August 6th marks the 65th anniversary of Hiroshima. The atomic bomb, dropped from an American B-29 war plane on the morning of August 6, 1945, killed 140,000 people; some were incinerated mid-step on the pavement.  In addition to U.N Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, a U.S Ambassador will be present at the Japanese commemoration for the first time.

The invention of the bomb was one of many regrettable byproducts of a world at war. Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein drafted a resolution in 1955 giving warning to the threat of nuclear war. They urged governments to “find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute.”  There is greater demand than ever before for governments to find peaceful ways to settle disputes, often through treaties and international institutions. Despite the positive trend, there are still thousands of nuclear weapons looming in the arsenals of a handful of nations. These weapons have evolved significantly over the years. The codenames for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” respectively. Today we are dealing with weapons of morbid obesity.

 One of the most daunting threats to the continued survival of our world is nuclear war. Since nuclear weapons cannot be “un-invented”, we need to find the political will to confine them to the pages of history books. Political will is needed for nations to trust each other. It is needed for politicians to ratify treaties. Without it we cannot safely guarantee that we will be commemorating the 75th anniversary of Hiroshima.

Written by Don Kraus for the Huffington Post

What's more dangerous: the thousands of nukes that will still target U.S. and Russian cities if the New START treaty is not ratified OR the opportunistic, Tea Party pandering politicians who would derail this commonsense agreement?

If you answered "the nukes", you're wrong.

New START will reduce the global inventory of strategic nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert to levels not seen since I was born in 1954. But these weapons are not nearly as dangerous as the obstructive "Cold War" messaging that treaty opponents are deploying to upset New START's ratification.

Seven former commanders of the Strategic Air Command and the U.S. Strategic Command who recently endorsed the pact said, "There is little concern today about the probability of a Russian nuclear attack." The terrorist bomb that takes out Washington or New York will most likely come in a shipping container rather than an ICBM.

The utility of New START is that it makes the world more predictable. It replaces the START treaty originally negotiated by President Reagan that expired last December. Like its predecessor, New START not only reduces the number of warheads, it assures that both nations "trust but verify" each other's compliance with the terms of the treaty. Ratification will send a strong message that the U.S. is seriously pursuing its nuclear disarmament obligations, giving it more credibility to demand that nations like Iran and North Korea not build nuclear weapons.

New START is on track for approval. A huge list of Republican and Democratic policymakers, including five former defense secretaries and six former secretaries of state are pushing for ratification. But a gang of right wing politicos will try to use the August congressional recess to blame, frame and fundraise New START into oblivion.

Operatives including Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, the Heritage Foundation, and even the Tea Party's "Liberty Central" are launching misinformation campaigns to kill the treaty. This is part of an isolationist strategy that should be considered a greater long-term threat to our nation's security then the warheads that New START will eliminate. Their core belief is best expressed by the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly who, in her rant against New START said, "We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament."

But in fact, ratification of any treaty and participation in international organizations sends a message of cooperation, partnership, and a desire for clear rules and a level playing field. In a recent interview Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a hard-nosed realist, said "it's amazing how much trust matters in relationships, whether it's with governments or with individuals around the world." It's only human nature to prefer to do business with those we like and respect. The United States is stronger when perceived as a friend.

Unfortunately, a growing chorus of ultra-nationalist voices is spreading disinformation and fear when it comes to all things multilateral. Tea Party candidates, like former NFL star Clint Didier, know what their audience wants to hear, "We need to get out of the U.N. and to get the U.N. out of the United States" because, "they are out to take our guns and repeal American sovereignty." This sentiment is shared by Nevada's Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle who wants the U.S. to sever all ties with the United Nations.

Voices of fear are fanning xenophobic passions that threaten our nation's values, aspirations, and our ability to thrive in a connected world. Like the proverbial genie, globalization cannot be put back in the bottle. America cannot close its borders, nor can it afford to ignore the international community. Childlike temper tantrums will not make the world go away.

Ratification of New START is essential to the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Not only will it provide greater security by reducing the threat of nuclear annihilation, but it is also a valuable opportunity for internationalist adults -- Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative - to retake control of our foreign policy. It is time to advance the cooperative international institutions, laws, and norms that enhance U.S. security and promote democratic values.

Yes, the nuclear weapons that New START addresses present a clear risk to our nation. But the vocal cadres who will do anything to block the ratification of all international agreements present an even graver threat: At stake is our ability to enshrine our beliefs and values in the growing web of agreements that are the legal bedrock of this world.

