Human Rights.

Even if it is troubling to admit, the idea of human rights is only fairly recent. It is troubling because we see human rights as something basic, something fundamental, something essential to our nature – yet for most of our existence as a species it never existed.

It’s troubling to admit, because it might suggest that we’re wrong. That human beings are simply not built to treat each other with dignity and respect, and the reason why we’ve neglected it for so many millennia is because we are simply cruel by nature.

Confronting this problem is hard, but thankfully, one that we don’t have to deal with. We simply have to look at the world around us, and we can see the tremendous progress made towards human rights over the last few centuries. We can take relief in the fact that most people today see human rights as a good thing, and that violating human rights is a bad thing. We may be outraged by violations where they occur, we may be frustrated by the lack of progress, but all of us know that the hardest battle of all – the battle for hearts and minds on this issue – has already long been won. We can take comfort in the inevitability of human rights, knowing that it’s just a question of better implementation and structures, knowing that we can tap into the public soul to get stronger action on these issues.

This wasn’t always the case. These victories were hard won, by people who were told they were wrong at every single step of the way. People who were laughed at and told that slavery reflected the correct and natural order of the universe, or that women would be incapable of voting, or that genocide was an acceptable method of handling indigenous people. Underlying the cynics’ beliefs was one central belief – that ultimately, the public was not going to care, and that they were going to be voices speaking into the wind.

This belief is the greatest fear of any visionary. It is a fear that for all their ideals, they will be eventually be confounded by ‘reality’, and that the pointlessness of it all will become clear. Many give up at this point, and run for the hills, burying themselves in a life dedicated to self-preservation. Some persist, but weighed down by this fear, are ineffectual in their actions. The only ones who succeed, those visionaries who shaped the world around us today, are the ones who confronted and destroyed this fear directly.

I say all this, because I am talking about you, the person here reading this blog. It is so very easy to separate history from ourselves, or to think that the legends of history were somehow endowed with super-human talent, but the truth is that they started just like you – looking out over a world that seemed cruel and unjust, wanting to change it, but afraid of their own seeming inability, balking at the seeming enormity of the task, and uncertain of first steps.

Undoubtedly, today’s problems are different. We seem to face devastation from every possible angle – from terrorism to financial meltdown, from climate change to nuclear war, from poverty to genocide. It can be quite overwhelming to think about all these, until we slowly begin to see that there is a single root cause beneath all these problems. Humanity already has the knowledge to solve these problems, so for them to not be solved yet means the problems are rooted in the structure of global problem-solving – that is to say, in the structure of global governance.

 In drawing the mental connections between these different issues and advocating for better global policy and governance, we are no different to those visionaries who saw that all affronts to human dignity were just that – not separate issues of women’s rights or slavery or genocide, but the single issue of human rights.

And like them, we too will be called out as foolish, or utopian, or useless dreamers. Like them, we will eventually be forced to confront our worst fears, if we are serious about changing the world.

Confronting a fear of “reality” means more than just embracing a vision. It means coming to understand that it is not our job to change the world, or even to change humanity, but to awaken a vision which all people already share– that our vision does not belong to us, but is hidden away in all people, simply waiting to be uncovered. It requires deep faith in humanity’s inherent greatness and the inevitability of our vision because of it – a faith which transcends the failings we see today on a daily basis. It is a faith which may seem difficult to justify by looking at the world, but one which is vindicated by a thorough understanding of human history.

Guided by this, we have nothing to fear anymore. We are no longer confronted by the monumental task of trying to change things, but by the thrill of drawing out what is already there. We are not fighters, but catalysts, helping people understand their own transformative power.

Should we ever need proof to sustain our own beliefs, we only need look at my generation - a generation which cannot understand divisions of race, ethnicity or nationality, and knows there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the world is run. We know there is a problem, we just need a voice to articulate its nature more clearly, to give us a platform for collective action and to inspire us to believe that we are capable of extraordinary things.

I believe Citizens for Global Solutions is that voice. Or rather, I believe it can be, once we choose to see it that way and begin to articulate it as such.

So as my time at CGS comes to an end, I leave filled with the most profound sense of hope. I know that we are only at the very beginning of this journey, but that in truth we have already won. I can no longer see people as our opponents, but only see those who know they’re on board , and those who are yet to realize it. I look out the window and see millions of people – people who I once thought ignorant of the issues that mattered – and see raw human potential. Future leaders who will inspire another generation and generations to come to see that there is only as much despair in the world as we are willing to tolerate, that there is no structure or institution which can rival the power of our collective beliefs and that we alone have the power to shape our world.

