The following are challengers who proudly list the Citizens for Global Solutions endorsement on their website. Through their voting records and stated positions, they have shown that they will be the best at creating global solutions for the pressing problems of the 21st century. We're proud that they choose to show how important our endorsement is by including it on their "face to the world."

Running for the Senate are:

• Tom Allen: Maine
• Tom Udall: New Mexico
• Jeff Merkley: Oregon

Running for the House of Representatives are:

• Ed Chau: California's 42nd District
• Jill Morgenthaler: Illinois's 6th
• Don Betts: Kansas's 4th
• Steve Sarvi: Minnesota's 2nd
• Tom Perriello: Virginia's 5th
• Darcy Burner: Washington's 8th

We have many more candidates that we endorsed, but these select individuals know the value of our endorsement and are willing to show their voters that Global Solutions are important to their campaign. We salute them and look forward to working with them come January 2009.

For more information on all our elections news, please visit our election coverage.

Following the negotiations that took place the week of September 8, 2008, the political leaders in Zimbabwe have finally reached a deal to share power. Coming out of negotiations Friday, September 12, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai were smiling as they told reporters of the deal that had been brokered. Although details were only released the following Monday, both leaders expressed their satisfaction with the talks.

On Monday, September 15, the three leaders of the main political parties hosted a news conference during which copies of the deal were released to the public. Mugabe (ZANU-PF) will remain President of the country, while Tsvangirai (MDC) will assume the role of Prime Minister, and Arthur Mutambara of the Movement for Democratic Change breakaway faction MDC-M, will be the deputy Prime Minister. The cabinet will consist of 31 ministers, 15 from Mugabe's ZANU-PF, 13 representing Tsvangirai's MDC and 3 allotted to Mutambara's MDC-M. The deal brokered is such that in the event of a vacancy in the cabinet, the position must be filled by a representative of the same party, in order to ensure that the coalition structure remains intact until the next general elections are held.

Although all signatories of the agreement have expressed their approval of the outcome, international states are hesitant to lend their support. The US and UK are still to approve of the deal, and are reportedly awaiting some regional stability before their formal approval is lent. This will be the first time since 1986 that another political leader has been able to successfully negotiate a deal with Mugabe. Back then it was Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe's rival from Matabeleland in the south, who represented the incumbent's biggest political hurdle. That time, however, Nkomo failed to secure a fair deal and his ZUMA party ended up being consumed entirely by ZANU, to become ZANU-PF, Political Front. If Nkomo's example stands as testimony to the success of negotiations with Mugabe, then the Zimbabwean people have a lot to worry about. After all these years of struggle and violence, it remains to be seen whether Tsvangirai and Mutambara will get the opportunity to freely express their concerns in government.

But now is not a time to be skeptical of the future. Despite the many problems that arose since the initial elections in March this year, it remains a positive omen to see that a deal has been brokered, and that members of all participating parties are committed to making it work. With an express commitment to abide by the declarations of the UN and to seek the aid of the African Union and other African bodies whenever necessary, these Zimbabwean leaders have provided a measure of hope to a very difficult situation.

Monday, September 8 2008, saw the resumption of power sharing talks between political rivals Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe. Following the failure of a clear victory for either candidate in the March 2008 elections, talks have since been launched in the capital to reach a negotiated settlement over power distribution.

When elections were first held on March 29 this year, it was the Movement for Democratic Change's party leader Morgan Tsvangirai who claimed victory. He had successfully won the first round of elections, but not with a wide enough margin to secure immediate control. The second round of elections was slated to take place on June 22, but Tsvangirai pulled out just days before, handing victory to Robert Mugabe. The insecurity in the political arena has mirrored itself in society, with violence breaking out between Zimbabwe African National Union - Political Front (ZANU-PF) and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters. In the six months following the initial elections, over 200 Zimbabweans have been killed in clashes with government forces. International criticism, stemming largely from countries like the United Kingdom, France and the United States, has also drawn attention to the desperation that plagues the country.

In June this year former South African President Nelson Mandela broke his silence on the issue by criticizing Zimbabwe's "tragic failure of leadership." Mandela's statement came just hours before Britain's Queen Elizabeth II revoked Mugabe's Knighthood. Despite the mounting international pressure, however, Mugabe appears almost unphased as he proceeds for discussions with Tsvangirai.

