04/07/08
Posted by Scott Paul
The U.S. Mission to the United Nations is hosting a briefing on the 2008 presidential elections later this week. The three speakers are Former Rep. David Bonior from the Edwards campaign, Former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey from the Romney campaign, and Frank Luntz.
It's the appearance by Luntz, the architect of the Bush
administration's fear and terror frames, that caught my attention.
First, Luntz's inclusion tips the balance of the panel in favor of
conservatives/Republicans over progressives/Democrats -- but I'm not
too nitpicky about these sorts of ratios. More importantly, Luntz has
had no formal involvement in the election. His claim to credibility on
this topic is rooted in his exploits as a pollster, which have earned
him reprimands from the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the National Council on Public Polls for two separate infractions.
That this event is taking place at the United Nations adds irony to
the story. Just over eighteen months ago, Luntz participated in a UN bash-o-rama coordinated by the Hudson Institute
in New York. There, he released new polling data that, according to
him, shows that the UN had emerged as a wedge issue that could decide a
presidential election and that Americans were "one scandal away from
washing their hands" of the UN. Even a cursory look at secondhand reports of the polling reveals bias in the language of the questions (and, more importantly, recent, credible polling arrives at opposite conclusions).
It seems to me that Frank Luntz is the least appropriate person to
speak at this forum. Well...John Bolton could probably give him a run
for his money. But there's no good reason to give Luntz this platform.
Scott Paul
03/12/08
Posted by Scott Paul
In its infinite wisdom, the Senate Budget Committee slashed $4.1 billion from President Bush's proposed International Affairs budget.
International Affairs, which includes our diplomacy, development and
international organization expenses, comprises just over 1.2% of our
total federal budget and 6% of our national security spending. It
accounts for almost all of our global non-military footprint.
Even with full funding at the level of the President's request, we're facing a crisis with peacekeeping.
Our current debts are being absorbed by troop contributing countries
like India, Pakistan, Kenya, and Bangladesh, but they won't continue to
absorb the debt forever. That means critical missions will be crippled.
And President Bush, even with his high request for International
Affairs funding generally, has proposed a dollar amount for
peacekeeping contributions that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman has called "absurdly low."
That's because the Office of Management and Budget has decided each
year to make across-the-board cuts in this area despite our aggressive
diplomacy in the UN Security Council to establish and expand peace
operations where they are needed.
The military is our hammer and our current budget priorities reflect
our view that all of the global challenges we face are nails. Believe
it or not, much of the pushback against this view is coming from the
Pentagon. Bob Gates has become refreshingly outspoken on the subject: "Funding
for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but
it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the
military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this
year's budget for the Department of Defense -- not counting operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total
foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion
- less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary
Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an
expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.
...
"Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent
of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime
periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how
much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other
departments and institutions.
"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in
spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy,
strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and
economic reconstruction and development. Secretary Rice addressed this
need in a speech at Georgetown University nearly two years ago. We must
focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond
just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also
focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be
so crucial in the coming years.
"Now, I am well aware that having a sitting Secretary of Defense travel
halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of
other agencies might fit into the category of "man bites dog" - or for
some back in the Pentagon, "blasphemy." It is certainly not an easy
sell politically. And don't get me wrong, I'll be asking for yet more
money for Defense next year.
"Still, I hear all the time from the senior leadership of our Armed
Forces about how important these civilian capabilities are. In fact,
when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was
Chief of Naval Operations, he once said he'd hand a part of his budget
to the State Department "in a heartbeat," assuming it was spent in the
right place." The amendment to restore the $4.1 billion will be proposed tomorrow by Sens. Biden and Lugar. But let's be clear: I wrote about this last year
and will probably say something again next year. This amendment is a
minor adjustment, not the radical recalibration that is required.
Scott Paul
03/11/08
Posted by Scott Paul
If this fundraising appeal
from Louisiana Senator David Vitter for his campaign to defeat the Law
of the Sea Convention weren't so dishonest and misleading it would be
hysterical.
