As published in the Huffington Post

President Obama, speaking from the Oval Office, told the nation (and the world) that it is time to "turn the page" now that U.S. combat operations have officially ended in Iraq. And while he talked about what we learned from the last "page," the President missed an important part of the Iraq war's lesson.  If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that our nation is most successful when we work in close cooperation with other nations as opposed to going at it alone.  Our greatest strength is when we convince nations to join together and play by a common set of rules that we are also willing to adhere to.  

President Obama correctly told us that:

"...one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example -to secure our interests and stand by our allies."

This is true, and I'm proud to here our President say this. But it's not just about "our power." During World War II, the U.S. initiated the creation of the United Nations system. The organization was built on a foundation of mutual security in response to a shared threat.  In the Korean War, the U.S. participated with sixteen U.N. member states that provided troops under a United Nations Joint Command.

In early 2003, opposing the run up to the Iraq war, I wrote that while:

"...the evils of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein are not in the same league ... what makes the two leaders equally problematic is that they both rely on national interest and national sovereignty to legitimize their use of military might and coercive force to achieve their aims.  Both threaten to act outside of international law, thereby decreasing human security while increasing the potential of global warfare. ... Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's new preemptive policy of acting against 'emerging threats before they are fully formed' undermines the basic principles of the United Nations and collective security. "

President Bush's invasion of Iraq did indeed fan the flames of "global warfare." In Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, and around the world, religious fundamentalism now spawns violence that threatens the stability of all nations. President Obama identified "our fight against al Qaeda "as the U.S.'s greatest security challenge. He also said:

"Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. "

But we don't and shouldn't have to bear the burden alone. This is the true lesson of the Iraq war.  Looking forward, it's time to focus on how we can work to make the United Nations a more perfect tool to share this burden.  

In Iraq and Afghanistan the U.N. has done an admirable job of supplying humanitarian aid and organizing elections.  But there is an opportunity now to empower the organization with robust peacekeeping forces, including U.S. personnel, to assist Iraq and other nations as they strive to build peaceful societies.

The end of combat in Iraq does not mean the end to violence. Rather than engaging in a perhaps decades long deployment to backstop the Iraqis - as we are still doing in Germany and Japan after WWII and in Korea after that war - we should invest our energies into a UN system that can truly end the scourge of war.  The UN was created to fight fascism. It then blocked the spread of communism.  With U.S. support it could prevent fundamentalist-induced terrorism.

At the core of American ideals and international law is the belief that no group or nation should use violence to impose its will on others. We will have truly turned the page after Iraq if the United States' goal is a world where nations unite and work together to make this a reality.

Don Kraus

As published in the Huffington Post

Here's something you don't hear every day--a Secretary of Defense talking about reducing military spending. Yet Secretary Robert Gates has recently discussed the possibility of eliminating some weapons systems, command structures and other items which are no longer necessary for national security.

According to Miriam Pemberton, a principle author of a newly released report on our nation's security budget, Gates has proposed to "mount the most serious effort to restrain his own budget of any Defense Secretary since the post-Cold War period." Whether these plans are aspirational or will actually be achieved is another story.

While this is noteworthy, it brings up another question: where would the money go? If dollars previously spent on certain military projects are simply shifted to other Defense department programs, is the U.S. really going to be any safer as a result?

This is where the idea of a Unified Security Budget comes in which considers all such spending in one place. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary Gates, in addition to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all agreed that this idea makes sense.

The newly released 2010 report of the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget takes a combined look at all of our national security needs, from offensive military spending to preventative diplomacy. Following the recommendations of the Task Force as laid out in this report, we could shave $75 billion off of military spending this year alone, while making sure our money is being spent in a smarter way.

It's no secret that the U.S. spends a lot of money on defense. For the upcoming Fiscal Year 2011, the projected federal budget for national security is $852 billion, a number which includes defense, prevention, and all international affairs budget totals.

It also may not surprise many people to know that the vast majority of this money is targeted to the Defense Department for military spending. Out of this $852 billion total, a mere $65 billion is designated for the entire non-military International Affairs budget. Breaking things down further, only $3 billion is allotted for non-proliferation purposes. Clearly, something is out of whack here.

America needs a new way of assessing our national security spending. We have to start looking at national security funding as a whole, rather than viewing it piecemeal in the form of separate budgets for agencies such as the Defense and State departments. We need to take a longer view of where this money is going, and how our national security dollars can be spent in the most effective manner.