Don Kraus is the CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions and co chairs the CEDAW Task Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

On Monday, July 26^th, a joint UN-Cambodian war crimes court convicted the first of several key players of the Khmer Rouge of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

More than three decades after Pol Pot and the leaders of the Khmer Rouge tried to turn Cambodia into a classless society based on agricultural communism, Kaing Guek Eav, commander of the movement’s main torture and execution center, was sentenced to a mere 35 years in prison, for which he will only serve 19.

As commander of Tuol Sleng prison, Eav, who is better known as Duch, blatantly admitted to overseeing the torture and deaths of 16,000 people under his command. Though he was found guilty for murder, torture, rape and crimes against humanity, Duch was only sentenced to 35 years due to his expressions of remorse, cooperation with the court, his so-called “potential for rehabilitation,” and for the coercive environment under the Khmer Rouge. Eleven years were also shaved off for his time served in prison, and another five for his illegal detention in a military prison.

Cambodians and many in the international community, alike, are outraged by the sentencing, and by the lack of rule of law. Duck, essentially, will only be serving eleven and a half hours per life that he took during his reign of his secret prison.

His sentencing is also, for a large part, accredited to not only the excessive Cambodian bureaucracy, but also to the country’s single party, hardly democratic, government that never truly backed the tribunal for its historical ties with Khmer Rouge.

Early next year, the same court is scheduled to try top leader, Nuon Chea, former head of state, Khieu Samphan, and two others. Yet, unlike Duch, they have denied any guilt. Whether the UN or the tribunal itself will be able to bring them to trial remains to be seen as political interference from the current Cambodian government might set delays.

There needs to be an increase of international pressure to bring them to trial and pursue justice for the acts of genocide committed during the Khmer Rouge.

Ideologically diverse yet respected foreign policy experts and high-ranking military officials—Henry Kissinger, George P. Schultz, Richard Burt, Robert Gates Hillary Clinton, and Adm. Mike Mullen—support the New START treaty. Ambassador Nancy Soderberg noted the reason for this phenomenon: “At its core, the debate is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who understand the world of nuclear weapons has changed dramatically and those who still view national security through a pre-9/11, Cold War lens.”

Treaty opponents embrace this Cold War hysteria, imagining a game of international chess that did not stop with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For them, first strike capability, acceptable losses, and thousands of nuclear weapons trained on major population centers have become a way of life. They demand to see negotiation records, hoping to uncover proof of Ivan’s cunning as he stealthily softens up lazy American capitalists for a surprise nuclear strike. Small wonder that those who entertain this skewed fantasy would sacrifice the proven benefits of a strategic arms treaty and bet the house on an unwanted, nonexistent panacea. These neo-Cold Warriors either are incapable of accepting the changes resulting from the end of the Cold War or they seek to return to the heady days of an unfettered nuclear arms race.

Take, for example, the repeated claim that the treaty will hobble the development of a missile shield. According to the far-right Heritage Foundation, it should “be the goal of the U.S. to have a missile defense system that renders nuclear threats by other nations useless.” They tacitly ignore the actual purpose of U.S. missile defense—preventing a nuclear strike from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran—and demand a missile shield unlike anything ever imagined by the last Bush administration. The missile shield they dream of is a relic of the Cold War, a fantastical Star Wars system capable of enveloping the U.S. in an impenetrable cocoon of nuclear deterrence against Russia. If the U.S. were to follow the path laid out by these treaty opponents, a costly and destabilizing modern-day arms race will be unavoidable.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. DeMint inquired "Don't we want to expand our defenses so that we can obliterate Russia's offensive capability?” His simple question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the inherent relationship between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. Beyond that, Sen. DeMint’s query woefully misinterprets the history of arms reduction treaties, and the necessity of non-proliferation in a post 9/11 world.

If the U.S. were to develop this mythical impenetrable missile shield, it would send shockwaves through the nuclear community. According to Sen. Kerry, it could “obliterate one party’s sense of deterrence,” and force nations like Russia and China to pour resources into developing an offensive nuclear arsenal large enough to eliminate this sudden gap.

Unchecked proliferation presents a more pressing concern, with unsecured nuclear weapons exponentially raising the likelihood of nuclear terrorism. A missile shield could not prevent a martyr from detonating a bomb in an American city, and nuclear deterrence holds no sway with non-state actors. Even if we spend untold billions arming ourselves to the teeth, safely ensconced in our mythical cocoon, we will not be invulnerable. Worse still, it will usher in a new age of nuclear paranoia not seen since the height of the Cold War.   

