Citizens for Global Solutions is thrilled to hear that the U.S. has officially announced its candidacy for Human Rights Council elections in May. Currently, the HRC is the primary global intergovernmental body able to address human rights issues - the U.S. has never been a member or an active participant. CGS has advocated that the U.S. run for a seat for a long time and we are now looking forward to the elections. The U.S. will compete for the seat with Belgium, Norway and New Zealand. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, echoed our sentiments when she stated:

Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the Council to be balanced and credible. The U.S. is seeking election to the Council because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights. We hope to work in partnership with many countries to achieve a more effective Council.

Congressman Howard Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee also issued a statement supporting CGS views:

I strongly support the administration's decision to engage with the United Nations Human Rights Council by running for a seat this year. This global forum has become increasingly dysfunctional and politicized, with virtually no guidance from the United States… The time is ripe to take a more positive and active role in challenging the Council and in speaking out about genuine human rights atrocities.

Serious, constructive candidacy will enable the U.S. to generate goodwill worldwide concerning human rights issues. If elected, the U.S. will be in a better position to reclaim its leadership role in international institutions and empower the Council. Historically, U.S. participation in international forums has increased the level of effectiveness of the forums. Responsible U.S. engagement either as a member or an observer in the HRC would enable the U.S. to present itself to the world as a moral authority in both speech and action and encourage the HRC to live up to its fullest potential.

The U.S. is presently not a part of the ICC, so it does not have to follow the jurisdiction of the ICC. Yet, as a world power and a leader in promoting freedom and equality, many would agree that a stronger stance on arresting and persecuting Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir should be taken by the U.S. The U.S. State Department, during a press release on March 30, 2009, made a comment on the concern of such a warm welcome for al-Bashir by the Arab League. The State Dept. said that the Arab League meeting should have been a way for the League to express its condemnation of the Sudanese president, his actions, and show support for the ICC's decision and rejection of the current violence that has been ongoing in Sudan. This was hardly a direct answer, but a way of skirting around the subject. Directly quoting the U.S. State Dept.:

"The presence of President Bashir at this conference should be used as an opportunity to bring forth the international opprobrium [blame] to what is happening in Darfur and in South Sudan."

One would have to wonder how the U.S. State Department could answer the question of concern by the White House, and yet not answer a direct question about whether or not any action would be taken towards the Arab League for taking such a clear stance behind al-Bashir. Can't we just have a clear answer? It seems that despite the United States supporting the arrest of al-Bashir, little is being done by the U.S. to voice concerns that he remains free to roam about Africa, the Middle East and the world. This Sunday (March 29, 2009) al-Bashir attended the Arab League's meeting in Qatar, where other Arab leaders have all, in unison, declared their support for al-Bashir. The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said:

"We emphasize our solidarity to the Sudan and our dismissal and rejection of the decision handed down by the International Criminal Court [ICC].

(Read full story at Aljazeera.net)

Of course this concern or action by the Arab League did not happen as some may have hoped. The U.S. should be standing behind their support for the arrest and prosecution of this oppressive ruler who has allowed the starvation, rapes, and murders of thousands of his own people. It should be expected that a country such as the U.S. would pressure other countries to follow through on the arrest warrant that has been issued for al-Bashir. Of course it seems that the U.S. is not willing to publicly pressure countries of which al-Bashir has recently visited to arrest and extradite al-Bashir in order to achieve justice.

According to the New York Times and other media sources indicted Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir has visited with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Bashir has not been deterred by the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. He visited Eritrea on Monday and is expected to attend an Arab League summit meeting in Qatar next week.

Neither the State Department nor the Whitehouse has commented on Bashir's travels and defiance of the Court's jurisdiction, other than to say that he is not welcomed in the United States. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood, when asked if the U.S. is encouraging other nations to arrest Bashir dodged a clear response and said:

"Well, first and foremost, we're not a party, as you know, to the Rome Statute. There are countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, and they have obligations, international obligations under that statute."

In fact other than a supportive statement by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the White House has basically withheld comment on the ICC until it completes a review of U.S. policy regarding the Court. The administration should finish this policy review quickly. It should call for extensive and thorough U.S. cooperation with the Court and support for its prosecutions and trials. It should support U.S. participation in the Court's meetings. And it should make clear that U.S. relations with the Court are in an entirely new era. The historic ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir makes these steps especially urgent.