Ok, actually, it's still amazingly funny.
For starters, the note includes a header at the top that reads "Personal & Confidential." Not two lines later, he begins the note with the most personal of salutations: "Dear Fellow American."
But that's just the beginning. The end is just as good. Vitter includes a postscript that reads: "I have an urgent goal of raising $1,000,000 in the next couple months to fund my defeat LOST campaign." That's nice. He must have forgotten what he wrote just one page earlier: "I'm
willing to spend over $250,000 in the next critical few months to help
put the U.S. Senate on notice that the American people want LOST to be
defeated." In short, I really need a dollar so I can spend a quarter.
Oh, by the way, the campaign to defeat the treaty happens to be
called "David Vitter for Senate." That's where donors are asked to send
their checks.
I promise you, my organization wouldn't be in business for very long if we sent appeals bragging about 75% overhead.
But we're not done -- there's plenty more. This appeal is the gift that keeps on giving.
The reply memo includes the usual check boxes for donors to indicate
the amount of their donation. This one, however, includes one check box
for donations in the amount of $2,500. See a problem? The limit for donations
to one candidate is $2,300 per election. Candidates can raise $4,600
for the primary and the general elections together in a single cycle,
but the donations have to designated as such. See any directions
for donors to do that? I don't. So, will Vitter for Senate be returning
$2,500 dollar checks? Or issuing $200 "oopsies" refunds?
Senator Vitter's analysis of the Law of the Sea Convention is just as ridiculous as the aforementioned gaffes.
Vitter casts the Law of the Sea as a threat to national defense and
"anti-American," but doesn't once mention that its supporters include: the President; the National Security Advisor; the Secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Interior; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Commandant of the Coast Guard, two former Secretaries of the Navy currently serving in the Senate (John Warner and Jim Webb); all living State Department Legal Advisors; and all living Chiefs of Naval Operations.
These folks -- and this is far from a comprehensive list -- all believe
that U.S. accession to the Convention is crucial to U.S. national
security. The Navy and Coast Guard are making it crystal clear that
accession will help them do their jobs and keep them out of harm's way.
But Vitter knows better.
He also says that the Convention is bad for business. Never mind
that every ocean industry -- shipping, oil and gas, telecom, fishing,
marine manufacturing, shipbuilding -- all strongly support joining the
Convention.
Here's a paragraph on page 2: "Articles 19 and 20 of
LOST specifically require the U.S. Military to agree to not conduct key
military operations or intelligence gathering activities in territorial
waters without "permission" from this same nation!" Not
sure what "nation" Vitter is referring to here, but here's the thing:
we've already committed not to conduct military activities in the
territorial waters of other countries. We did so when we ratified the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
Why did we want agreement on these provisions? Because we don't like
the idea of Cuban submarines submerged a half-mile off of Miami Beach
-- or, if we want to get a little closer to home, in the Mississippi
river near New Orleans. So it stands to reason that Senator Vitter
favors allowing foreign ships to conduct military activities on the
Mississippi river and footsteps from the Louisiana shoreline.
I'll share one more amusing detail. Vitter says "It will take 41
votes in the U.S. Senate to defeat LOST." But advice and consent to
treaties requires two thirds of those voting and present in the Senate,
so it would require no more than 34 opponents to block accession. Again
Vitter's ignorance is on display for all to see.
I really could go through this letter paragraph by paragraph picking
out factual errors, misstatements and even grammatical errors -- but
there's really no need to rebut stuff this outrageous and silly.
I usually wouldn't get so excited about finding detail-level errors
in a fundraising letter that some underpaid campaign staffer probably
put together. But Vitter is casting himself as an expert on the Law of
the Sea and a leader in the campaign to derail U.S. accession. That's
why Senator Vitter's willingness to utterly ignore facts and details
when it suits him -- or when he's simply lazy and doesn't feel like it
-- captures my attention.