In a nuclear world America cannot go it alone.  Contrary to the baseless fear mongering of opponents like the Heritage Foundation, ratifying the New START treaty will not lead to a new arms race. It is not a drastically new agreement, but a reiteration of arms treaties supported by every administration since Reagan. If we ignore the treaty and pursue a path of nuclear hegemony, we will create a living, breathing monster that threatens the citizens of every nation.

The best and brightest cannot concoct a strategic plan or weapon system that will provide the safety and security that New START offers. There is no magic solution, no technological marvel to guarantee safety. Opponents of the treaty would do well to heed the words of “Nuclear Wizards” author Fred Kaplan: “The nuclear strategists had come to impose order -– but in the end, chaos still prevailed.”

The history of civilization shows no force more unstoppable than the madness of man. Mankind survived the Fall of Rome, the Grand Inquisition, and the Holocaust, but now we face a thousand-year night. That’s why we must remain vigilant. That’s why we must support New START. President John F. Kennedy recognized the catastrophic alternative: “Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”

Michael Crabtree is a Research Associate at Citizens for Global Solutions.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be voting on the New START treaty August 3rd. Join the New START facebook page for one final push. It's time to tell the Republican members of the SFRC to vote Yes on START.

The United Nation’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on July 22nd that the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo from Serbia does not violate international law.  

The ICJ’s decision, by a vote of 10-4, does not officially assert that Kosovo is a legal state.  Rather, the Court more narrowly says that no international laws were broken when Kosovo declared its independence.  

Kosovo’s leaders praised the Court’s decision, with foreign minister Skender Hyseni saying “This is a great day for Kosovo.”  Serbia, however, still refuses to recognize Kosovo as an independent state.  Both Serbia and its ally Russia, as well as some legal experts and analysts, have warned that the ICJ decision on Kosovo may make declarations of independence by other separatist enclaves in countries around the world more likely.

Kosovo declared itself an independent state in February 2008, following the 1999 NATO military campaign to end hostilities between Serbia and Kosovo rebels and a subsequent eight year period of administration by the United Nations.  Serbia strongly opposed the independence of Kosovo, which many Serbs see as a central and historic part of their nation.   

Until now, Kosovo has been recognized by 69 countries, including the United States and most of the European Union.  The ICJ’s ruling may encourage other countries to recognize Kosovo.  The effect of the decision on future declarations of independence by other potential new states around the world—in areas as far-flung as South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia, northern Cyprus, and Somaliland--remains to be seen.

Written by  Ariela Blätter for Open Democracy

The ICC's decision to reinstate three counts of genocide against President Bashir of Sudan is to be welcomed

Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's July 2008 announcement seeking the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes was a lightning rod for Court-bashing and panic-mongering. At the time, critics argued that Ocampo’s move would come at the expense of peace in Darfur, the charge of genocide was over-reaching, and that the Prosecutor was on an unchecked wild-goose chase.   Monday’s decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to reinstate three counts of genocide on Bashir’s arrest warrant may begin to silence those critics.

When Ocampo initially publicly announced the genocide charge against Bashir in 2008, critics claimed he was over-reaching and had badly misjudged the situation. Among their concerns about how the arrest warrant would affect the prospects for peace, they argued that the situation in Darfur no longer resembled the dynamics evident between 2003 and 2005, when a scorched earth policy, intended to eradicate members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, resulted in some 113,000 excess deaths. [i] The linchpin of these arguments was that a post-2005 Darfur should not be described as experiencing genocide but was instead suffering from a messier complex emergency. But this was simply a red herring. Whether true or not, the fact that genocidal acts may have been commissioned by the head of state at any time between 2003 and 2008 - the dates covered by the indictment - justified Ocampo decision to present his case to the three judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber. And that is why last week’s decision, that it was reasonable to believe that Bashir committed genocide and to move forward with charges, was the right one for the Court to make.

Now the Prosecutor is free to present the mass of evidence he has gathered since 2003, which covers atrocities that Bashir is alleged to have committed when he was the commander of the Sudan's civil and military apparatus. Specifically, they point to his role in masterminding a genocidal plan to eradicate the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. Acting on the pretext of counterinsurgency, this policy caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to be uprooted from their homes, destroyed their means of survival, and condemned many of them to death in the desert or in the overcrowded camps. As if this wasn't enough, Bashir employed what Ocampo asserts was control of the state apparatus in order to subject the survivors living in displacement camps to rape, hunger and even more attacks - and therefore eventually bring about their physical destruction.  

