In fact, as Waltz shows, Roosevelt supplied neither the text nor the substantive ideas that shaped the UDHR. Ricardo Alfaro, former President of Panama, proposed the idea and first draft of such a Declaration, which was taken up by many others including public intellectuals such as HG Wells. While early drafts were worked on by Rene Cassin of France, along with many US lawyers, each clause was voted on by member states, and many suggestions came from drafters from small and newly de-colonised states. The Latin American states promoted  social and economic rights, while the Soviet Union concentrated on racial discrimination – a convenient way of bashing the US, as well as colonial states.

The  desire for emancipation of all, emphasising that rights applied to everyone everywhere, emerged as a major concern. Significant additions were made by newly de-colonised states regarding, slavery, discrimination, the rights of women and the right to national self determination.

via Who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ? | openDemocracy.

As many statesmen and commentators have asked, can Americans do what needs to be done to compete effectively in the twenty-first-century world?

The only honest answer is, who knows? If American history is any guide, however, there is at least some reason to be hopeful. Americans have experienced this unease before, and many previous generations have also felt this sense of lost vigor and lost virtue: as long ago as 1788, Patrick Henry lamented the nation’s fall from past glory, “when the American spirit was in its youth.” There have been many times over the past two centuries when the political system was dysfunctional, hopelessly gridlocked, and seemingly unable to find solutions to crushing national problems—from slavery and then Reconstruction, to the dislocations of industrialization at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of social welfare during the Great Depression, to the confusions and paranoia of the early Cold War years. Anyone who honestly recalls the 1970s, with Watergate, Vietnam, stagflation, and the energy crisis, cannot really believe that our present difficulties are unrivaled.

Success in the past does not guarantee success in the future. But one thing does seem clear from the historical evidence: the American system, for all its often stultifying qualities, has also shown a greater capacity to adapt and recover from difficulties than many other nations, including its geopolitical competitors. This undoubtedly has something to do with the relative freedom of American society, which rewards innovators, often outside the existing power structure, for producing new ways of doing things; and with the relatively open political system of America, which allows movements to gain steam and to influence the behavior of the political establishment. The American system is slow and clunky in part because the Founders designed it that way, with a federal structure, checks and balances, and a written Constitution and Bill of Rights—but the system also possesses a remarkable ability to undertake changes just when the steam kettle looks about to blow its lid. There are occasional “critical elections” that allow transformations to occur, providing new political solutions to old and apparently insoluble problems. Of course, there are no guarantees: the political system could not resolve the problem of slavery without war. But on many big issues throughout their history, Americans have found a way of achieving and implementing a national consensus.

via Robert Kagan: Against The Myth Of American Decline | The New Republic.

“Not only is my style going to be different, but the methods I’m going to use might also be different,” said Mr. McFaul, a Russian speaker who has lived here for long stretches. “I have a lot of things from my past that may be constraining, but one thing I know how to do, or I think I know how to do, is get up in front of 500 20-year-olds.”

Mr. McFaul’s open, passionate manner will serve American interests, said Sergei A. Markov, an old friend and co-author. Mr. Markov, now a Putin loyalist and a member of United Russia, the governing party, recalled his arguments with Mr. McFaul as some of the loudest of his life.

“Diplomats are cold and McFaul is warm; that is the difference,” he said. “A spirited person representing America is always good for America. America is a very spirited country.”

There are risks, too. Some in the opposition cringed at the footage from outside the embassy, saying it gave credence to the government’s arguments about United States interference. And Mr. McFaul’s job will require him to build ties with all parts of Russian society — including its leaders, some of whom genuinely believe that the United States is working to undermine Mr. Putin, said Dmitri V. Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and an old friend.

“He will be under tremendous pressure,” Mr. Trenin said. “He has extremely good assets that he could use to become perhaps the best American ambassador to this country — to the Russian empire or the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation. Or he can be a disaster. The difference in how you handle yourself can be very slight.”

via Russia Gives New U.S. Envoy, McFaul, Cold Shoulder – NYTimes.com.

Although Ross Douthat was aiming at candidate skills, his understanding of what is required for an effective leader in the U.S.political  system is helpful in thinking about other arenas, as well.  He suggests the skills of management, persuasion, and demagoguery.  He describes each skill set as follows [my headings, Douthat's prose after the ellipse]:

Manager: … [the] C.E.O. of his or her campaign, with a flair for fund-raising, an eye for talent, and a keen sense of when to micromanage and when to delegate. This is the arm-twisting, organization-building, endorsement-corralling side of presidential politics, and not surprisingly it tends to favor insiders and deal-makers and old Washington hands.

Persuader: …the more public, rhetorical, self-advertising side of politics….The great manager is unlikely to be a great persuader, capable of seducing undecided voters with his empathy, or inspiring them with what George H. W. Bush (who lacked it) called “the vision thing.”

Demagogue:  …capable of demonizing his enemies and convincing his supporters that they stand at Armageddon and battle for the Lord.

via A Good Candidate is Hard to Find – NYTimes.com

For government officials, Davos has the same allure that it does for business: a series of quick-hit meetings with their counterparts. It gives executives the chance to jockey for position on the other side of the table with a government leader who could have an infrastructure project that needs financing, deals that can be worth millions if not billions of dollars. Or executives will spend weeks before arriving trying to get a 15-minute meeting with Mrs. Merkel or Ms. Lagarde in the hope of influencing the dialogue over the euro.

That may help explain why the World Economic Forum brought in $157 million in revenue last year from its members and strategic corporate partners.

