The Agonist - USA: Foreign Relations

China condemns US trade action

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:51:55 -0800

Beijing | November 6

Al Jazeera - China has described as protectionist new US anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and demanded Washington's recognition that it is a market economy.

The reaction came a day after the US imposed preliminary anti-dumping duties ranging up to 99 per cent on $2.63bn in Chinese-made pipes used in the oil and gas industry.

The Chinese commerce department issued its preliminary decision on Friday, a week before Barack Obama, the US president, heads to Asia on a trip that includes stops in Shanghai and Beijing.

"China resolutely opposes the abuse of protectionist measures, and will take measures to protect the interests of our domestic industry," the ministry said on its website.

New row over Colombia-US accord

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:29 -0800

Nov 5

BBC - Colombian opposition groups have reacted angrily after details of a controversial military deal with the US were made public.

Under the 10-year deal, the US military will not only have access to military bases, but also be able to use major international civilian airports.

US personnel and defence contractors will also enjoy diplomatic immunity.

President Alvaro Uribe says the agreement will help rid Colombia of drugs gangs and left-wing rebel groups.

But leading opposition senator Gustavo Petro, of the left-wing PDA party, said the deal amounted to a virtual US occupation of Colombia.

The accord was signed last Friday but full details were only made public on Tuesday.

Italy convicts former CIA agents in renditions trial

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:44:10 -0800

Milan | Nov 4

Reuters - An Italian judge sentenced 23 former CIA agents to up to eight years in prison on Wednesday for the abduction of a Muslim cleric in a landmark ruling against the "rendition" flights used by the former U.S. government.

Judge Oscar Magi dropped the case against another three American defendants and the ex-head of the Italy's Sismi military intelligence service, Nicolo Pollari, as well as his former deputy.

US, North Korea agree to hold bilateral meetings

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:32:31 -0800

Seoul | Nov 4

AFP - The United States and North Korea have agreed to hold two rounds of bilateral meetings before the North returns to multilateral nuclear disarmament talks, a US news report said.

The agreement was reached at last month's meetings in New York and San Diego between officials from the two sides, Foreign Policy magazine said on its website, in a report seen Wednesday.

The communist state, putting further pressure on the United States to start direct talks, announced Tuesday it has completed reprocessing spent fuel rods to produce more plutonium for its atomic weapons programme.

The US State Department responded that the plutonium production "runs counter" to the North's disarmament commitments and violates UN Security Council resolutions.

It said it has not decided when and where to hold bilateral talks involving the US special envoy to North Korea, Stephen Bosworth.

Huge anti-US rally in Tehran

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:23:19 -0800

Tehran | Nov 4

AFP - Thousands of Iranians staged a noisy anti-US rally in central Tehran Wednesday to mark the storming of the American embassy by students 30 years ago, as police and opposition supporters clashed violently nearby.

US President Barack Obama, meanwhile, said in a statement marking the anniversary of the event that sparked decades of hostility between America and Iran that the Islamic republic "must choose" now whether to open the door to opportunity and prosperity.

Huge crowds from early morning descended on the former US embassy complex in central Tehran, dubbed the "Den of Spies", chanting slogans such as "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," witnesses said.

They also smashed up posters they had brought with them of the American "Uncle Sam" symbol and chanted "The blood in our veins is a gift to our leader" – a reference to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

_{** Unfaded memories: 444 days of captivity

** Iran's anti-government protesters clash with security forces

** Iran's anti-US protests could turn on Ahmadinejad

** Obama notes 30th anniversary of US Embassy takeover in Tehran, asks Iran to move beyond it}

The crowd was constantly being swelled by people arriving on foot and by bus, witnesses said.

About a kilometre (mile) away at Haft-e-Tir square in the heart of the capital, riot police armed with batons and firing teargas moved in as several hundred opposition supporters attempted to stage an anti-government protest.

Witnesses said the protesters, who were chanting "Death to the dictator," refused to disperse and dozens were beaten or arrested.

Away from Haft-e-Tir square, opposition supporters – numbering several thousands in all – gathered in small groups on many street corners and side roads, witnesses said.

Staging brief demonstrations during which they chanted "Death to the dictator," and "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein" – in praise of main opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi – the mainly-young protesters quickly moved on to new sites when police tried to disperse them.

Witnesses said the entire city centre had become a stage for "cat and mouse games" between police on bikes and youthful protesters.

Opposition supporters have since June been staging protests at every opportunity in Tehran against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a presidential vote they claim was massively rigged.

