Thomas Friedman is once again finding his way back to the light after pulling himself up off the mat. Friedman was knocked silly after 9/11, almost punched himself out in the lead up to the Iraq War, was staggered by critics like Richard Florida who poked holes so big in his Flat World thesis that you could drive an 18-wheeler through them, but finally he's getting his legs back under him. In fact, his column in today's New York Times, "9/11 is Over," is quite good. Here's what he has to say about the impact of 9/11, America's global brand, and his ideal candidate for POTUS in 2008:

We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

In my opinion, Friedman's got it right on all counts. It's high time for a little re-branding of Product America. Think hope, not fear. 

(Tip o' the hat to our good friend and former colleague, Sunshine in the Sandbox, for highlighting the importance of Brand America. We salute you, Sunshine!)

According to the Press Association:

A large force of rebels stormed an African Union peacekeeping base in Darfur killing at least a dozen soldiers and wounding several others in the biggest attack on the mission so far, the AU said.

More than 50 AU peacekeepers and support personnel are missing in action since the attack on the base in northern Darfur.

"This is the heaviest loss of life and the biggest attack on the African Union mission," said AU spokesman Nourredine Mezni.

Officers in the AU force said that a force of 1,000 rebels from the Sudan Liberation Army stormed the AU base in the town of Haskanita just after the sunset fastbreaking meal during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"There is a war going on between the rebels and the government, and the AU is crunched in the middle," said a senior AU officer.

Darfur rebels have grown increasingly hostile to the AU peacekeepers saying the force is not neutral and is favouring the government side.

There have been several ambushes of AU forces in the past year on AU force blamed on rebels. 

At what point will the international community fully and robustly commit to providing peacekeepers, whether they be AU, UN, hybrid, or other, with the necessary funding, strategic support, and operational mandate to lead successful peacekeeping missions? How many tragic and unnecessary deaths will it take shift the political will around the globe? One thing we know for sure is that half-hearted peacekeeping efforts will not yield peace or security for the peacekeepers or those they are charged to protect.

For today, our hearts go out to the families of the dead and missing AU peacekeepers and the people of Darfur. Tomorrow, we work for change.

 

Karen J. Greenberg, Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University and the editor of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (with Joshua Dratel), The Torture Debate in America, and Al Qaeda Now: Understanding Today's Terrorists, has a great commentary on motherjones.com. In "Relax, Mitt: Guantanamo's Not Closing," Greenberg explores why "We've wasted five and half years avoiding asking what is a policy on detention that the United States should live with—as opposed to just living with the ad hoc one we have." Greenberg concludes her insightful commentary as follows:

Whatever the rationale for detention—be it tactical intelligence, the need for the ready presence of a human library of information on terrorism, or the reeducation of extremists—the fact remains that Guantanamo and allied U.S. detention facilities are all a long way from entering a wind-down phase. Detainee populations are on the rise as are new detention sites, new construction expenditures, and new guard training.

The only thing not on the rise is a serious policy discussion about all this. Six years after 9/11, isn't it time to face the fact that, as a nation, we have not yet asked ourselves: What should our detention policy be? What are the rules and regulations we might want to create to confront the threat posed by terrorists? As a nation, we have chosen to bemoan the policies that have emerged without legislative backing and popular vetting—or, like you, Mitt, to call for more of the same. But even Gallup polling of American opinion on detention and torture fails to ask: Do you think that incarcerating suspected terrorists for indefinite periods without trials or convictions is acceptable? A country essentially without leadership, we have wasted five and half years avoiding asking what exactly is a policy on detention that the United States should live with—as opposed to just living with the ad hoc one we have.

So, Mitt, relax. Guantanamo (and everything it represents) is alive and well. The administration's loose talk of change only conceals its stubborn commitment to a wholly discredited path. Guantanamo, a prison in no way ready to close, is at the heart of a conversation that almost no one seems willing to open.

So let's start the conversation here: Do you think that incarcerating suspected terrorists for indefinite periods without trials or convictions is acceptable? Why?

Yesterday's Washington Post editorial, "Right on Torture" was Right on Point! On the subject of U.S. torture and interrogation policy, the Dems get it, and the Republicans (minus John McCain) don't. And does anybody else get the feeling that Rudy and Mitt sit down before their "debates" and watch episode after episode after episode of 24? I'm starting to wonder if they don't want to be POTUS just so they can someday meet Jack Bauer and his colleagues at CTU.

So here's the gist of what the editorial has to offer:

SEN. HILLARY Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is getting kicked around for her position on torture -- specifically, whether she contradicted both herself and her husband in answering a question on the subject at the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday night. Moderator Tim Russert posed the nightmare scenario for those who, like us, believe that torture is an immoral tactic that yields faulty intelligence and diminishes the United States in the eyes of the world. What would Ms. Clinton do as president, he asked, if the "number three" in al-Qaeda were captured, authorities knew there was a "big bomb going off in America in three days" and the operative knew where it was. "Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him?" Russert asked, quoting an unnamed guest on "Meet the Press."

"As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period," Ms. Clinton replied. Such "hypotheticals," she added, "are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path."

....

Ms. Clinton's remarks were taken as a direct contradiction of not only Mr. Russert's unnamed guest, who turned out to be -- surprise! -- Bill Clinton, but of Ms. Clinton herself. Last October, Ms. Clinton told the New York Daily News, "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law. . . . In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable."