On 19 November, the Senate introduced Senate Resolution 357, encouraging US Citizens to celebrate and take actions in line with Globalfamily Day.
Globalfamily Day, taking place annually on the 1st of January, is a celebration of global citizenship and cooperation to solve global problems.

Before this, Globalfamily Day has twice received the unanimous support of the US Congress (S. Con. Res. 138, S, Res. 582, H. Con. Res. 317), the UN General Assembly (Resolutions 54/29 and 56/2)

Specifically, this Senate request is as follows:

    (1) the people of the United States to observe Global Family Day and One Day of Peace and Sharing with appropriate activities stressing the need--
    (A) to eradicate violence, hunger, poverty, and suffering; and
    (B) to establish greater trust and fellowship among peace-loving countries and families everywhere; and
    (2) American businesses, labor organizations, and faith and civic leaders to join in promoting appropriate activities for Americans and in extending appropriate greetings from the families of the United States to families in the rest of the world.

Citizens for Global Solutions echoes the Senate’s request, and congratulates Linda Grover on her fantastic work in getting further Senate recognition of Globalfamily Day.

“No to climate government takeover!!!”

I never thought I’d agree with a tea party activist. And I’m not really sure if what I’m about to say actually qualifies as agreement. But that there might be any kind of common ground at all between me and this balding, burly, red-faced conservative spitting on my television screen is an endearing, if mildly frightening prospect.

For the record, I am a staunch supporter of a strong climate bill. But like the angry tea party activist, I heavily oppose a ‘government takeover’ of the climate change issue.

Climate change is completely different to any other problem that we face. It is not merely a case of curbing/banning certain forms of behavior, although that is definitely part of it. Nor is it merely about adaptation, although that too is surely critical. Ultimately, it is a total transformation of how our society thinks on a deeply fundamental level. In this case, it is our society’s relationship with the environment – after centuries of building up a wall in our collective conscience between our world and the environment, we are being forced to realize that we are actually part of it. Armed with this new mindset, we’re no longer capable of that perverse existential separation, where we see the universe through the lens of a single individual existing only in the present time. We are forced to transcend on some level, and to look through the lens of the world until the end of time. We must look at our everyday actions and ask “Is this an action which can be repeated indefinitely, by anyone, anywhere?”

Now unless we lived in a 1984-style totalitarian state where the government controlled how we think, this kind of change simply cannot be driven by the government. It is change of the incremental variety, the kind which can only truly come from the bottom up. Day by day, little by little, individuals and organizations will create the innovations which make our society more sustainable.

Thus a government takeover of climate change would be bad news not because it did too much, but because it did too little. The only way we can truly re-engineer society is to do so with the one thing which undoubtedly touches every one of us – the free market. I truly believe that ‘green innovations’ will become a massive source of profit over the decades to come.  

Yet I mentioned earlier that I support a strong climate bill. Legislation will help curb the worst of our actions, and provide a broad framework in which a transformation can begin to occur. It is merely a catalyst, whose job is to merely make things easier for the innovators who will generate true change on the issue. Without this single piece of collective action, individual action is extremely hard – the system is simply not designed to think in environmental terms.  Those individuals and organizations that do buck the trend and show environmental leadership may be doing so at their own expense.

This is why the whole free market versus government debate is truly missing the point. Both have absolutely critical roles to play in this process. The great champion of the free market, Ayn Rand, wrote that it is the unrestrained power of the individual which has always made society great. I agree. But I would respond by saying that it is the role of society to define what greatness is.

And so this is my call to the conservative wing of politics – to be a part of this process. Not to repeat tired lines of argument, such as denying global warming or support drilling and nuclear energy, but to be part of conceptualizing a new economy, one which is more profitable and sustainable than ever before. You have something to offer that many on the left do not – the ability to see great potential in the free market.  By joining in the process of crafting and supporting strong climate change legislation, you can be part of ensuring core conservative principles - the ideas of self-reliance, competition and innovation – remain a foundational part of the new economy for years to come.

I remember watching President Obama’s speech on nuclear non-proliferation in Prague. Like so many of the President’s speeches, it was deeply moving; evoking the historical context and projecting a bold new vision of the future.

Yet something felt missing from his speech. I realized it was nothing he actually said or failed to say, but it was my own reaction: the issue, nuclear weapons, simply did not move me in the way that other issues he has addressed, such as peace in the Middle East or improving the United Nations.