Wednesday's anniversary, which has turned into a cornerstone of the Islamic regime, marks the capture by radical Islamist students of the US embassy compound on November 4, 1979 – just months after the Islamic revolution toppled the US-backed shah.

The students, who took 52 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days, said they were responding to Washington's refusal to hand over the deposed shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Who is seeing the real Afghanistan?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:20:48 -0800

Last week the Washington Post printed two letters from different sources who had spent time on the ground in Afghanistan that came to very different conclusions about the American presence there.

First, there is the letter from Matthew Hoh, the former Marine captain who had fought in Iraq and had recently taken a temporary foreign service assignment in Zabul province. One State department official referred to this area as, “one of the five or six provinces always vying for the most difficult and neglected.” Hoh had developed great misgivings about the war and had become so disillusioned that he chose to resign. Hoh wote in his resignation letter,

I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditure of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war…. The United States presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency.

Matthew Hoh has served his country bravely in combat and he has responded to a policy with which he disagreed by making the honorable choice to resign. His observations about the situation in Zabul province merit serious consideration. I wish that many others in the previous administration who had serious misgivings about policy but waited to reveal them until after leaving office had, instead, followed Hoh’s example.

Several days later, a letter to the editor appeared in the Washington Post from Benjamin Joseloff, an American serving as a fellow at the Afghanistan Legal Education Project. This initiative, started by Stanford Law students, is devoted to a helping Afghan universities improve the quality of their legal education. Joseloff writes....

continue reading Brian Vogt's post at http://blog.psaonline.org/2009/11/03/who-is-seeing-the-real-afghanistan/

Two senior US officials have begun a fact-finding visit to Burma.

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:46:58 -0800

Nov 3

BBC - Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and deputy Scot Marciel hope to hold talks with the ruling junta and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Mr Campbell, the top US diplomat for East Asia, is the highest ranking US official to visit Burma since 1995.

The visit is being seen as the latest move by President Barack Obama's administration to find ways to engage with the military regime.

The US diplomats are unlikely to see the reclusive chief of the junta, Than Shwe, but will instead meet Prime Minister Thein Sein in the remote jungle capital of Naypyidaw on Tuesday, according to Burmese officials.

They will then travel to Rangoon on Wednesday to meet Nobel Peace laureate Ms Suu Kyi, whose house arrest was extended by 18 months this year, provoking international outrage.

Canadians still 'distrust' United States: poll

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:46:33 -0800

Ottawa | Nov 2

AFP - Canadians are no more loving of the United States under its current leadership than during George W. Bush's presidency, suggested a poll published Monday.

But they do like President Barack Obama a whole lot more than his predecessor, said the Historica Dominion Institute survey of 1,018 Canadians.

Obama was viewed favorably by 86 percent of respondents, compared to only 21 percent for Bush in 2005.

"What's striking about these findings is how Canadians have detached their personal view of Barack Obama, whom they quite like and respect, from the United States, which they still view with skepticism, even distrust," said Andrew Cohen, president of the institute.

Compared to results of a similar poll taken four years ago, Canadians have a marginally improved view of Americans as individual people, with 71 percent expressing a favorable view in 2009 versus 68 percent in 2005.

Canadians were split as to whether the United States is now "a force for good in the world." Forty-four percent agreed while 46 percent disagreed. This question was not asked in 2005.

When Will the U.S. and Russia Stop Acting Like It's Still the Cold War?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:43:11 -0800

THE DEPROLIFERATOR -- Sometimes it seems as if neither the United States nor Russia got the message that the Cold War ended almost two decades ago. Last week I wrote about the Dooomsday Device, a back-up defense system that Russia developed in the 80s. In the aftermath of a nuclear attack, it ensures that, even if no civilian and military leaders are still around to issue the command, a retaliatory nuclear attack will still be launched. Depending on your point of view, it's either the ultimate in deterrence or the most senseless act of revenge ever.

In fact, it was engineered in response to U.S. plans to develop the Strategic Defense Initiative (missile defense) at the height of the Cold War. The United States claimed that missile defense was just an innocuous defense from an initial attack. But the Soviet Union interpreted "Star Wars" as a shield behind which the United States could mount a nuclear attack, secure in the knowledge that Russia's retaliatory warheads would, in effect, be just rain falling on an umbrella.

Like missile defense, Dead Hand, as the Russians call their Doomsday Device, exists to this day. Except theirs actually works.