So, Confidentially & Personally, Mr. and Mrs. Fellow American,
please take Senator Vitter's analysis of the Law of the Sea Convention
with a grain of salt. Scott Paul
02/28/08
Posted by Raj Purohit
Wired.Com has just released a set of previously unseen images from Abu Gharib that were recently used in a presentation on torture at the TED conference in Monterey, California. The photos are
horrific (viewer discretion is advised) and will certainly reopen the
global debate on torture and U.S. actions in Iraq. There is little
doubt that the U.S. image in the world will take a further blow at a
time when it cannot afford to take too many more.
There is no chance of restoring the U.S. reputation in the world
unless we shift course on the issue of torture - unfortunately the
Administration and Congress are incapable of dealing with this issue on
their own. We have been urging for several years now that Congress moves
to create an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Torture and
Interrogation; it is past time that the U.S. comprehensively address
the scandals of Abu Gharib and beyond.
Some may ask whether it makes sense to wait until we have a new
President as there is a good chance that Administration policy will
shift dramatically in 2009. My sense is that we actually need more than
just a shift in policy going forward. There is a need for all the
information on torture to be raised in a public setting and for the
facts to be on display for both domestic and global public consumption.
Any Commission that is created should be tasked with bringing
together a broad range of experts able to collectively comprehend the
totality of the issue, its consequences and necessary policy
prescriptions. The experts would be drawn from the intelligence,
foreign policy, law enforcement, military, veterans, legal and human
rights community. Additional members could include representatives of
the faith community, theologians, cultural specialists and historians.
The Commission would publicly air its findings thereby ensuring that
the country as a whole can move forward together with an understanding
that an “end to torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or
punishment” policy is both the morally correct thing to do AND is the
best counter-terror approach for the U.S. to take.
I strongly believe that this is an issue where we can build bipartisan support. Maybe Powell could chair the Commission?
Perhaps a national reporter could ask Senator Obama, Senator McCain
and Senator Clinton whether they would ensure that such a Commission
would be formed during their first 100 days as President.
02/20/08
Posted by Scott Paul
The Bush administration has bent over backwards to cater to business
interests. At least, that's been my perception from the outside.
Last week, I met with an influential operative in the business community about the Law of the Sea.
We agree on the importance of U.S. accession to the Convention as
critical to national security, business interests and global
sustainability -- but probably little else.
This individual had a very different perspective on the White
House's relationship to business. He told me -- and I'm paraphrasing
here -- that the White House rarely gives them advance notice when the
administration does or says something that affects their interests.
In particular, he recalled with anger the maelstrom surrounding Vice
President Cheney's energy task force. He promised me that there was
nothing secret about the meetings and that some of them even took place
in the offices of a trade association. And he continued -- furious at
this point -- to complain that the task force's recommendations were
more or less ignored as the White House presented its energy package to
Congress.
None of this changes my view that Cheney's energy task force was
highly irregular or that business interests carry too much weight in
the Bush administration. But the fact that these folks don't feel heard
in a very, very friendly White House speaks to the general incompetence
of the administration and helps to explain why no one, not even Bush's natural base, wants more of the same. Scott Paul
Posted by Scott Paul
Hillary Clinton told her supporters last night: "One of us is ready to be commander-in-chief in a dangerous world."
Setting up the "dangerous world" frame is right out of the Frank
Luntz playbook. I'd link to his writings on national security but I
can't seem to find them online -- I only have hard copies. Basically,
Luntz's message is if you make the world seem dangerous and scary,
voters will choose conservative candidate more willing to confront
problems and bad guys directly with guns and bombs.
That's not the direction of Hillary's policy or even most of her
rhetoric -- she's trying to focus on the experience gap, as she has
every right to do. But candidates' messaging can have lasting effects
on the electorate.
Including this talking point once is no big deal, but it had better
not feature regularly in Hillary's stump speeches. She and her staff
know better.
Scott Paul
02/12/08
Posted by Scott Paul
NOAA has just gathered new mapping data in the Arctic.
As expected, there's a wealth of minerals and resources up there that
should be under U.S. control but won't be until we ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.