While there is a mutual consensus that Robert Mugabe will remain President, the main issue of contention arises around the strength of the role of Prime Minister, to be assumed by Morgan Tsvangirai. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF are strongly urging for a largely ceremonial role, Tsvangirai has stated that he will settle for nothing less than the transfer of authority from the Presidential to the Prime Ministerial role. Tsvangirai is also pushing for his party to acquire control over the Ministry of Home Affairs, which will guarantee him greater control over domestic policing matters. This time the talks are being mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki. Mugabe has been quoted as saying that if the talks do eventually fail or are not concluded by the end of this week, he will go ahead and form his own cabinet. Tsvangirai, on the other hand, has declared his determination to let no such thing happen, but rather take the people to the polls once again. Either way, neither candidate is backing down until an agreement suitable to their own agendas is achieved.

McCain's pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin last Friday, only a day after Obama made his well-received-acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, has been described by many conservatives as "a breath of fresh air". Yet breathtaking would perhaps be a more apt characterization of the Republican candidate's VP choice and what has been the public's subsequent response.

McCain had good reason to pass over party favorites for a running mate that is relatively unknown on the national political scene. After Obama's pick of Senator Joe Biden, a likeable "regular Joe", seasoned politician, and a decision that McCain himself described as "formidable", many felt that this implicitly ruled out both the exorbitantly wealthy, Mitt Romney, and the hapless ideologue, Mike Huckabee. Furthermore, as McCain has been ridiculed repeatedly by the left for his similarities to the current administration, anyone who at least seemed similar to Bush would have been a risky choice in this political climate; but anyone too far from the Bush model would have alienated his conservative base.

In this context, Sarah Palin is an unlikely, but some would say, wise choice. Not only is she the youngest Alaskan governor in history at age 42, she is also the state's first female governor and the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood. Prior to assuming the governorship, Palin served two terms as the mayor of Wasilla, an Alaskan small-town home to 7,000 residents.

Sarah Palin looks as though she may appeal to two constituencies at once: women voters and social conservatives. Sarah Palin's declaration that, "the women of America are not done yet, we can still break that highest glass ceiling" in her first major speech was not exactly the most subtle appeal to disgruntled Clintonites. But Sarah Palin also brings with her a host of socially conservative positions: pro-life, pro-abstinence only education, pro-Creationism being taught in schools, and a life-long member of the NRA, and thus, she has become an instant darling of the GOP conservative base. Call it cynical or shrewd, McCain's choice was undeniably well-calculated.

But, of course, more important than the rationale for her pick is how she stacks up on the issues, particularly those issues that are important to Citizens for Global Solutions and its members. Some issues we can not yet judge her on. Governor Sarah Palin has no foreign policy experience and, as of yet, has said nothing on the record pertaining to her position on such critical global issues such as Darfur and non-nuclear proliferation. Neither did she use her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday as an opportunity to expound on her little known foreign policy positions. As the race continues we look forward to hearing less about her family and more about her stances on these critical topics.

Although she has no foreign policy credentials, Palin has spoken and worked on global issues critical to our organization. As can be expected from a governor of Alaska, she has a clear and extensive record on energy and climate change.

In accordance with the Republican National Platform, which was recently released, Palin advocates for American energy independence. She believes that America can become energy independent by shoring alternative energy sources and drilling on American soil. As governor of Alaska she has strongly supported the development of oil and natural gas resources in Alaska. Although championed as a reformer who stands up to big oil, Palin is adamantly pro-fossil fuels and strongly feels that drilling on American soil and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which even McCain opposes, thus "supplying our very, very hungry markets across the nation with American supplies of energy," would go a long way in making America energy independent:

"We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact," she told Newsmax magazine. "It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil."

Beyond ANWR the governor said there were other untapped oil reserves she wanted to drill, including more fields in Prudhoe Bay and closer to the rugged Brooks Range. "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem," she said recently.

Palin argues for energy independence for the US as imperative to reducing American dependence on hostile foreign regimes. While CGS can see the logic in this position, we would disagree with Palin's prescription that energy independence must primarily be gained through drilling. Our energy policy has always focused on working to achieve a global transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and advance the use of cleaner energy sources. We also recognize that the concept of American energy independence, whilst appealing, misses the point that dependence on fossil fuels is a global problem that requires global solutions. This requires a willingness to cooperate multilaterally with countries in order to obtain diverse, sustainable energy sources, as opposed to using energy policy as a political bargaining tool. Furthermore, we'd be interested in the Governor clarifying how drilling a wildlife refuge would result in "minimum environmental impact," as this seems a peculiar statement that has already been refuted both by scientists and environmentalists alike.

Palin fares better on her record on climate change. CGS naturally applauds her commitment to combating climate change, though her statement that climate change is not "man-made", representing an increasingly fringe opinion held more by politicians than scientists, makes us pause for concern. Nonetheless, Palin has taken the lead in addressing climate change in her state. On 14 September 2007, Gov. Palin signed Administrative Order No. 238, officially forming the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. The Climate Change Sub-Cabinet's efforts are organized into two broad themes. "Adaptation" includes those measures that can be taken to respond to the effects of climate change. "Mitigation" refers to measures to reduce Alaska's greenhouse gas emissions and to address other sources and causes of climate change. In addition to setting up the sub-cabinet office to map out state response strategies, she sought $1.1 million in federal funds to help communities threatened by coastal erosion and other effects.