In case you’re curious, it spent virtually all of it: $156 million. How was it spent? The organization employs 337 full-time employees and 369 “full-time equivalents” annually that it says cost a total of about $69 million. The conferences it convenes — besides the meeting in Davos, it organizes another big event in China and four other regional events — cost about $60 million more for space, elaborate signs and furniture, meals, event planning and security. (The security costs in Davos alone are estimated to be about $8 million, which are borne by the World Economic Forum and the Swiss government.) The organization says it spent another $26 million on office costs.

via Free Pass for Matchmaking at a Setting in the Alps – NYTimes.com.

Its a tough ticket to get, however.

The reform agenda Torsella described reflects this constructive legacy in being sober, reasoned, and balanced.

That’s a far cry from what we’ve heard from the Republican presidential candidates. Like their counterparts in the House, the GOP contenders have adopted a slash and burn approach to the world body.  Newt Gingrich, this weekend’s victor in South Carolina, last summer called for defunding the UN. (Prior to dropping out, Texas Governor Rick Perry advocated the same in a televised debate). Rick Santorum, who’s taking his fight to Florida, has made halving U.S. funding for the UN part of his official platform. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, called recent UN work an “extraordinary failure,” and endorses John Bolton’s proposal that the United States defund the Human Rights Council—despite recent U.S. progress in improving that body’s functioning. The libertarian Ron Paul gets even spookier, describing the United Nations as a threat to American liberty. (In 1998, he even warned that it “would confiscate our guns” if it got the chance).

Whoever is elected in November must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many of the reforms UN critics identify are needed not only in Geneva and New York, but also in Washington, DC—underscoring the foolishness of trashing a flawed but indispensable organization. Kudos to Ambassador Torsella for putting forth such an ambitious framework and for illuminating a viable path for UN reform.

via The Internationalist » At the United Nations, Reform for All Seasons.

The focus on “Managing a Changing World” reframes the landscape in which the US is neither the global boss nor the lowest serf:

The trajectory of the rising powers is uncertain, but their current influence is a central fact of geopolitics. Already the financial crisis, the Copenhagen climate negotiations, and the Iran sanctions dust-up have illustrated the potential, the pitfalls, and, above all, the centrality of the relationship between American power and the influence of rising actors. The emerging powers cannot dictate the shape of the coming era, but they can block and complicate U.S. initiative. From its new position, the United States confronts not a rigid bloc of emerging powers, but complex and shifting coalitions of interest. The greatest risk lies, not in a single peer competitor, but in the erosion of cooperation on issues vital to U.S. interests and a stable order. U.S. power is indispensable for that purpose, but not sufficient. No longer the CEO of Free World Inc., the United States is now the largest minority shareholder in Global Order LLC.

via Managing a Changing World – By Bruce Jones | Foreign Policy.

The opposite of ideology is freedom, the ability of societies to be unchained from foreign control. The only “answer” to poverty reduction is freedom from being told the answer. Free societies and individuals are not guaranteed to succeed. They will make bad choices. But at least they bear the cost of those mistakes, and learn from them. That stands in stark contrast to accountability-free Developmentalism. This process of learning from mistakes is what produced the repositories of common sense that make up mainstream economics. The opposite of Development ideology is not anything goes, but the pragmatic use of time-tested economic ideas — the benefits of specialization, comparative advantage, gains from trade, market-clearing prices, trade-offs, budget constraints — by individuals, firms, governments, and societies as they find their own success.

History proves just how much good can come from individuals who both bear the costs and reap the benefits of their own choices when they are free to make them. That includes local politicians, activists, and businesspeople who are groping their way toward greater freedom, contrary to the Developmentalists who oxymoronically impose freedom of choice on other people. Those who best understood the lessons of the 20th century were not the ideologues asking, “What is to be done?” They were those asking, “How can people be more free to find their own solutions?”

via The Ideology of Development – By William Easterly | Foreign Policy.

“Romney has no foreign policy experience,” reads the first bullet point in the foreign-policy section of the 200-page McCain opposition research file, posted Tuesday night by Buzzfeed. A former senior McCain campaign staffer confirmed its authenticity to The Cable. Twenty pages of the document are devoted to foreign-policy-related quotes and anecdotes the McCain campaign thought could be damaging to Romney during their 2008 primary battle.

via McCain campaign in ‘08: Romney vulnerable on foreign policy | The Cable.

The article’s primary theme is that the key to success in many bargaining situations is the ability to commit to a future course of action. In this analysis, the Senate “won” the payroll tax cut showdown late last year by passing a bill and then going home for the holidays. This was a highly credible “take it or leave it” offer.

This ability to commit can help solve games in which the two players must choose between strategies: either they cooperate or they “defect,” as a decision not to cooperate is called in the literature. They are much better off if they both cooperate, but there is always a temptation to defect when the other player cooperates, scoring a big win at the other player’s expense.

When this game is played repeatedly, a natural — and often successful — strategy is called tit for tat. You begin by cooperating, hoping for the best. If the other side cooperates, too, all is good. But if it defects, you retaliate. And once the retaliating starts, it is hard to stop.

via The Art of Bargaining, Lost Upon Washington – Economic View – NYTimes.com.

Although Prime Minister and President formed a firm friendship, the “special relationship” was not without its problems . Mrs Thatcher had been angered by the lack of consultation before the US-led invasion of Grenada in October 1983, and by American moves to resume arms sales to Argentina after the Falklands conflict.

Also, anti-American attitudes hardened in Britain during the 1980s, principally as a result of the deployment of Cruise missiles on British soil and the bombing of Libya in 1986, when the Prime Minister allowed the Americans to fly aircraft from their British bases.

It was a tribute to Price’s diplomatic skills that he weathered these problems and was widely regarded as one of the most successful and popular American envoys of recent times. Affable and distinguished looking, he was known affectionately as “Charlie”

via Charles Price – Telegraph.