Secretary Clinton recently remarked that a Unified Security Budget would mean that "you can see the tradeoffs" between military and non-military security spending. She added that, "You cannot look at a Defense budget, a State Department budget, and a USAID budget without Defense overwhelming the combined efforts of the other two."

Indeed. A quick comparison of national security budget figures shows that spending on the military outnumbers spending on prevention-related activities by an astonishing 6 to 1 ratio. But this obvious gap isn't always so obvious when Congress and the Administration make their budgetary plans, because the current budget system separates funding for military and non-military national security spending into separate "silos," without comparing how much is spent and without being able to easily transfer any cost savings in one agency to another (i.e. from the Defense Department to the State Department).

It's hard, as a result, to see how the U.S. can get the best bang for its national security buck. A Unified Security Budget would solve this problem, and give Congress and the Administration a simplified tool to work off of when making their national security budget plans.

William Hartung, who served with me on the USB task force, asks these questions to put this into perspective:

What makes more sense? Spending billions on unproven Star Wars anti-missile systems or increasing funds needed to secure "loose nukes" and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists?

What makes more sense? Building another C-17 transport plane that even the Pentagon doesn't want, or adding over 1,000 new Foreign Service Officers to our understaffed diplomatic corps?

What makes more sense? Spending billions on the dangerous and unneeded V-22 Osprey aircraft or doubling U.S. support for peacekeeping operations designed to keep conflicts from restarting in areas of tension?

This integrated approach to national security spending should be adopted, and the sooner the better. Smarter security spending will benefit everyone, but we need to be able to see clearly where all of our money is going before we can truly get the most bang for our security buck.

Don Kraus

Today the Obama administration releases its first National Security Strategy (NSS).  The NSS is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch for Congress which outlines the major U.S. national security concerns and how the administration plans to deal with them.  It’s a strong improvement over the last NSS issued by the Bush administration in 2006. Much of the language in the NSS could have been taken from globalsolutions.org.  This is a strategy of an administration on the right track. It’s also a signal to civil society to both support the administration's efforts and to be willing to push the envelope of what is possible.

The NSS is a strategic document that sets direction at 30,000 feet. While it calls for “a just and sustainable international order that can foster collective action to confront common challenges” it doesn’t recommend tactical steps such as better training for U.S. ambassadors or greater recognition for Foreign Service officers who work in multilateral institutions.  It doesn’t discuss how the U.S. will improve its capacity to win votes in international bodies. However it does clear the way for these steps to happen.

Below are a number of relevant quotes from the NSS on nuclear weapons, a strengthened international order, the U.N, Peacekeeping, Genocide Prevention, and the International Criminal Court.  I’ve underlined particularly worthwhile passages.

In a perambulatory letter from President Obama he says:

 “We are clear-eyed about the challenge of mobilizing collective action, and the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation. We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice – so that nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don’t….As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we will build new and deeper partnerships in every region, and strengthen international standards and institutions. This engagement is no end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times – countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds.”

On pursuing a "World Without Nuclear Weapons":

"While this goal will not be reached during this Administration, its active pursuit and eventual achievement will increase global security, keep our commitment under the NPT, build our cooperation with Russia and other states, and increase our credibility to hold others accountable for their obligations. As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments. But we have signed and seek to ratify a landmark New START Treaty with Russia to substantially limit our deployed nuclear warheads and strategic delivery vehicles, while assuring a comprehensive monitoring regime. We are reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security approach, extending a negative security assurance not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against those nonnuclear nations that are in compliance with the NPT and their nuclear nonproliferation obligations, and investing in the modernization of a safe, secure, and effective stockpile without the production of new nuclear weapons. We will pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And we will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons."

The NSS calls for a strengthened international order saying:

“[W]e have an interest in a just and sustainable international order that can foster collective action to confront common challenges. This international order will support our efforts to advance security, prosperity, and universal values, but it is also an end that we seek in its own right. Because without such an international order, the forces of instability and disorder will undermine global security. And without effective mechanisms to forge international cooperation, challenges that recognize no borders – such as climate change, pandemic disease, and transnational crime – will persist and potentially spread....Indeed, our ability to advance peace, security, and opportunity will turn on our ability to strengthen both our national and our multinational capabilities. To solve problems, we will pursue modes of cooperation that reflect evolving distributions of power and responsibility. We need to assist existing institutions to perform effectively. When they come up short, we must seek meaningful changes and develop alternative mechanisms.”