In FY09 the U.S. will supply Egypt with $1.3 billion in military financing. Ideally, Congress should condition this funding to ensure Egyptian cooperation with the apprehension of war criminals like Bashir. At the very least the U.S. should quickly state its desire for Cairo and other Arab League nations to cooperate with the Court.

The United States is now in the odd and unsustainable position of strongly endorsing the most important action that the ICC has ever taken while evading any commitment to support or participate in it as an institution. While Secretary of State Clinton has been hindered by the slow confirmation process to bring on new political staff, she should not allow the United States to stand mute on the sidelines while allowing a mastermind of systematic mass-murder and rapes to freely roam the world and flaunt the jurisdiction of the Court and the U.N. Security Council which authorized the Court's actions in Sudan.

The name of our organization, "Citizens for Global Solutions" has two concepts built into it: "Citizens" and "Global Solutions." We put a lot of energy into thinking about global solutions. But today I want you to spend some time thinking about the first term, 'Citizens'. We are gathered here today as citizens of states from across the nation: from California to Maine. And we are here as proud citizens of the United States of America. (It's nice to be proud again.) But we are also here as global citizens.

The very definition of citizenship contains the concepts of loyalty and protection. We are loyal to a clan, a state, a nation, and for us the world - and in return for our loyalty we expect that by banding together and working within a common set of rules we will be able to make ourselves and our families more secure. But we are still working all this out at the global level. From our economy, to weapons of mass destruction, pandemics, genocide, to the very environment we exist in - we are not there yet. We are still exploring what the rules are and how we can work together. But we know that it is imperative that we accomplish this task. We are global citizens in a time of turmoil.

Moises Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy magazine said, "The gap between the need for effective collective action at the global level and the ability of the international community to satisfy that need is the most dangerous deficit facing humanity."

Today, we're going to concentrate on that deficit, our goals for the coming year to address it, and strategies for achieving them. We'll meet with experts, representatives from other organizations that are working on the same goals, hear what they're planning to do, and see how we can join our efforts together to increase our effectiveness. This morning, you can choose between three panels; one will examine the next steps we should take towards peace, another will discuss ways to promote a healthy environment and sustainable development, and the third will look at how to stop mass atrocities and bring those suspected of masterminding them to justice. You'll find more information on them in our program, as well as information on the speakers who will be participating.

After that, we'll take a break for lunch and also take a few minutes to hear from the winners of our 2008 Multimedia contest, which focused on the crisis in Darfur. Then it's off to the afternoon sessions where we'll look at the pros and cons of establishing a U.N. Parliamentary Assembly , and you'll be able to choose between two more panels; one will look at how to get more people involved in our work while the second panel will talk about ways to increase U.S. support for a variety of international treaties, including the CEDAW, the ICC treaty and, of course, the Law of the Sea .

These treaties are all awaiting ratification by the U.S. Congress, and they all demonstrate exactly what Citizens for Global Solutions stands for -- a commitment to work with other nations in solving our problems. Last year, then- presidential candidate Obama told a crowd in Europe, "the burdens of Global Citizenship bind us together.""

We know that many of our problems cannot be solved by any one nation alone. We must work with international organizations, like the United Nations, to find solutions that are good for all countries - not just one. When a parent in one country pollutes the air, a child in another country breathes it. When one country becomes embroiled in political unrest, the terrorism and criminal activities spawned there will soon spread abroad.

Recently veteran U.S. diplomat & Harvard professor Jonathan Moore said, "We are so tightly and dangerously tied to one another across the globe that it would turn out to be suicide to advance one's own survival at the expense of others."

Global citizens know this --- that the only way to protect ourselves, our families and our country is by making other countries safe and prosperous.

Global citizens know that helping less-developed countries establish better educational systems, fairer and more responsive governments and a means for those who are wronged to obtain justice provides security for us here in the U.S. It also means that we feel an obligation for our country to settle disputes with other nations as equals, by peaceful means, rather than by force of arms.

But simply knowing that nations need to work together is not enough. We have to work to ensure that they do. Too many governments in the world decide that the political cost of tackling long-term problems is too high, so they ignore them. Thus, our glaciers and ice caps continue melting, our nuclear stockpiles remain high, and atrocities against vulnerable people continue to occur -- all because of a lack of concerted global action.

