the first female black ambassador to the U.N. would be news in and of itself. But during a year marked by the election of the first black president, and with significant challenges present in every corner of the international community, these are no ordinary times.Indeed, Susan Rice's arrival at the U.N. came during the midst of a worldwide economic downturn, rapid climate change, American troops stretched thin in two foreign wars, potential nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, instability in the Middle East and in a nuclear-armed Pakistan, and a brutal American consumer-fueled Mexican drug war. The need for assertive American leadership in the international community has rarely been greater.But America's image has been severely tarnished in the eyes of the rest of the world under the Bush administration. After the controversial buildup to the Iraq war, America added insult to injury when John Bolton-a man who once claimed that "there is no United Nations" and that "if (the U.N. Secretariat building in New York) lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference,"-became ambassador to the U.N. Ambassador Rice has said her goal is to "set a very different tone to signal to the world that America is back and that we want to lead in a way that can be trusted and respected."By most accounts, Rice is more than capable of tackling these challenges. She was an early Obama backer and served as a top foreign policy advisor on the campaign. Rice persevered despite sharp accusations of disloyalty from aides to Hilary Clinton during the primary battle because of her previous role at the State Department during President Clinton's administration. She emerged from the campaign as top prospect for a number of prominent foreign policy positions in the new administration.


Rice, who often led Obama's foreign policy meetings during the campaign, has been praised for her management skills and toughness, and her ability to maneuver within the bureaucratic system. And many believe that her experience as assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton State Department will evince a renewed focus on issues affecting the continent, including the atrocities in Darfur and global poverty.Moreover, by elevating the U.N. ambassadorship to a cabinet-level position, Obama has made it clear that he takes seriously the role of the international institution and values multilateralism, pragmatism and humility in global affairs. This places Ambassador Rice squarely on the front lines of Obama's effort to advance a new era in American foreign policy.Rice's approach is already creating tangible benefits. The United States was recently elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. inter-governmental body created to replace the controversial U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Under the Bush administration, America had a somewhat tortured relationship with the UNHRC: it was one of four countries out of 192 member states (the others being Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau) to vote against its creation March of 2006. America frequently criticized the UNHRC for both its inclusion of authoritarian governments and frequent negative focus on Israel.The transition to a more constructive tone under Rice also seems to be yielding additional dividends in creating a noticeably warmer relationship with U.N. leadership. In an interview conducted for this article with Will Davis, director of the United Nations Information Centre, he commented on the change in tone, saying, "what you don't see is the criticism for criticism's sake that you might've seen in any number of previous administrations."In return, Davis noted that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has "has said very positive things" about Ambassador Rice's tenure so far, pointing out that the Secretary General has invested a great deal of time and energy in the relationship with America. There also seems to be an appreciation within the U.N. for the people Ambassador Rice has chosen to work with her so far, including respected internationalists with wide expertise in topics ranging from peacekeeping to non-proliferation, which Davis described as "a stellar team; an A-Team."United Nations officials further maintain that this change in the United States's approach goes beyond new faces and a different tone. "We have seen tangible gestures from the Obama administration. For instance, the 2010 budget request was unusually healthy." Davis said, referring to the Obama administration's budget request to Congress for the payment of the U.S. financial obligations to the U.N.Yet, it remains an open question how well the current honeymoon between America and the U.N. will stand up when their interests are diametrically opposed. For instance, Davis observed that there was disappointment within the U.N. when the United States declined to participate in the 2009 United Nations World Conference Against Racism (also known as Durban II). The decision followed protracted negotiations between the United States and U.N. organizers to reduce what they considered to be virulent and widespread criticism of Israel in the previous 2001 conference. Following an internal debate, in which some expressed concern that failure to attend would be counterproductive to America's efforts to improve its image abroad, the Obama administration ultimately decided to boycott the conference, even after the U.N. agreed to changes.But that disagreement has not seemed to dim the glowing praise that many in the U.N. have had for Rice's tenure so far. Moreover, it appears widely understood within the U.N. system that resurgent U.S. leadership does not mean the United Sates is expected to sacrifice its own needs. As Davis observed, "We (at the U.N.) expect the Obama administration to take a clear-eyed, clinical approach to the U.N. The White House will use the U.N. where it suits them."Ultimately, while it has fallen on Rice to repair America's damaged relationship with the U.N., the need for the United States to reassert itself as a strong and effective team player in responding to pressing global issues extends far beyond the negative or positive legacy of any particular administration. As Davis says, "There is an eagerness to see the U.S. not only at the table, but also leading."Guest blogger Adam Benz is Regional Editor for the Americas for Foreign Policy Digest.Guest blogger Robert Friedman is Managing Editor of Foreign Policy Digest.
Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business