If Russia clings to a Cold War mentality in other ways as well, who can blame it? The era combined the best of both worlds:
1. Stability, for those who believed in the illusion of deterrence, and. . .
2. Life on the edge, for those who knew the true extent to which the United States and the Soviet Union were actually at each other's throats during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan administrations.

Recently discussions were held in Moscow between Russian foreign ministry officials and representatives of Global Zero, the disarmament group that comprises former heads of state, foreign ministers, defense ministers, national security advisors, and military commanders. But it turns out Russia's not ready for a new round of disarmament talks (at least not with those out of power).

The AP reports:

[Ground Zero member Richard] Burt said Russian officials appear to be concerned that steep cuts in their nuclear arsenal will leave them vulnerable to military threats.

"There is I think a feeling in certain circles in the Russian defense establishment that their conventional forces are rundown and as a result they're going to have to rely more on their nuclear forces," Burt said.

Hasn't that rationale informed many of Russia's defense policies -- as well as those of the United States at times -- since the dawn of the nuclear age? According to a 2003 Nonproliferation Review article by Harold Feiveson and Ernst Jan Hogendoorn:

For Russia, the end of the Cold War did impact the country's no-first-use policy -- but in an unexpected direction. In 1993 -- facing a precipitous drop in conventional military strength -- Russia renounced the 1982 policy of no first use, and changed its declaratory policy to maintaining the option to use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed aggressor, including non-nuclear states allied with a nuclear weapons state.

Today, not only is Russia dragging its feet on disarmament, but, as Simon Saradzhyan reports for Zurich's International Relations and Security Network: [Russia's] 2000 Military Doctrine asserts that Russia "reserves the right" to use nuclear weapons first "in response to large-scale aggression using conventional weapons in situations [such as] regional war."

Not only is Russia dragging its feet on disarmament by continuing to retain the right to first use -- in a regional war, no less -- but, "Changes in the [follow-up] to the 2000 document include [allowing] use of nuclear weapons when repelling an aggression [in] even a local war." Bear in mind that Russia's "pledge to use nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies failed to deter Russia's foes" in the regional conflicts that it's faced thus far in Chechnya and South Ossetia (not to mention Georgia). [Emphasis added.]

In fact, Saradzhyan quotes a retired Russian general who "argued that the new doctrine looks 'detached from reality'." Worst of all, he writes, "The planned expansion of the use of nuclear weapons will raise a lot of questions on how it conforms with" President Medvedev's May 2009 commitment to Global Zero, which, five months later, looks like a passing fancy on his part.

First Strike Culpability

If you believe that nuclear weapons provide a sound deterrent, it's likely you assume that first-strike capability is the backbone of deterrence. A policy of no-first-use would remove a weight from your pan of the scale that monitors nuclear balance and deposit it in that of your designated enemy's. In other words, if the United States declared no-first-use, its foe might jump to the conclusion that, should push come to shove, a red carpet has been laid out for it to strike first. Since U.S. nuclear installations are prime targets, the ability of the United States to retaliate would be severely compromised.

As Feiveson and Hogendoorn explain in their Nonproliferation Review article, it was the Eisenhower administration that first adopted first-use as national security policy. One of its directives read: "In the event of hostilities, the United States will consider nuclear weapons to be available for use as other munitions." [Emphasis added.]

Here we have as clear a depiction as one could want of how the military views nuclear weapons: There's no qualitative difference between them and conventional weapons. To the military, nuclear weapons don't constitute a fundamental break in the weapons continuum nor do they invoke visions of the apocalypse and evoke elemental ethical questions. They're just an inevitable development in the history of bombs. Of course, in recent years, because of the constraints on their use, the Pentagon has grown less enamored of nuclear weapons.

Forty years later, not much had changed. Of the Bush administration, the authors write: ". . . the United States was diplomatically disavowing the use of nuclear weapons except in certain extreme circumstances, and yet at the same time, hedging the disavowal to allow the greatest possible latitude for the use of nuclear weapons."

Despite what many think, hedging doesn't imply straddling two domains. Just the opposite in fact, it's defined as planting a barrier to protect your own. Either way, it's effect is to muddy the waters.

For example, does a state's first-use policy apply only to other nuclear states, or to non-nuclear states as well? What could possibly drive a nuclear state to attack a non-nuclear state with nuclear weapons?

The nuclear state might feel that the non-nuclear state is acting with impunity because it's protected by another nuclear state. More likely the nuclear state is operating under the assumption that the non-nuclear state is about to launch an attack with either the B or the C team of weapons of mass destruction -- Biological and Chemical weapons. Never mind that, a policy of first use against WMD runs the risk of watering down the concept of deterrence by diverting it into streams other than the nuclear.

