Theory of why the United Nations Votes get Certain Results - Essay Example

Theory of why the United Nations Votes get Certain Results Some countries, for example, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, usually vote against the United States during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) or summits. This paper will present a hypothesis as to why such countries vote in such a manner and highlight the responses given by the United States, including the reasons for such responses. Congress noted that an annual report from the State Department shows that from 1983, most of the countries that receive United States’ (US) foreign assistance, numbering more than 30 and including those that heavily rely on it, routinely opposed diplomatic initiatives by the United States and voted against it. Generally, the Arab and Islamic nations have the greatest tendency to vote overwhelmingly against the United States, with the most notable countries including Palestine, Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, Oman and Yemen. The Arab and Islamic nations form a large portion of the United Nations (UN) member states. Most anti democratic and dictatorial countries, including those desperately in need of the Arabs’ oil and business opportunities with them, will most likely support their stand against the United States. Some European countries that are fearful of disgruntlement among the growing Muslim and Arab population are also likely to vote against the United States. The resolutions with the greatest potential to draw votes against the United States include those touching on Israel, Cuba and Palestine. The UNGA approved the resolution that demanded the US to end its trade and economic blockade of Cuba by a great majority. 183 out of the 195 member states voted towards ending the blockade (Schaefer & Kim 1). Before the resolution was finally approved, it had previously been passed at the UNGA for 17 consecutive years. Failure to approve such a resolution targeted at the US for so long attracted negative votes against it. Countries that voted against the US claim that the US fails to recognize the sovereign equalities of countries, and not honoring the countries’ right to non-interference and non-intervention into their international trade or internal affairs. Cuba’s Foreign Minister pointed out that the resolution had to be approved as it was in a situation where an economic crisis was being felt worldwide. The 46 year old blockade, he added, had intensified suffering by Cubans and made worse by numerous hurricanes striking the island nation. Cuba had on many occasions declined to accept help from the US during the hurricanes. Countries that voted in support of Cuba claimed that the US always responded to the matter with its customary hypocrisy and sarcasm. They blamed the then Bush administration for constantly deceiving the international community. The Cuban Foreign Minister received support from many countries when he asserted that if the US government truly cared about the well being of the people of Cuba, and other countries in the wider perspective, they would immediately end the blockade. It was their only ethical and moral way of redeeming their name from the evils of the blockade that was in violation of fundamental regulations of the UN Charter and international law. More member countries were against the move by the US that implemented new and enhanced economic sanctions over Cuba. They were unhappy with the enthusiastic hunting of the international economic transactions of Cuba by the US, which went to the extent of blocking internet sites associated to such transactions. By increasing its material and financial support towards actions aimed at overthrowing the constitutional leadership of Cuba, the US further aggravated nations that usually vote against its initiatives. Many member states explained their decision to support Cuba. The South African delegate acknowledged Cuba’s efforts in promoting education, health and biotechnology around the world. Cuba had also assisted developing countries to overcome their shortages in skills through bilateral cooperation projects. South Africa was an example of the beneficiaries. The Venezuelan delegate said the US was disrespectful of the UNGA’s will by repeatedly refusing to heed to the worldwide cries against the blockade. He added the long standing blockade was in contradiction to the spirit of modern times, and the sanctions were a criminal mechanism to coerce a people and their government to surrender via disease and hunger. He was supported when he said no nation has the right to blatantly violate the rights of another and the norms presented by international law, which is made worse by the fact that it has lasted over four decades. As once stated by a Syrian representative, the US has carried on long years of its erroneous position on many countries’ internal affairs. The US has refused to end its aggressive American policies it has imposed on several countries. With the exception of Israel, most countries are against the US’ military invasion of countries, arming aggressors, forcing nations to change governments and imposing of unwarranted blockades. Most of the resolutions adopted by UNGA are by consensus and have political, and to some extent moral, authority but are essentially non binding. However, resolutions passed by the Security Council, which is the United Nations’ most powerful organ, under chapter seven may be enforced by third parties. When Palestine recently requested for enhanced status at the UN, the US reaffirmed that it would vote against the move. This, naturally, earned the US enemies from members of the Arab league. The US, backed by Israel, was against the bid by Palestine to be granted non member state status. The US said that it was opposed to the move because Palestine must negotiate its way to statehood by direct discussions with its opponent, Israel, and not via the UN. Palestine was under pressure to give an assurance that they would not sue Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes should their non member state status be granted. Led by Britain, various governments in the United Kingdom and Europe were seeking the assurance from Palestine before they could consider supporting them. Palestine was also to commit an immediate return to negotiations for peace without giving preconditions; otherwise the UK would abstain when it came to the vote. In response to the increasing number of votes that go against the US, they decided to use voting behavior at the UNGA to decide whether they will give international help, the type of help and the amount. In order to implement the recommendation, each country’s voting was tracked and reported to Congress, showing the percentages. The reports enabled the US to gauge the support they received for their policies and priorities, and from which country. Such reports have been done annually from 1984 until they were stopped by President Obama’s administration. However, as clearly indicated by the voting patterns that have been steadily consistent, the US does not effectively withhold foreign assistance to countries that always oppose their priorities, neither do they reward those in support of them. The probable reason for this would be that the US is not seeking conditional support for its initiatives. In fact, the major aids recipients are those who routinely vote against the US. All of the 184 nations that receive development assistance from the US voted against it in 10 consecutive UNGA sessions by 2011 (Schaefer & Kim 1). Responding to the demands by Palestine, the US stood its ground that it will urge all member states to avoid provocative and unilateral actions by treaties or international bodies that threaten to evade and prejudge outcomes which are negotiable, such as the Palestinian statehood. The US’ opinion on the lasting and just solution for peace between two countries is that it cannot be achieved simply through a vote at the UNGA, whether the US is fully supported or not. The US Permanent Representative to the UN says that passing a resolution does not create a state, especially where none existed before, as in the Palestinian case. She instead called for more negotiations between Palestine and Israel, while protecting the US’ interest in continuing leading the efforts. Work Cited Schaefer, Brett and Kim, Anthony. The U.S. should link foreign aid and U.N. General Assembly voting. , 2011. Web. Read More