I consider this strange, because I am trained in international law. If anyone should care about non-proliferation, it should be me. Yet I realized that growing up, I and my entire generation, simply don’t have the same appreciation of the issue as generations past. Horrific images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been relegated to the history books, we were not taught to duck and cover in school, we did not live through the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction, nor were subjected to the infamous Daisy ad. All of these things added to the public consciousness, and nuclear non-proliferation was an issue that mattered to all on an emotional level. While intellectually I don’t think that North Korea and Iran should have the bomb, on a deeper level, it does not particularly perturb me if they do. I believe this is the feeling which many people in my generation would have, if they thought about this honestly. Our generation, in many respects, has ‘emotionally forgotten’ this issue.

What does this mean, in practice? Ultimately, our congressional representatives do our best to represent us – it keeps them getting re-elected. So when we lack passion on a subject, chances are, they do too. I look around and see very limited activism on nuclear issues, and even less attention to them by our Congress. The President may be displaying great leadership on the issue, but it will ultimately be pointless if we don’t follow and push Congress to take action on it, such as ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Worse still, it is far from certain that future Presidents will take as strong an approach as Obama on an issue which simply does not make a blip on the electoral radar.

Obviously this is a massive, complicated issue that can’t be solved easily. Getting people to care enough about an issue to take action is the art of the social movement, and countless books have been written on that. But there is one very important step that can, and must, be taken for this issue to remain prominent over time.

While our generation might be oblivious to the threat of nuclear weapons, we are far from disengaged on foreign policy. Thanks to globalization, the internet, etc. there are millions of young people across America who would proudly consider themselves citizens of the world. The passion is there, but it is not for a particular issue, but towards a more generalized loyalty to humanity as a whole. It comes not from a fear of nuclear war, or terrorism, or even climate change, but from the vision of a better future – without knowing the details of what it might look like, we aspire to build a more beautiful world. At the moment, this is a sentiment that foreign policy activists are, for the most part, failing to tap into.

Thus the time has come to assemble a grand foreign policy coalition in this country, pinned together on this sentiment. It would encompass groups dealing with climate change, peace and conflict, UN Reform, human rights, poverty, international financial institution reform, etc. Nuclear issues would fit squarely within it – it is not the trendy issue of the hour, but it would capitalize on the fire of this broad coalition. A coalition like this, which respected the different issues but harnessed their commonalities, would have a profound impact on this country’s foreign policy.

I am deeply optimistic that this will happen. Over my months here as an intern at Citizens for Global Solutions, I’ve come to see that this, ultimately, is what this organization is working towards. Other organizations are working towards this as well. Yet it is a process which is only just beginning. I would encourage all activists on international issues, and people who are simply sympathetic to a particular cause, to look beyond their individual issue, and realize that not only could we achieve more if we worked under a single banner, but that ultimately, we are all fighting for the same thing.

On the 2nd October, the Human Rights Council closed its twelfth regular session. It passed resolutions on a number of human rights issues:

• discrimination against women
• toxic dumping and its effect on human rights
• unilateral coercive measures
• the right to development
• freedom of opinion and expression
• protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflict
• access to safe drinking water and sanitation
• human rights and international solidarity
• the situation of human rights in Honduras since the coup d'état of 28 June 2009
• Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Myanmar.

The Council also adopted texts with regards to the functioning of the Council, cooperation with the United Nations and cooperation with regional human rights institutions.

A discussion was held on the report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, however no resolution was passed on the subject.

Last night, I attended a book launch hosted by the World Affairs Council. The book is entitled "Five to Rule Them All", and is a historical narrative of the Security Council and in particular the relationship of the five permanent members (United Kingdom, France, Russia, United States and China).

He told us about the role that the Security Council has played over the years, in particular its role as a place for public diplomacy. In the early years of the Council, there had been significant media attention, and it would be a place for Cold War nations to shape world public opinion through public fights. In more recent years, the Security Council has taken on a more "behind closed doors" feel, with less media attention and with most agreements taking place before the public session.

Professor Bosco argued that while the Security Council has, and will probably continue to fail as a governance body to solve world problems, it has played an important role in bringing the major powers closer together. There were periods in world history where the major powers simply did not communicate at all. However for those seeking a solution to the world's problems, Professor Bosco argued that the Security Council is not the place to look for answers, and that we should look to regional arrangements instead.

181 of the world's largest investors - collectively managing over $13 trillion in assets - have signed a U.N.- backed statement for concrete action against climate change.