Meanwhile, above the fray -- though not exactly occupying the moral high ground because it's got nuclear weapons, too -- stands China. Feiveson and Hogendoorn write:

China. . . remains the only declared nuclear weapons state that has maintained a largely unhedged no-first-use policy, and in 1995 reiterated its commitment that "China undertakes not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances."

During the U.N. Security Council meeting on disarmament that President Obama convened in September, as the Guardian reported:

China pushed to have a clause included in today's resolution calling on weapons states to emulate its own "no first use" policy, but the US has long resisted such an undertaking, reserving the right to carry out a pre-emptive strike. But Obama is pressing the Pentagon to consider radical changes to US doctrine to downgrade the role of nuclear weapons.

One would hope that our next nuclear posture review disavows first use of nuclear weapons. Unless nuclear states can shed the Cold War mentality once and for all, it's hard to be optimistic about the long-terms prospects for disarmament.

First posted at the Faster Times.

Israel putting forth 'unprecedented' concessions, Clinton says

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:40:00 -0800

Karen DeYoung and Howard Schneider | Jerusalem | Nov 1

WaPo - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had offered "unprecedented" concessions on West Bank settlement construction in an effort to restart peace talks, a departure from the administration's earlier criticism of Israel and a possible signal of impatience with the refusal of Palestinian leaders to join negotiations.

At the start of a day of diplomacy that stretched from Abu Dhabi to Jerusalem, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel's latest offer, relayed by Clinton, to curb most West Bank construction.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said the plan would have excluded about 3,000 Israeli housing units under construction and would not have applied to East Jerusalem -- thus falling well short of what has become a firm Palestinian demand for resuming direct talks with Israel.

"The U.S. said that is the best they can get" from Netanyahu, even though the Obama administration considers settlements 'illegal and illegitimate,' " Erekat said. The Palestinians will not accept a resumption of talks on that basis, he said.

Unprecedented would be Clinton expecting and demanding Israel to follow UN resolutions. The best they can get? I bet cutting defense aid might turn some heads. And this should go over real well:

AFP - Israel's premier savoured a victory on Sunday after Washington hailed his "unprecedented" position on settlements and backed his call for peace talks to resume without the construction freeze sought by the Palestinians.

"There is no question that the United States are our staunchest friends and that Israel's firm stance on its positions pays off," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon happily told public radio on Sunday.

Speaking before the weekly cabinet meeting, Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz proclaimed: "The US administration understands what we have always said -- that the real obstacle to negotiations are the Palestinians."

This is not good:

Palestinians expressed deep disappointment and frustration at Clinton's words, which signaled a departure from past U.S. calls for a complete freeze on settlement activity.

"If America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do Palestinians have of reaching agreement with Israel on permanent status issues?" Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

Similar sentiments were voiced by Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab countries to have peace agreements with Israel. The two countries said most of the blame lay with Israel, but signaled their unhappiness with the American shift.

Jordan's King Abdullah II traveled to Cairo for talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. After the meeting, a royal palace statement released in Jordan said both leaders "insisted on the need for an immediate halt of all Israeli unilateral actions, which undermine the chances of achieving peace, especially the settlement construction."

Nov 2/Reuters - The Arab League chief said Arab states shared the Palestinian position that resuming negotiations was futile without a freeze on settlement expansion.

"I am telling you that all of us, including Saudi Arabia, including Egypt, are deeply disappointed ... with the results, with the fact that Israel can get away with anything without any firm stand that this cannot be done," Moussa(Arab League Secretary-General) told reporters.

** Abbas spokesman: Netanyahu has more influence in US than in Israel
** Palestinians accuse Clinton of hurting peace talks
** Clinton: Mideast Talks Should Resume Without Preconditions
** Bibi to Palestinians: ‘Get a grip’

White House announces end to HIV travel ban

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:03:39 -0700

Garance Franke-Ruta | Washington | October 30

WaPo - President Obama called the 22-year ban on travel and immigration by HIV-positive individuals a decision "rooted in fear rather than fact" and announced the end of the rule-making process lifting the ban.

The president signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 at the White House Friday and also spoke of the new rules, which have been under development more more than a year. "We are finishing the job," the president said.

The regulations are the final procedural step in ending the ban, and will be published Monday in the Federal Register, to be followed by the standard 60-day waiting period prior to implementation.