The NSS has a section on “Enhance Cooperation with and Strengthen the United Nations”.  It says:

“We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose – maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security. We favor Security Council reform that enhances the U.N.’s overall performance, credibility, and legitimacy. Across the broader U.N. system we support reforms that promote effective and efficient leadership and management of the U.N.’s international civil service, and we are working with U.N. personnel and member states to strengthen the U.N.’s leadership and operational capacity in peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, post-disaster recovery, development assistance, and the promotion of human rights. And we are supporting new U.N. frameworks and capacities for combating transnational threats like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, infections disease, drug-trafficking, and counterterrorism.”

On “Peacekeeping and Armed Conflict”:

“The untold loss of human life, suffering, and property damage that results from armed conflict necessitates that all responsible nations work to prevent it. No single nation can or should shoulder the burden for managing or resolving the world's armed conflicts. To this end, we will place renewed emphasis on deterrence and prevention by mobilizing diplomatic action, and use development and security sector assistance to build the capacity of at-risk nations and reduce the appeal of violent extremism. But when international forces are needed to respond to threats and keep the peace, we will work with international partners to ensure they are ready, able, and willing. We will continue to build support in other countries to contribute to sustaining global peace and stability operations, through U.N. peacekeeping and regional organizations, such as NATO and the African Union. We will continue to broaden the pool of troop and police contributors, working to ensure that they are properly trained and equipped, that their mandates are matched to means, and that their missions are backed by the political action necessary to build and sustain peace.”

It’s worth noting that absent from the NSS is any commitment to engage US personnel in blue-helmet peacekeeping missions.

There is great news on preventing genocide and mass atrocities:

“The United States and all member states of the U.N. have endorsed the concept of the "Responsibility to Protect.” In so doing, we have recognized that the primary responsibility for preventing genocide and mass atrocity rests with sovereign governments, but that this responsibility passes to the broader international community when sovereign governments themselves commit genocide or mass atrocities, or when they prove unable or unwilling to take necessary action to prevent or respond to such crimes inside their borders. The United States is committed to working with our allies, and to strengthening our own internal capabilities, in order to ensure that the United States and the international community are proactively engaged in a strategic effort to prevent mass atrocities and genocide. In the event that prevention fails, the United States will work both multilaterally and bilaterally to mobilize diplomatic, humanitarian, financial, and – in certain instances – military means to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.”

One item not mentioned in the NSS is a plan for the US military to develop a clear doctrine on civilian protection.  This would help to achieve the plans goals.

International Justice and the ICC:

“From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts. Those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable, and we will continue to support institutions and prosecutions that advance this important interest. Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC’s prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interest and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law.”

Don Kraus

As of January 25, 2010, The United Nations continued its work to provide emergency relief services to the people of Haiti with a meeting of senior United Nations officials today.  The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate the various sources of aid that are currently being channeled toward the nation.  Immediate goals for the crisis-stricken state include stabilization and security efforts, which are being led primarily through the efforts of UN Peacekeepers.

UN Photo/Sophia Paris

Based upon the United Nations Security Council resolution of January 19, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) expanded its forces to 8,940 troops and a police force of up to 3,711 individuals.  After visiting Port-au-Prince, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Mmoon requested an additional augmentation of troops for the region after surveying the devastation.  In describing the mission, Alain LeRoy, the UN Secretary-General for peacekeeping, stated that “their main task is to assure security and, of course, to help the Haitian people remove the rubble in all the places it can.”  The latest figures indicate that there have been 81 total fatalities, of which 21 are confirmed UN Peacekeeping fatalities. The earthquake claimed the head of MINUSTAH, Hedi Annabi, as well as individuals representing Tunisia, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico, Italy, USA, Germany, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo, France, Guatemala, India, Philippines, United Kingdom, and Brazil.  According to the UN News Centre, “the earthquake has caused the single greatest loss of life in the UN’s history.”  With at least 50 people unaccounted for, the UN must combine efforts to assist the Haitians as well as identify the dispatched personnel.  Although early recovery efforts are currently underway, it is apparent that much greater investments into reconstruction and redevelopment of infrastructure will be necessary.