Last weekend, international financial leaders and bankers met in England to try to craft a solution to the global financial crisis, but they were unable to reach an agreement. Each faction demanded that the others do more; each felt that it was already shouldering more than its share of the burden. Without an agreement, each faction will go off in different directions with conflicting policies and the crisis will be solved erratically and slowly.

While the lack of concerted global action could prevent us from effectively solving the global economic problems, the preoccupation on the crisis will make it hard for the Obama administration to work on advancing longer-term goals. In the heat of solving today's problems, they will find it hard to put systems into place that will create a better world --- for all of us -- in the long-term. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen.

We can do that by following the advice President Franklin Roosevelt reportedly gave a group of activists who wanted him to persuade the country to take a particular action. He reportedly listened carefully, nodded respectfully and then replied: "I agree with you and I want to do it. Now, it's up to you to make me do it." In other words, he was telling them that it was up to them to go out and generate the political support needed for their cause.

President Obama has made it clear that he wants to launch a new era of international cooperation, but it's up to us generate the political will for that to happen. Mindless cheerleading will not be sufficient. As Roosevelt understood, politics are made up of interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear on certain goals. And that is why we're here this weekend -- to establish our goals and to figure out which interests and constituencies can help us achieve them. Then we will have to develop strategies on how to bring these groups together in support of our common goals. This is what we'll be looking to achieve over the next couple of days. I look forward to working with you on this during this conference and in the months to come.

Thanks to everyone who came to our 2009 Annual Meeting at Gallaudet University last weekend! We had a great time, applauding the achievements of our supporters during the past year; going over goals for the upcoming year; and looking at some long-range issues that we may want to begin working on.

Congressman Joe Sestak (7th-PA) made time to talk to our supporters about his goals for international engagement on Thursday, answering questions listening to our concerns. Many other Members of Congress arranged for their foreign policy staffers to meet with our members, to discuss the ICC, the Law of the Sea, and CEDAW. On Friday, we had a series of incredible panels, begining with a discussion of nuclear disarmament and peacekeeping. Joe Cirincionne of the Ploughshares Fund, Ann Richard of the International Rescue Committee, Peter Yeo of the U.N. Foundation's Better World Campaign, and our own CEO Don Kraus discussed a variety of policy initiative and fielded questions.

Easily the most animated discussion was the panel on whether the world is ready for an elected United Nations parliament. Legal expert Andrew Strauss, CGS Minnesota chapter leader Joe Schwartzberg, Faye Leone of the World Federalist Movement, Argentine parliament member Fernando Iglesias and Jeffrey Laurenti of the Century Foundation all debated the advantages and problems of setting up a global assembly.

We want to thank them, as well as all our other great speakers: Congressman Joe Sestak, Eric Schwartz, Gillian Sorensen, Sarah Albert, John Washburn, Heather Hamilton, Margaret Hayes, Joseph Cirincione, Anne Richard, Peter Yeo, Tyson Slocum, Hilary French, Jason Patlis, Morton Halperin, Elisa Massimino, Bassam Haddad and Susan Myers for taking the time to talk to us last weekend.

We'll be posting videos of many of the panels over the next few days, as well as summaries of some of the discussions and speeches, so keep checking here for updates. We now have the largest group ever of elected officials who support our goals, but the world economic crisis is taking up much of their attention.It's up to us to make sure that our issues stay in the spotllight and to generate the political will that will allow our elected representatives to support our goals.

Thanks to all our Partners who joined us March 14th for our Partners Call on Darfur. Niemat Ahmadi of SaveDarfur joined us to give us the latest information on the situation there. Unfortunately, President Al-Bashir has disconnected many telephone lines and internet connections, in order to keep information from getting from Darfur to the outside world. Ms. Ahmadi told us about this very worrisome development and urged our Partners to press U.S. officials to take action quickly. She said,

"This is the right time for world leaders to show leadership. What's going on in Darfur is a humanitarian crisis, so it is the responsibility of world leaders to help."

See what Ms. Ahmadi had to say to the UN Security Council.

Senate passage of the Omnibus appropriations bill quietly marked the end of Congressional sanctions on nations that have ratified the International Criminal Court. It also officially ends the Bush administration's Bilateral Immunity Agreement (or Article 98) campaign, clearing the way for greater U.S. cooperation with the Court.