A ban on travel and immigration to the U.S. by individuals with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was first established by the Reagan-era U.S. Public Health Service and then given further support when Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) added HIV to the travel-exclusion list in a move that was ultimately passed unanimously by the Senate in 1987.

Colombia, US to sign controversial deal on military bases this week

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:34:12 -0700

Washington | Oct 27/Updated

DPA - Colombia and the United States are planning to sign 'at the end of the week' a controversial military deal, Colombian Defence Minister Gabriel Silva said Tuesday in Washington.

The deal whereby Colombia is set to allow the United States use of seven military bases on Colombian soil was announced this summer, although it has yet to be signed by Washington and Bogota.

The US-Colombian plan has drawn sharp criticism from Latin American leaders who worry that the US presence could threaten the sovereignty of neighbouring countries and promote meddling in internal affairs.

Bogota and Washington have insisted that the bases will be used only to combat drug-trafficking and terrorism within Colombia's borders

** Colombia counters critics over U.S. bases row ~ UPI
** A Summer Fling in South America: US Bases and a Weapons Race?(PDF) ~ISN
** Colombian Government Irked Judicial Opinion on Base Deal Was Leaked ~ Latin American herald Tribune
** Colombia: Trusted American Ally? ~ DCProgressive
** U.S. Aid Must Leverage Reforms, Rights Groups Urge ~ IPS

UPDATE OCT 30: Colombia, U.S. sign military base deal: U.S. official

Does J Street arrival signal a split in America's Israel lobby?

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:19:10 -0700

Ilene R. Prusher | Jerusalem | Oct 29

CSM - J Street challenges the dominant role AIPAC has played in defining how US Jews see Israel. Why is a prominent Israeli politician not attending J Street's national conference in Washington this week?.

Since the 1950s the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has been the mainstream voice of the Jewish-American community and its efforts to strengthen support for Israel in Washington.

Along comes J Street, a young upstart founded last year, in part as an answer to AIPAC – perceived by many progressive American Jews to have a clear right-wing tilt, and hardly representative of those want to see a much more aggressive push towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

J Street, in the thick of its first national conference in Washington that began Sunday and concludes Wednesday, has attracted 1,500 attendees – above and beyond what its organizers expected. Perhaps more interestingly, it has attracted the attention of the highest levels of government and diplomacy, and has the blogosphere buzzing about what it all means for the future of US-Israel relations.

National Security Adviser General James Jones, one of the most senior US officials to address the conference, told J Street participants Tuesday that the Obama administration believes that "Israeli security and peace are inseparable." But what's been particularly noticeable is who among beltway powerbrokers is not making his way over to the conference at the Grand Hyatt. Missing is Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After several weeks of indecision on whether to accept the invitation, Mr. Oren announced last week that he would not attend. The subtext of that decision was that J Street's policies were not in line with Netanyahu's, though they do appear to closely reflect the viewpoints on a two-state solution endorsed by Obama.

Impaired interests

"The Embassy of Israel has communicated to J Street its views on the peace process and on the best way to ensure Israel's security," the embassy said in a statement. "While recognizing the need for a free and open debate on these issues, it is important to stress concern over certain policies that could impair Israel's interests."

The embassy also said that is was "privately communicating its concerns over certain policies" of J Street and that the embassy would send an observer to the conference and "follow its proceedings with interest.

That response did not sit well with various people in Israel, in particular Netanyahu critics who say he's dragging his feet on peace – and that he should be warmly welcoming J Street to the Washington power circuit. A number of centrist and left-wing Israeli political parties – including the leading opposition party Kadima, Labor and Meretz, as well a several other prominent pro-peace Israelis that include retired generals and the writer Amos Oz – took out a full-page ad in the Ha'aretz newspaper Tuesday, congratulating J Street on its arrival.

"We welcome your efforts to help Israel achieve sustainable peace with its neighbors and to guarantee Israel's security and future as a democratic state," the signatories said. "J Street is an important new voice in the pro-Israel community, and we look forward to working with you to advance your important agenda in the years ahead."

As US seeks closer ties with Turkmenistan, government cracks down on students

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:05:30 -0700

Robin Forestier-Walker | Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan | Oct 28

CSM -

Turkmenistan has prevented dozens of students from travelling abroad to study at a US-sponsored university, and has harassed some that have come home.

The United States has in recent months sought to improve relations with Turkmenistan, the secretive former Soviet possession that is home to rich oil and gas deposits and straddles a strategically vital central Asian location, sharing borders with both Iran and Afghanistan.