In fact, the new data suggests that the U.S. extended continental shelf
claim will be even larger than most previously thought was possible.
Of course, only countries that have joined the Law of the Sea can
make such claims. That's important, because without international
recognition U.S. oil, gas and mineral firms can't make the huge
investments necessary to start drilling -- and the U.S. government
can't help protect the fragile Arctic environment from further
degradation.
Not a huge fan of dependence on oil and gas? Me neither. But
environmentalists and oil industry reps. agree that our Arctic
interests -- both environmental and economic -- are best served by
putting our continental shelf under the protection of U.S. law, not
left to Russians, Canadians, Norwegians and Danes to fight over.
Contrary to the arguments of Law of the Sea opponents, this is what real sovereignty
looks like. Joining the treaty would give the U.S. exclusive economic
control over resources 200 nautical miles from the shore line -- that's 4.1 million square miles, in addition to the extended continental shelf beyond that.
We're talking about an area bigger than the 48 continental United
States combined. Ironically, the folks most obsessed with sovereignty
are the least willing to expand it in what could be the biggest land
grab in ages.
Meanwhile, we wait to see if President Bush has the stomach to fight
the good fight. He's already come out in support of the treaty. Now he
just needs to get out in front to cash in on his investment.
-- Scott Paul
Update: Andy Revkin, the world's most knowledgeable reporter about the Arctic and climate change, covers this at Dot Earth, which has become a regular must-read for me.
02/10/08
Posted by Don Kraus
Steve Killelea, a self-described "conservative businessman and philanthropist," gave an excellent presentation on his brainchild, the Global Peace Index (GPI). One day, Steve asked the question, what is it that makes nations peaceful? He found out no one really knew. So he hired the Economist Intelligence Unit and funded an international panel of peace experts from Peace Institutes and Think Tanks as well as the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, Australia to find out. The GPI is the result of their efforts. They weighed 24 indicators for 120 nations to do the study, which will be expanded over the next few years. The U.S. was 96th out of 121 nations surveyed. It's worth taking a look at. Steve is a true citizen for global solutions. He believes that: “Peace and sustainability are the cornerstones of humanity’s survival in the 21st century. The major challenges facing humanity today are global – climate change, accessible fresh water, ever decreasing bio-diversity and over population. Problems that call for global solutions and these solutions will require co-operation on a global scale unparalleled in history. Peace is the essential prerequisite, for, without peace, how can the major nations of the world co-operate to solve these issues?”
Coming up Sources of Violent Conflict and Conflict Prevention in the 21st Century Don Kraus
02/09/08
Posted by Don Kraus
Mr. Philip Alpers of Sydney University gave a compelling presentation on small arms disarmament. He felt that too much effort was being put into nuclear weapon disarmament, and not enough into small arms. His rationale was simple: Deaths caused by nuclear weapons since 1945 = 0
Deaths caused by small arms = 1000 per day He used a public health analogy and discussed small (hand held) weapons as a disease vector. Here’s the formula: Gun is to armed violence as mosquito is to malaria. Next the “Global Peace Index” Don Kraus
Posted by Don Kraus
The discussion on conventional weapons continues: Archie Law discussed the Cluster Munitions Convention and the Oslo process to establish a ban on these terrible weapons that cause indiscriminate civilian casualties. Cluster bombs are weapons that have a “parent” delivery device (usually drop from a plane) that then breaks up into “bomblets” that scatter and kill over a wide area. Some 34 nations, including the U.S., make these weapons. 21 nations have been affected by them. One of the problems with these devices is that a large percentage of the munitions do not explode on impact. When civilians return to their homes after the fighting stops these weapons can fall from trees or be picked up by children – and the killing continues. Their use in Lebanon has touched off a process to ban them led by Norway. A treaty has been drafted and so far 40 nations have signed on. A meeting to be held in the near future in Oslo is expected to attract over 100 signers. Unfortunately the United States, along with Russia, China, Israel, Sudan, and others is not on board. More later Don Kraus
:: Next Page >>
|
Permalink