Thank you Representative Lowey, Senator Leahy and your staffs!

Beginning in the summer of 2002, the Bush administration aggressively sought to conclude bilateral immunity agreements with every country in the world. Bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs), also known as "Article 98" agreements, prohibited countries from sending U.S. personnel to the ICC for any reason. This includes U.S. servicemembers, nationals, or employees of the U.S. government (past and present, including non-national contractors). Over 100 nations were pressured into signing these agreements, even though doing so meant violating the commitment they took on when they ratified the ICC treaty. They were forced to put all U.S. citizens on their territory, even mercenaries and common criminals, above the laws that they expected their own citizens and leaders to obey.

In 2002 Congress passed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), which hampered U.S. cooperation with the Court and sanctioned nations that ratified it by withholding funding for military financing and education. By January, 2008, at the urging of the Defense Department, these economic sanctions were eliminated.

In 2004, then Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) introduced an amendment to the State/Foreign Ops appropriations bill to suspend Economic Support Funds to members of the ICC who did not sign BIAs. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), the Republican chair of the appropriations subcommittee, spoke strongly against this amendment when it came to the House floor: "At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. If we accept [this amendment], the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing [BIAs]." While the amendment originally failed by voice vote, it later passed by a roll call vote of 241 to 166.

Now, thanks in large part to the work of House Foreign Operations and State Sub-committee chair Nita Lowey (D-NY) and her staff, the language has been removed from appropriations bill. Although her counterpart in the Senate, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has successfully kept this language off of the Senate bill for many years, House Republican opposition ensured it remained in the final bill that went to President Bush.

With the removal of the Nethercutt language, the BIA campaign is now officially over.

Except... What will the Obama administration do once nations that were forced to sign these agreements begin to withdraw from them? Stay tuned

Reaction is pouring in to the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued on Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. Several members of Congress issued statements calling for stronger U.S. engagement with the ICC and Darfur. Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) said:

"Today, the International Criminal Court took the first step towards bringing the perpetrators of the violence in Darfur to justice. For far too long, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has violated human rights and committed heinous acts of violence against civilians in Sudan. We cannot afford to delay or stall while innocent people continued to be slaughtered in Darfur. Today, the International Criminal Court has demonstrated its moral authority by holding accountable those who are responsible for war crimes and now the United States must demonstrate its leadership in global justice by renewing its commitment to the Court's mandate. Only then will the International Criminal Court have the tools at its disposal to prosecute and try those who commit mass murder and other crimes against humanity around the world'."

This echoed CGS's statement made earlier today.

On the House floor, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) called on President Obama to take rapid action:

Madam Speaker, today the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's President Bashir'charging him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is the first time the court has accused a sitting head of state of war crimes.

The world knows what's been happening in Sudan and Darfur. Yet, the Obama Administration has failed to appoint a special envoy to Sudan.

The Tribunal's spokeswoman said the crimes included "murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians and the pillaging of their property."

And yet, the Obama Administration has failed to appoint a special envoy to Sudan.

According to the UN, an estimated 300,000 have been killed since the Darfur conflict began in 2003 and 2.7 million displaced.

And yet, the Obama Administration has failed to appoint a special envoy to Sudan.

As recently as yesterday, AP reported that in recent weeks 26,000 people have fled their homes in Darfur and flooded Zamzam refugee camp'already home to 50,000 people.

Time is short. The killing and devastation go on. The administration must act. This cannot wait.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) released this statement in response to the arrest warrant:

"The decision by the court's judges will add international legal weight to a long obvious truth - primary responsibility for the atrocities in Darfur rests with the regime that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir heads.

"The international community, led by the United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council, must make absolutely clear that the Government of Sudan will be held responsible for any retaliatory action against civilians, humanitarian aid workers, or United Nations and Africa Union peacekeeping forces.

"Additionally, the Security Council must resolve that it will not allow Khartoum to hold hostage the CPA, Sudanese civilians or the international operation to alleviate suffering caused by the Sudanese government. The various Darfur rebel movements must also understand that any attempt to use the ICC decision as an excuse for offensive military action is unacceptable and will only result in greater suffering for the Darfuri people.