But those efforts are being complicated by a government campaign against students seeking to study at the American University of Central Asia (AUCA), located in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Some students have been barred from travelling abroad to the school and others have been subject to surveillance and harassment when they come home.

"What do you study, how do they teach you, and why do you study it?," are some of the routine questions that one student from Turkmenistan, who asked not to be identified to protect herself, is peppered with by Turkmen KBG officers every time she returns home from the AUCA in neighboring Kyrgyzstan.

She has been fortunate enough to make it back to campus. More than 100 of her Turkmen peers enrolled at the Bishkek-based institution are still trapped in their home country, denied permission to travel abroad.

The US State Department has recently taken up these students cases, but is coming up against a wall of post-Soviet intransigence.

``The United States is standing on principle,''

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:54:32 -0700

Frances Robles | Oct 29

Miami Herald - U.N. again condemns U.S. embargo of Cuba - The vote was 187-3, with two abstentions, as the United Nations once again denounced the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

The United States found itself up against virtually the entire world Wednesday as country after country at the United Nations denounced the nearly 50-year-old trade embargo against Cuba, which the island government says is as strong as ever under President Barack Obama.

It was the 18th time the U.N. General Assembly voted to condemn the embargo, and the first time since Obama took office in January. In a near unanimous vote -- 187 to 3 -- the only nations to side with the United States were Israel and Palau, a country of 21,000 people in the Pacific.

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained.

``Regrettably, the government of Cuba has not yet reciprocated these important steps taken by my government,'' she said, adding that Washington has the sovereign right to conduct economic relationships how it ``sees fit.'' - (Ambassador Susan Rice)

Lifting the embargo would require an act of Congress, but Obama has the right to issue licenses that would chip away at it.

``The United States is standing on principle,'' said the University of Miami's Jaime Suchlicki. ``We cannot have a policy that stands for democracy, human rights and elections and then suddenly lift the embargo and get friendly with Cuba. It would be a major contradiction.''

* Document: Cuban government's report to the United Nations about the effects of the embargo

Hmm democracy, human rights and elections? Lets talk Colombia sanctions!

ISOLATED POSITION

Experts said the vote underscored Washington's increasingly isolated position on Cuba, and highlighted how little Obama has moved on the topic since taking office.

While the buzz in the U.S. is how Obama is warming relations with the long-hostile nation, Cuba's government says much of the talk is a media gimmick. ``The vote represents the fact that the continued consensus around the world is that the United States policy doesn't make any sense,'' said American University dean William LeoGrande, an expert on Cuba. ``The more time passes without the Obama administration doing something significantly different than [former President] George Bush did, the more hollow the promise of change for Cuba policy looks.''

Calling trade sanctions an act of genocide and economic warfare, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said the embargo has cost the country $96 billion.

`ARROGANCE'

``The blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance,'' Rodríguez said, according to the Associated Press. In a report submitted to the General Assembly, Cuba asserts:

• The food sector alone lost $121 million because of the embargo last year.

• The nation spends $5.2 million a year refrigerating stockpiled eggs in case there are shortages.

• Increased shipping of educational materials from Asia cost $1.39 million, which Cuba could have used to buy 40 million pencils or a half million boxes of crayons.

• Cuba can't buy child-size specialized medical supplies for sick kids -- and the report made the point of listing the kids by name.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. called Rodríguez's speech a ``hostile'' relic of the Cold War.

``Here we go again,'' Ambassador Susan Rice said. ``I suppose old habits die hard . . . We will not respond in kind to painfully familiar rhetoric that we have heard in years past -- rather, I am prepared to acknowledge that there is a new chapter to this old story.''

She stressed that the Obama administration had renewed family visits to the island and loosened restrictions on U.S. telecommunications companies to do business in Cuba. Talks are under way for direct mail and migration, she said, and the American companies last year sold Cuba some $700 million in food. In 2008, the United States was Cuba's No. 5 trade partner.

NOT RECIPROCATED

``Regrettably, the government of Cuba has not yet reciprocated these important steps taken by my government,'' she said, adding that Washington has the sovereign right to conduct economic relationships how it ``sees fit.''

Lifting the embargo would require an act of Congress, but Obama has the right to issue licenses that would chip away at it.

``The United States is standing on principle,'' said the University of Miami's Jaime Suchlicki. ``We cannot have a policy that stands for democracy, human rights and elections and then suddenly lift the embargo and get friendly with Cuba. It would be a major contradiction.''