The statement calls for a new global climate treaty to reduce pollution, catalyze global funding for energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies and to include a target for emissions reductions of between 50 and 85 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

It also appeals for action to reduce deforestation and support, as well as for support for adaptation measures.
The move comes ahead of this December's UN talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, where nations are expected to create a new pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Rob Tacon, Chair of the UN Environment Programme's Financial Initiative said, "Climate change has quite rightly been framed as the greatest market failure ever...The magnitude of the negative economic impacts and the potential of climate change to bankrupt our global financial system, as well as to threaten the planet's life-supporting natural ecosystems, are calling."

Today the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight held a hearing concerning U.N. Chapter VII Mandates and Resolutions on Iraq.

A Chapter VII mandate-created by the passage of a binding resolution-is a reference to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter; this chapter gives the Security Council the power to create resolutions "with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." These actions can involve anything, except the use of armed force. A Chapter VII mandate is a Council-imposed resolution on a country to carry-out and/or stop a certain action(s). A country under a Security Council resolution is required to obey under international law.

During the rule of Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Security Council had imposed a large number of mandates on Iraq. These included nuclear verification and control, controlling Iraqi oil revenues, and compensation to Kuwait for Iraq's invasion in 1991. With Saddam's regime now out of power, the hearing was concerned with the possibility of removing these mandates and the United States' obligations under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to help Iraq transition from under these resolutions.

One of the central issues of the hearing was the Chapter VII mandate on Iraq to pay compensation to Kuwait for the damage incurred. The current government of Iraq would like the debt forgiven, on the grounds that this money can be used for economic development, and that the people of Iraq should not suffer for the actions of Saddam. Kuwait, however, has stood firm on insisting that the compensation be paid back in full. According to some reports, President Obama has agreed with the Iraqi position. The Ranking Republican Member of the Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher (R-CA), emphasized the massive damage done to Kuwait during the Gulf War and the importance of recognizing the legitimacy of the debt. One of the panelists, Professor Matheson from GW Law Faculty, suggested that a middle-ground solution be found, e.g. the compensation be paid as an investment into Kuwaiti infrastructure, so that Iraq could in fact profit from the arrangement.

This situation presents a complicated situation for Iraq and the United States collectively. Both must spend critical international political capital to get all P5 members of the Security Council to agree on new resolutions while there are still questions about the current Iraqi leadership.

The United Nations General Assembly has voted to create a new women's agency. Supporters say it is a breakthrough for women's equality and rights, as four existing U.N. offices dealing with women's affairs will be blended into a single body, and the agency will be headed by an undersecretary general, higher than any existing position dealing with women's affairs. The unanimous vote followed three years of negotiations.

The resolution requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to put together a comprehensive proposal that would outline the mission statement, organizational arrangements, funding and executive board of the new agency.

One of the leading offices dealing with gender issues, UNIFEM, put out a statement supporting the move, calling it "an important step towards addressing the gaps and challenges in the existing UN gender architecture."

However advocacy group Oxfam, while saying the creation of the new agency was "potentially exciting", said that it was "deplorable" that the Assembly had failed to give the new agency a clear mission.

In responding to Iran's recent offer for talks concerning international nuclear non-proliferation, the State Department has said that the offer fails to deal with America's central concern: Iran's nuclear program.

This comes in the wake of news from U.S. Intelligence agencies that Iran has developed enough nuclear fuel to create a nuclear weapon, should it choose to. The country, however, has stopped short of the last few steps needed to make the bomb.

In the first public acknowledgment of the intelligence findings, the American ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency declared on Wednesday that Iran now had what he called a "possible breakout capacity" if it decided to enrich its stockpile of uranium, converting it to bomb-grade material.

The statement by the ambassador, Glyn Davies, was intended to put pressure on American allies to move toward far more severe sanctions against Iran this month, perhaps including a cutoff of gasoline to the country, if it failed to take up President Obama's invitation for serious negotiations.

Iran has maintained that its continuing enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, that the uranium is solely for electric power and that its scientists have never researched weapons design. But in a 2007 announcement, the United States said that it had found evidence that Iran had worked on designs for making a warhead, though it determined that the project was halted in late 2003. The new intelligence information collected by the Obama administration finds no convincing evidence that the design work has resumed.

The American position is that the United States and its allies would probably have considerable warning time if Iran moved to convert its growing stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to make it usable for weapons.

Take action now against nuclear proliferation!