"Moving forward we must pursue a comprehensive, negotiated peace in Sudan that builds on the framework of the CPA and takes into account the needs and rights of all citizens. Ultimately, the problem of Darfur cannot be resolved unless the problem of Sudan is resolved.

"For its part, the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) must take this opportunity to abandon its disastrous policies in Darfur and elsewhere and rehabilitate its relationships with the international community. For that to happen, it must end its attacks against civilians and its support for the janjaweed militias; cooperate fully with the UN-AU peacekeeping force (UNAMID); end impunity in Darfur; allow refugees and internally displaced persons to safely and voluntarily return home; negotiate in good faith with the rebel movements and Darfuri civil society to ensure equitable political rights and economic development and; fully implement the CPA.

"The people of Darfur are counting on us for help. My colleagues and I stand ready to work with the Obama Administration to address this issue and bring about swift resolution."

Unfortunately, the response from the Obama administration has been tepid at best. At a press briefing, a reporter asked, "Does the President support the arrest warrant issued today against President Bashir of Sudan? And how is the administration planning for the possibility of retaliation as a result of this against Darfurians, a possible collapse of the peace in the south, and international workers in Sudan?" White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question saying:

"Let me -- without getting specifically into this, the White House believes that those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable; that as this process moves forward, that we would urge restraint on the part of all parties, including the government of Sudan; that further violence against civilian Sudanese or foreign interests is to be avoided and won't be tolerated. The President and this White House are determined to support the pursuit of an immediate cease-fire and long-term peace in the region. Obviously there are many efforts that are ongoing in the region to help those that have been displaced, and the President believes those efforts should and must continue."

President Obama - you need to do better than that.

Today the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir (CGS just issues a press release and an action alert .) The warrant accuses the president of two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity in Darfur, by ordering government troops as well as Janjaweed militia to engage in a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture against members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. The Court has ordered government officials to hand over President Al-Bashir for trial on these charges, and asks all nations to help bring the president to justice.

This warrant is an example of actions that the Court was specifically created to take, in order to hold the world's most heinous criminals accountable for their actions. It proves that no one, including a head of state, is above the law.

The United States should immediately provide all assistance to the Court in apprehending President Al-Bashir, by taking him into custody if he enters our airspace, waters or territory; by freezing all economic and/or military aid to the Sudanese government until Sudan complies with this warrant; by using diplomacy to pressure President Al-Bashir and other nations to comply with the ICC demands; and contributing our enormous resources to this investigation to ensure that justice is served.

However, before the U.S. can credibly pressures other nations to hand Al-Bashir over to the Court, it needs to do 3 things:

• reinstate its signature on the ICC treaty;
• take a seat as an observer at the Court's governing body; and
• formally begin to cooperate with other investigations the Court is conducting in the DRC, Uganda, and eslewhere.

We need to take these steps not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will be difficult for other nations to take us seriously when we urge them to abide by the Court's rulings. You can help spread the word by taking action.

I first became active in the World Federalist Association, predecessor to Citizens for Global Solutions, in 1983, when I lived in the Boston area. One of the objectives on our radar screen at that time was the creation of an International Criminal Court, but at the time it seemed almost as close to science fiction as would have been a full-fledged world federation. One of the global circumstances we Federalists deplored was the almost complete lack of accountability for crimes against humanity committed outside of responsible national jurisdictions. Yet there seemed virtually no interest anywhere in creating institutions to deal with this problem.

And yet, by the late eighties, a consortium of Caribbean countries, supported by Federalists around the world, introduced the idea of an International Criminal Court in the General Assembly. And within ten more years, in August, 1998, the ICC treaty was created in Rome. Now, in its approaching indictment of Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, for the first time in history a sitting head of state is facing likely prosecution by a global legal authority.

Just today, a young staffer in CGS's Washington office asked me what the prospects were for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which could become a global legislature with democratically elected proportional representation. It's an idea gaining momentum in Europe, Canada and Latin America, but not much yet in the United States. "At this point, it's still science fiction," I started to say.

If the International Criminal Court can come to fruition in less than a quarter century, it's reasonable to believe the same can occur with a U.N. Parliamentary Assembly. Almost 3,000 people have signed the appeal from the Campaign for a U.N. Parliamentary Assembly and that number continues to grow every day. Through continued work on the issue, perhaps the dream of a world federation could soon be within our grasp.