For the past two and a half years, a big part of my job at Global Solutions has involved managing the work of our political action committee, Global Solutions PAC.  I've met with congressional candidates from around the country, listened to their views on foreign policy, recommended endorsements and contributions to their campaigns, and attended fundraisers to show our support.  It's been a great experience, and one that has taught me quite a lot. 

Now, as I prepare to leave Global Solutions and embrace new opportunities, I look back on my time here and have a few thoughts and memories I'd like to share with you.

It doesn't take a genius or political pundit to know that most Americans are not primarily focused on foreign policy this year as they decide which candidates they want to send to the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.  Most voters, understandably, are more focused on jobs and the economy.  However, there is plenty of evidence that voters do want to see a U.S. foreign policy that remains engaged outside our borders and works with allies and international institutions to build a better world.  For example, according to a recent survey by the Better World Campaign:

Tomorrow may be Valentine's Day, but for those of us who care about international affairs funding (or federal funding of any kind, for that matter), today was a day which has long been almost as breathlessly anticipated: the release of the President's annual budget request for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2013.  (I know, not as delightful as Valentine's Day, but still important.)

President Obama stressed that his overall budget aims to balance many different priorities, such as spurring job growth while reigning in the deficit.  But stepping away from that bigger picture, what does the President's budget request mean for funding for international affairs in the next year?

President Obama has requested $51.6 billion for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Within that, budget priorities include funding for the "frontline states" (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq); human and economic security; support for embassies and the U.S. global presence; and support for U.S. allies and contributions to multilateral organizations.

This year as we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King’s 83rd birthday, I’m struck by the vast difference between his beliefs and today’s “peace candidate”, Representative Ron Paul.  In New Hampshire, Paul received 47 percent of the under 30 vote compared to 25 percent for Mitt Romney.  It’s easy to understand Paul’s youth appeal.  He would avoid “long and expensive land wars,” would immediately withdraw from Afghanistan, has railed against the draft and supports legalizing marijuana.

But let’s be clear: Ron Paul is no Martin Luther King. While Dr. King most likely would have supported Paul’s call for bringing troops home from Afghanistan, King’s understanding of what peace means is almost the opposite of Paul’s.

Paul’s vision of peace is based on individualism and isolationism.  He believes that “the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.” But there is a world of difference between being anti-war and pro-peace.

King believed that,

“If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties … must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.”

International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has said that Libya’s transitional government has agreed to work with the ICC and the United Nations to investigate alleged crimes committed by Saif Gaddafi, the recently captured son of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The subject of where Saif would be tried - either at the ICC or in Libya - has provoked much debate since his capture.  The ICC had issued arrest warrants for Saif, his father, and Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senoussi for crimes against humanity stemming from their involvement in the violent crackdown on civilians which took place in Libya for several months this year.  Because the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, the Court has jurisdiction over the case, even though Libya is not an ICC state party.  However, some in Libya had expressed the desire to hold Saif accountable in their own country rather than handing him over to the Hague for trial.

Prosecutor Ocampo seems satisfied with the Libyan government’s vow of cooperation on the Saif Gaddafi case.  It is now critically important that the country’s National Transitional Council fulfill this pledge.  Even as Libya begins to pick up the pieces and rebuild a post-Gaddafi nation, those responsible for crimes against civilians, including Saif Gaddafi, must be held accountable and brought to justice.