The first UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti began in September of 1993.  After initial issues of cooperation with the Haitian government, the UN had several successful missions.  In 2000, the presidential elections were contested and, as a result, armed conflict broke out in 2004.  With Security Council Resolution 1529 (2004), the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) was established.  The devastating effects of the January 12 earthquake have further engaged UN efforts in Caribbean country.  It would appear almost certain that the United Nations will have a continued presence in Haiti for years to come as the nation works to rebuild all that was destroyed.  

If you would like to donate to the relief efforts in Haiti, please click here.

Yesterday the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice, delivered a strong and promising speech on the U.S.’s position towards the United Nations and global cooperation. Many of her statements reflected progress on issues that we at Citizens for Global Solutions have been working hard to further.

Rice commended U.N. operations that have helped to rebuild shattered societies, including missions in Haiti where deadly gangs have been defeated and local police have been trained, and missions in Congo that have allowed the first democratic elections in the country to be held. Promising to improve U.S. support to U.N. peacekeeping, Rice pledged more U.S. military staff officers, military observers, civilian police, and other civilian personnel.

Working towards nuclear non-proliferation, Rice recalled U.S. work to have the Security Council condemn North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests, and ongoing efforts to constructively engage Iran in the non-proliferation process. She also said that the U.S. is aiming to achieve a successful NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] Review Conference next year.

Referring to the U.S.’s new seat on the Human Rights Council- another action we have championed-  Rice acknowledged the need for the U.S. to be involved with such institutions to increase their effectiveness and scope, and to help address their shortcomings.

Elaborating on other causes that we support, Rice said, “We no longer oppose mentions of… the International Criminal Court. We no longer balk at… the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. And we’re forging a new path on climate change commensurate with our global responsibilities.” She also mentioned the importance of the U.S. paying its dues to the U.N., and noted that the U.S. cleared its accumulated debt to the U.N. earlier this year through Congress- a goal that we pushed hard to achieve.

Rice neatly summarized our philosophy here at Citizens for Global Solutions: “We face an extraordinary array of global challenges: poorly guarded nuclear weapons and material, a global financial meltdown, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and North Korea building their nuclear weapons capabilities, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, genocide and mass atrocities, cyber attacks on our digital infrastructure, international crime and drug trafficking, pandemics, and a climate that is warming by the day. These are transnational security threats that cross national borders as freely as a storm. By definition, they cannot be tackled by any one country alone.”

Read the speech here

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on July 29 with Ambassador Rice to address questions on the status of United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.  The ambassador discussed the challenges that still hobble peacekeeping.  She spoke of a "gap between supply and demand," implying that there is far more need for peacekeeping operations than there are resources within the U.N. to meet those needs.  When asked about what, if anything, peacekeeping operations accomplish, the ambassador spoke of how countless lives have been saved, and how local conflicts have been prevented from spreading because of peacekeeping.

Following the Committee hearing, two panels discussed the challenges of peacekeeping.  The first panel included Bret Schaefer, writer for the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.  Mr. Schaefer noted the importance of peacekeeping in the world, stating that it is vital that these operations get the resources they need to effectively accomplish their missions.

Ms. Erin Weir of Refugees International participated in the second panel.  She spoke at length of the important new concept that has been the focus of much discussion at the United Nations, The Responsibility to Protect.  This norm, which every U.N. member has endorsed, professes that countries have a right and a duty to intervene in foreign instances of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. 

What was most encouraging was that the focus of the day was not whether the U.N. should engage in peacekeeping operations at all, but how these essential missions can be improved.

The United Nations General Assembly's debate on the Responsibility to Protect [R2P], held on July 23, showed conflicting beliefs about the role of nations intervening in cases of genocide, war crimes, and mass atrocities.

A week before the debate, Nicaraguan Reverend Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, who is president of the UN General Assembly as well as a Catholic priest, issued a panel discussion and presented a position paper suggesting that R2P was essentially colonialism in disguise. "Recent and painful memories related to the legacy of colonialism give developing countries strong reasons to fear that laudable motives can end up being misused, once more, to justify arbitrary and selective interventions against weak states," he said. "We must take into account the prevailing lack of trust from most of the developing countries when it comes to the use of force for humanitarian reasons." Panelist Noam Chomsky reiterated this, saying that "virtually every use of force in international affairs has been justified in humanitarian terms, even the worst monsters."