Governor Sarah Palin is still very much an unknown in national politics. But her warmly received acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention this week certainly proves that, she too, is a seasoned politician and perhaps has the potential to be a vice presidential candidate worthy of this historic election season. We look forward to learning more about her and her positions on the most pressing global issues of our time.

The month of August saw the release of the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Party Platforms just in time for the election season. Party Platforms are generally political manifestos that outline the party's general positions on topics considered most pertinent to the current political climate. Platforms rarely say anything that those faithful to the party aren't already aware of, but for those on the fence, it can be illuminating to have the issues clearly outlined. Now, perhaps, is as good a time as any for us to compare the party's respective foreign policy positions. So how do the platforms weigh in on key CGS issues?

Auspiciously, both platforms address genocide in Darfur. The Republican Platform uses the same strident and firm language used by the current administration when it unequivocally states:

"Genocide must end. The horrendous suffering of the people in the Darfur region of Sudan calls for a far more energetic and determined response from Africa's elected leaders. The United States stands ready to assist them with materiel, transportation, and humanitarian supplies. We will continue America's diplomatic efforts to secure a comprehensive and humane settlement for the people of the southern and western Sudan."

Whilst the language of the Republican stance on Darfur would seem to argue for American assistance in Darfur on the basis of moral duty, the Democratic platform approaches Darfur and the rest of Africa from a more economically and politically realist stance, stressing economic growth and development:

"U.S. engagement with Africa should reflect its vital significance to the U.S. as well as its emerging role in the global economy. We recognize Africa's promise as a trade and investment partner and the importance of policies which can contribute to sustainable economic growth, job creation and poverty alleviation. We will work with the United Nations and Africa's regional organizations to prevent and resolve conflict and to build the capacity of Africa's weak and failing states. We must respond effectively when there is a humanitarian crisis particularly at this moment in Sudan where genocide persists in Darfur and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is threatened."

As to be expected, lengthy consideration is given in both platforms to nuclear proliferation. The Republican platform identifies two key components to facing the threat of nuclear weaponry, reducing the world's nuclear stockpiles and preventing proliferation. The platform goes on to elaborate:

"The U.S. should lead that effort by reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number consistent with our security requirements and working with other nuclear powers to do the same. In cooperation with other nations, we should end the production of weapons-grade fissile material, improve our collective ability to interdict the spread of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, and ensure the highest possible security standards for existing nuclear materials wherever they may be located."

However, the Republican platform does not dare envision a world without nuclear weapons. Instead, the platform maintains that the US must develop and deploy national and theater missile defenses to protect the US and its allies:

"Effective, layered missile defenses are critical to guard against the unpredictable actions of rogue regimes and outlaw states, reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail, and avoid the disastrous consequences of an accidental or unauthorized launch by a foreign power."

The Democratic Platform, however, offers a more idealistic approach to nuclear proliferation and advocates for a nuclear policy that aims to eliminate all nuclear weaponry from the face of the Earth.

"America will seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. We will maintain a strong and reliable deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist, but America will be safer in a world that is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminates all of them. We will lead a global effort to work with other countries to secure all nuclear weapons material at vulnerable sites within four years."

And more specifically:

"We will convene a summit in 2009 (and regularly thereafter) of leaders of Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and other key countries to agree on implementing many of these measures on a global basis. We will seek to double the International Atomic Energy Agency's budget, support the creation of an IAEA-controlled nuclear fuel bank to guarantee fuel supply to countries that do not build enrichment facilities, and work to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We will not develop new nuclear weapons, and will work to create a bipartisan consensus to support ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which will strengthen the NPT and aid international monitoring of nuclear activities."

The Democratic Platform also addresses the combined threat of Iran and North Korea obtaining nuclear weaponry and how they would attempt to combat such a threat:

"The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing. We support the belated diplomatic effort to secure a verifiable end to North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to fully account for and secure any fissile material or weapons North Korea has produced to date. We will continue direct diplomacy and are committed to working with our partners through the six-party talks to ensure that all agreements are fully implemented in the effort to achieve a verifiably nuclear-free Korean peninsula."