The Prosecutor’s initial decision to take this case forward was dogged by claims that it was badly timed. Sudan's UN ambassador charged that the ICC action would also have "disastrous consequences" for the peace process in Darfur. This could only be true if there was evidence of a effective and substantive peace process in the first place. In reality, however, the Darfur Peace Agreement languished and two alleged abusers are signatories-President Bashir's government and the rebel leader Minni Minawi, now a conspirator of Bashir, who has been accused of heinous crimes himself. Looking to the situation in the wake of last week’s ICC ruling, the Doha peace process is in tatters. Even senior UN officials will admit privately that it has failed, and only continues now to because it can’t be stopped.[ii] Ocampo's view of the timing of the arrest warrant in 2008, which applies just as much today, was that as any prosecutor, with such evidence in his hand, had a duty to act and did not have "the luxury to look away." Ocampo, who also believes that he has a duty to contribute to the prevention of international crimes, has pointed out that every day which Bashir remains free enables him to engage in the commission of additional hostilities and abuses. 

Many have argued that by acting beyond his competences, the Prosecutor has made a misstep in alleging genocide against a sitting head of state. This is not the case. It’s easy to forget that prosecutor's authority to act was bestowed upon his office by the UN Security Council (Resolution 1593) to investigate past and present crimes in Darfur. The prosecutor's decision to target the top of the food chain with his indictment of Bashir was taken only after his first set of indictments focused on two "middle men": Ali Kushaby, a Janjawid colonel, who was accused of leading the attacks against four villages, but was subsequently released by Bashir’s regime for "lack of evidence," and Ahmad Harun, former Minister of the State for the Interior, later promoted to Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs - a position meant to provide assistance to the Darfuri people - who was indicted for rape, torture and murder.

Finally, what is unique about Monday’s decision by the ICC is that it shows that this young Court is working. By adding the charge of genocide to the Bashir “indictment” on appeal, these judges were saying that, like all judicial bodies, they sometimes get it wrong; that their decision-making was not affected by the very public criticism of Ocampo’s earlier attempts to secure a genocide charge; and that the trial chamber ultimately valued over all other considerations the pursuit of justice for the victims of Darfur. It is also clear that despite fears to the contrary, Ocampo is not a renegade Prosecutor. A strong system of checks and balances exist in the Court’s system which was responsible first for striking the charge of genocide in 2008, and then on appeal reinstating it in 2010.What is as clear today, as it was when this issue first came before the ICC two years ago, is that holding Bashir accountable for his acts may be the only way to achieve real and substantive peace in Darfur.

Ariela Blätter is an international human rights lawyer and the Director of Policy and Programming for Citizens for Global Solutions in Washington DC.

[i] O. Degomme and D. Guha-Sapir, “Patterns of Mortality Rates in Darfur Conflict”, Lancet, vol. 135 (23 January 2010), p. 298. At http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61967-X/abstract

[ii] J. Flint, “Going Nowhere in Doha”, Making Sense of Darfur, 15 June 2010, at http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2010/06/15/going-nowhere-in-doha/

Written by Don Kraus for the Huffington Post

The indictment of Sudanese President al-Bashir on charges of genocide by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a critical step forward for the victims of Darfur. This action sends a clear signal to world leaders that there is no immunity for genocide.

This is the first time the ICC has brought charges of genocide against a sitting head of state. The charges send a clear signal from the world community that crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes will not be tolerated. The message is "mass atrocities = jail."

The charges also provide an important opportunity for the Obama Administration to work with the Court to bring one of the world's worst criminals to justice and to create a more peaceful future for Sudan.

The situation in Sudan is devolving. The new indictment will help to increase international pressure on the Sudanese government. According to Save Darfur there has been a new escalation of violence in Darfur since the April 2010 elections. Tribal clashes, government obstruction of UNAMID peacekeepers and humanitarian operation, banditry and resource shortages are intensifying the situation on the ground. Many crimes, particularly violence against women go unreported. 600 new deaths were reported in May alone.

Dave Eggers and John Prendergast propose in the NY Times increased US pressure on Sudan including "placing sanctions on key ruling party officials, blocking debt relief from the International Monetary Fund, supporting International Criminal Court arrest warrants, tightening the United Nations arms embargo and providing further support to the south." This makes very good sense.

Monday's charges against al-Bashir are in addition to the 2008 charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes for allegedly orchestrating coordinated acts of murder, rape, torture and forced expulsions.

The charges stem from al-Bashir's campaigns against tribal groups Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa in Dafur. During the seven-year conflict in Darfur, the United Nations estimates that 300,000 people died and 2.7 million have been forced from their homes. ICC court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo accused al-Bashir of keeping an estimated 2.5 million refugees from specific ethnic groups in camps in Dafur "under genocide conditions, like a gigantic Auschwitz."