According to Reverend D'Escoto, the true means to end genocide and mass atrocities involve world finanical reform, Security Council reform, and following a lesson from Jesus - he said in his note that "Jesus' emphasis on the redistribution of wealth to the poor and on nonviolence reinforces the right perspective on responsibility to protect."

While Revered D'Escoto's remarks elicited both support and shock from the Assembly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his special adviser on R2P, Edward Luck, addressed the issues raised during his panel discussion. "The responsbility to protect does not alter the legal obligation of member states to refrain from the use of force except in conformity with the Charter. Rather it reinforces this obligation," Luck quoted Ban as saying. Furthermore, in a speech he delivered on Tuesday before the debate, Ban urged member states to "resist those who try to change the subject or turn our common effort to curb the worst atrocities in human history into a struggle over ideology, geography, and economics."

On July 22, the Atlantic Council hosted a roundtable discussion on the U.N. Mission to Kosovo (UNMIK), and the future of the U.N. in the region. A distinguished group of people, representing an array of positions, were present, including UNMIK Chief of Staff, Robert Sorenson; First Counselor from the Embassy of Serbia, Djerdj Matkovic; and Executive Director of the National Albanian American Council, Avni Mustafaj. UNMIK has decreased its footprint in Kosovo by 90%. As U.N. member states have been cutting peacekeeping funds over the years, the mission is further compromised. The European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX), a technical mission launched by the E.U., is gradually taking over from UNMIK in the region.

Since Kosovo declared independence from Serbia last year, the region has continued to face problems of corruption, poor social and economic indicators, and low investment due to its disputed status. 62 countries (including the U.S.) have recognized Kosovo's independence. Mistrust between communities and manipulation by political forces have hampered development in the region and its national movement. At the request of Serbia, the International Court of Justice is to look into the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Many actions taken by political actors revolve around this pending investigation.

Though Serbia does not recognize Kosovo's independence, the representative from the Serbian embassy explained that it desired the welfare of the people in the region. It was also acknowledged that mismanagement of Serbian funds in the region had to be addressed, as resources have been working their way to Serb radicals. Corruption has to be more aggressively countered, and action needs to be taken against individuals and corporations whose illicit activities have already been proved. The poor economic conditions require attention- 60% of the region's people under 30 years of age are unemployed. A robust civil society is still a long way in the making. UNMIK, EULEX, and all the other organizations in Kosovo have a long road ahead of them, and international support for this volatile area is encouraging and essential.

World Peace Through Law: Rethinking an Old Theory and a Call for a UN Peace Force

by: James T. Ranney¹ of the Philadelphia CGS Chapter

World federalists make what they view as an airtight argument for world federalism which runs as follows. There are only two ways to resolve true conflict (conflict that cannot be mediated) at the international level: (1) by war (not such a good idea any more, since WWIII would entail the almost certain extinction of at least our species), and (2) by law. Therefore, they say, choose law. And by "law," they mean law that is the only kind worth having, enforceable law, enforceable upon individuals, i.e., world law, created by a global legislature and enforced by global courts and global police, unlike the inadequate currently-existing international "law" and the weak system of UN-based collective insecurity that we now have.²

This article will explore another possibility, that the "law" in the phrase "world peace through law" need not be that of a global legislature, that there are other ways of securing world peace through law, both in the short term and in the long run.

+download the article in its entirety here

Recently The 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Bill was passed by both chambers of Congress. This bill will repay the U.S.'s debt to the United Nations which has accumulated since 1999 and appropriates $906 million for peacekeeping operations. This bill is an important demonstration of President Obama's commitment to showing U.S. leadership through diplomacy as well as his commitment to engaging effectively with the United Nations.

The actual amount of money appropriated from the bill to peacekeeping represents 1% of the whole, which demonstrates how relatively little it costs the US to maintain it's commitment to UN peacekeeping.

Citizens for Global Solutions applauds not only the United States paying back this debt but also many other sections of the bill. These include money given for international food, refugees and disaster assistance as well as prevention of the flu-pandemic, nuclear non-proliferation and an expansion of credit lines to the International Monetary Fund. All of these things will increase the U.S. involvement in the world and provide much needed assistance to other countries.

Link to the Press Release.