On energy both platforms stress that America must break its addiction to foreign oil and become energy independent. The Democratic platform insists that investing billions of dollars into a green energy sector will create 5 millions jobs and aid the disadvantaged:

"This transition to a clean-energy industry will also benefit low-income communities: we'll create an energy-focused youth job program to give disadvantaged youth job skills for this emerging industry, the platform purports. We will help pay for all of it by dedicating a portion of the revenues generated by an economy-wide cap and trade program- a step that will also dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and jumpstart billions in private capital investment in a new energy economy."

Attempting to drill our way to energy independence is not the answer, according to the Democratic platform, rather:

"we must summon all of our ingenuity and legendary hard work and we must invest in research and development, and deployment of renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, as well as technologies to store energy through advanced batteries and clean up our coal plants."

The Republican platform, however, assumes that this is a limited approach and stresses the need for "diverse" energy sources including domestic oil which would require immediate drilling on American soil:

"If we are to have the resources we need to achieve energy independence, we simply must draw more American oil from American soil. We support accelerated exploration, drilling and development in America, from new oilfields off the nation's coasts to onshore fields such as those in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska. The Green River Basin in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming offers recoverable shale oil that is ready for development, and most of it is on federal lands. We oppose any efforts that would permanently block access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

Beyond domestic oil, the Republican platforms advocates to pursue, "dramatic increases in the use of all forms of safe, affordable, reliable and clean nuclear power". This, they believe, will expand the labor force, "with nearly 15,000 high quality jobs created for every new nuclear plant built." Alternate power sources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, clean coal, and natural gas must "enter the mainstream."

On climate change, the platforms mirror much of the common talking points of both parties. The Republican platform is strongly supportive of technology-driven, market-based solutions to climate change that will purportedly, "decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy."

"Scientific know how and competitive markets" will be the long-term fix to climate change which can be furthered along by cash "Climate Prize[s]". In the meantime, "nuclear and other alternative power sources" must be relied upon to reduce emissions in the short-run.

The Democratic platform, as can be anticipated, takes a far more government-sponsored approach to addressing climate change with an emphasis on international cooperation to combat what the party perceives as an "epochal man-made threat to the planet":

"We will lead to defeat climate change. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries curb deforestation and leapfrog the carbon energy-intensive stage of development. We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions."

However, the most striking difference between the two party platforms is in their positions on international institutions on which the parties are diametrically opposed. Their respective positions on international institutions are indicative of how each party attempts to lead and whether or not they value systematic multilateral cooperation. Unfortunately, the Republican platform unequivocally repudiates international institutions and treaties including, the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Law of the Sea Treaty. It also condemns the International Criminal Court (ICC) and upholds the American Service Members Protection Act, which punishes any countries who are unwilling to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) even if its in violation to their obligation to the ICC treaty.

"At the United Nations, our country will pay a fair, but not disproportionate, share of dues, but we will never support a UN-imposed tax. The UN must reform its scandal-ridden and corrupt management and become more accountable and transparent in its operations and expenses. Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values. That includes the UN convention on women's rights [CEDAW], signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child [UNCRC]. For several reasons, particularly our concern for US sovereignty and America's long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty. To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans. We support the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to shield U.S. personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet global security requirements."

The Democratic Platform takes a very different approach to the UN and international institutions. Rather than simply condemn the UN as "scandal-ridden" and "corrupt" and demand that it reform, without any clear proposal as to how it is supposed to reform itself, the Democratic platform recognizes that the UN is not a remote entity but an institution of nations united in common purpose and therefore if the UN is in need of reform it is the collective responsibility of the countries that comprise the organization to do so. Furthermore, the Republican Platform states that the US will not play a "disproportionate share of dues" but as a member of the G-8 with veto power on the Security Council, surely the US is obligated to pay "disproportionate" dues, as it wields "disproportionate" powers within the institution itself. As the Democratic platform states in its section "Revitalize Global Institutions":

"We believe that the United Nations is indispensable but requires far-reaching reform. The U.N. Secretariat's management practices remain inadequate. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new U.N. Human Rights Council remains biased and ineffective. Yet none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission. We support reforming key global institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and the G-8 so they will be more reflective of 21st century realities."

The Democratic Platform also comes out strongly in support of the UN Millennium Goals. It makes no reference to any other international institutions and treaties and is not a specific on these issues as the Republican platform. But it does acknowledge a need to strengthen UN institutions that protect and further human rights.

"We must make the United Nations' human rights organs more objective, energetic and effective. The U.S. must lead global efforts to promote international humanitarian standards and to protect civilians from indiscriminate violence during warfare."

These are just some of the issues covered in the Democratic and Republican National Party Platforms. Other key foreign policy topics outside CGS's scope such as immigration and the War in Iraq are also given close consideration in both party platforms. You can access entire party platform documents at the addresses listed below.

2008 Republican Platform

2008 Democratic Platform