Don Kraus is the CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions and co chairs the CEDAW Task Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

What does the ICC do? It tries to bring justice to these individuals: http://usaforicc.org/mostwanted/

As the hearings on the New START Treaty continue in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, support for the treaty has come from many sources, including the United States military. Gen. Kevin Chilton, U.S. Strategic Command Chief and the man responsible for the country’s nuclear forces, presented both financial and tactical reasons for ratification. Without the treaty, U.S. insight into Russian nuclear capabilities would be severely limited. Guesstimates would replace concrete Intel, leading to one of two possibilities:

• Under development: “It will be a security issue.” By underestimating Russia’s capabilities, the U.S. fails to develop necessary systems.   
• Over development: “It would be a cost issue.” By overestimating, the U.S. could end up pouring money into the development of capabilities that it does not require.

Considering the budgetary quagmire the U.S. is currently faces, we can ill afford an unnecessary and unwarranted spending spree.

Does this treaty endanger America’s National Security?

But with a vocal minority up in arms over perceived limitations to missile defense, suspicion abounds that the New START treaty will critically hinder U.S. defenses. Are these concerns warranted? The answer is a resounding no, and it has been reiterated by steady stream of military officials and foreign policy experts from both political parties. During his testimony before the SFRC, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphatically noted, "The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses."

At another SFRC hearing, Senator Lugar (R-IN) said “Yesterday, our treaty negotiators told us that missile defense language, including the unilateral Russian and American statements accompanying the New START Treaty, in no way inhibits future missile defense deployments.” As an afterthought for those conspiracy minded individuals who stubbornly resist ratification, the Senator added “And there are no secret deals with Moscow on missile defense.”

While a renewed treaty with Russia certainly appears to be in the best interest of the United Sates, the threat of a nuclear exchange between these two nations seems remote. Does this treaty take into account the threat posed by rogue states such as Iran or North Korea? According to Kerry (D-MA), Co-Chair of the SFRC, it does indeed. “Numerous witnesses, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that the treaty will not affect America's ability to defend itself from an Iranian or North Korean missile now or in the future.” These statements hardly leave room for ambiguity. 

The result of these hearings will reach far beyond the partisan gridlock that currently plagues Washington. The New START treaty allows us to renew and strengthen our relationship with the other major nuclear power. Considering the United States and Russia possess 95 percent of world’s nuclear weapons, a firm commitment for verification and reduction is essential to peace and security for both nations.

Following the end of the Cold War and passage of START I, the two countries have witnessed the benefits of mutual cooperation. START I created a watershed moment for the two nuclear powers. “Since Russia and the United States no longer presented an existential threat to each other,” explained Sen. Kerry, “they now had a common interest in cooperating to make their nuclear deployments smaller, safer, and more secure.”

The New START Treaty stands poised to continue this positive momentum built up over the last two decades. This security extends beyond the here and now. As gravely noted by Henry Kissinger during his testimony before the SFRC “This Committee's decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more.” 

Support New START? Join the New START Treaty's Week of Action.

Sunday, July 11th marked a sober anniversary for Bosnia, Europe, and the world.  Fifteen years ago, approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were massacred at Srebrenica by Serb forces, in the worst incident of genocide on the continent since World War Two.

On July 11, 1995, Serbian forces arrived at Srebrenica, which had served as a safe haven for Bosnian Muslims.  The Serbs overpowered the Dutch UN peacekeepers protecting the town and forced them to open the gates of the UN military base.  The Serb troops then took away thousands of Muslim men and boys, whom they later massacred.

Former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic is currently on trial in The Hague after being indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal for genocide related to the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.  Former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic, leader of the Serb troops in Srebrenica, remains a fugitive from justice. 

To commemorate this tragedy, 775 coffins holding the bodies of victims of the massacre were buried yesterday in a mass funeral ceremony in Srebrenica.  The event was attended by Serbian President Boris Tadic, who described his presence at the ceremony as an “act of reconciliation.”  He was welcomed by Kada Hotic, representative of the Srebrenica widows, who told him “…we are receiving you in peace.”  President Tadic pledged to “do everything” to track down all those in Serbia still suspected of war crimes.

Among other foreign dignitaries attending the commemoration was US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp, who represented the United States.  On the Saturday before the ceremony, Ambassador Rapp spoke from the Croatia/Serbia border to participants in CGS’s Partners’ Call about the recent ICC review conference in Kampala, Uganda.  For more information on this topic, visit http://globalsolutions.org/partners.

To learn more about genocide prevention and take action, visit CGS’s website at http://www.globalsolutions.org/genprev.