True, Ms. Clinton didn't add that caveat in her remarks last night, which was probably wise. What a president confronted with that extremely unlikely and equally difficult circumstance would do is something that would have to be decided at the time -- by him or her. What's clear is that torture-when-convenient cannot be U.S. policy. It's to the credit of Ms. Clinton and her Democratic colleagues that they seem to understand what the Republicans, save Mr. McCain, do not. 

I hope we can all agree that being the President of the United States is a BIG, BIG job that (ideally) requires the officeholder to show good judgment while making critical decisions that affect not only this country and its citizens, but the entire interconnected global community. Wednesday night's MSNBC Democratic debate highlighted the maddeningly poor judgment of several candidates, most notably the two frontrunners for the nomination -- Clinton and Obama. Tim Russert, the night's debate moderator, host of NBC's Meet the Press and a rabid baseball fan, asked Allison King to pose the final question of the evening. Here's the question and ensuing exchange:

RUSSERT: I want to thank you all for your answers this evening.

I want to ask Allison King for one more question. This, after all, is New Hampshire. She wants to ask you about baseball.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: For many here, in New England, the answer to this next question may be the most important one you answer tonight.

(LAUGHTER)

Red Sox or Yankees?

Governor Richardson?

(APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

DODD: What is it now, Bill? Come on.

RICHARDSON: Red Sox, because Manny Ramirez is back. The Red Sox will win the penant and they will win the World Series.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Senator Clinton?

 

KUCINICH: You know, I've got to take exception to this. Cleveland Indians won the central division, 92 victories -- they're going to the World Series.

(LAUGHTER)

Hi, mom.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Senator Clinton, where are you on this? Red Sox or Yankees?

CLINTON: Well, I hate to say it in front of this New Hampshire crowd -- I'm a Yankees fan. Have been for a long, long time.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, what a bout a World Series -- Yankees and Cubs?

CLINTON: Well, you know, I've worried about that because I think, given the Cubs' record, which of course, I hope it happens, but it could very well be a sign of the coming apocalypse, were that to ever occur.

(LAUGHTER)

It would be so out of history that you would have the Cubs versus the Yanks. Then I'd be really in trouble.

RUSSERT: But who would you be for?

CLINTON: Well, I would probably have to alternate sides.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Spoken like a true sports fan.

Senator Gravel, Yankees, Red Sox?

GRAVEL: I'm from New England. I was born in Massachusetts. Do you have to ask that question?

RUSSERT: Edwards?

EDWARDS: Red Sox.

RUSSERT: Obama?

OBAMA: Sox, but the wrong color. I'm a White Sox fan all the way.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Dodd?

DODD: Sox. And tomorrow night you're going to be hosting a debate in Red Sox nation. RUSSERT: Yes.

Biden?

DODD: Who's going to be the president of Red Sox nation? We all want to tune into that one.

RUSSERT: Biden?

BIDEN: I was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, by a grandfather, if you weren't a Yankees fan you didn't eat. Yankees.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Thank you all.

In my mind this was a VERY insightful look into the personal judgment and souls of the Democratic candidates. Here's my scoring for the candidates' answers:

Kucinich is the clear winner for honorably standing up for his hometown team, the Cleveland Indians, and speaking out for every baseball fan that turns red in the face every time they're forced to watch yet another Yankees-Red Sox game. Hey, ESPN, we don't need to see EVERY Empire vs. Nation game played over the course of the 162-game season!

Gov. Richardson slightly distanced himself from the pack by mentioning by name the enigmatic BoSox slugger, Manny Ramirez, but lost points for over-the-top pandering to the New England audience.

Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Edwards continued doing what they've done during the course of the entire campaign -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to separate themselves from the wanna-be-pres pack (not PAC). However, they still did better than...

Clinton and Obama. Clinton can't decide between her "hometown" NL Central Champion Chicago Cubs and her "hometown" AL East Champion (OH WAIT, they didn't win the division) New York Yankees. Come one -- the Goat-cursed, Lovable Losers or the Bambino-blessed, Evil Empire?!  That's easy an easy decision, Sen. Clinton -- GO CUBS! There's a lot I can forgive from candidates in the heat of an election season, but I simply cannot forgive a candidate's inability to show sound judgment during a PENNANT RACE! And if waffling wasn't bad enough, Obama picks the WHITE SOX?!

The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908, when they beat one of the proudest, most honorable franchises in baseball history, the Detroit Tigers. That's 1-9-0-8! That's 99 years ago for the mathematically-challenged. Theodore, not Franklin, Roosevelt was President the last time the Northsiders won the Series. And Obama chooses to support a team that has THROWN a World Series in the mean time? It was only yesterday (okay, it was 1919) that the Black Sox from the Southside threw the series on behalf of organized crime. Is that the type of "sound" judgment we want from our next President? I think not.

This election season there's only ONE choice -- THE CHICAGO CUBS! 

GO CUBS!!!

 

It turns out that John Bolton's recent lobbying against the Law of the Sea represents a major flip-flop.

Some of the leading opponents of the Law of the Sea have, ironically, feel very strongly that we should trust the judgments of military personnel on military matters.

Jim Inhofe:

"I don't think it's too much to expect for our leaders in Washington to keep an open mind and get the facts before drawing their conclusions. I, like the other 534 members of Congress, am not a General and do not presume to be. That is why I will yield to the judgement of a competent, objective, military leader in forming my opinion..." - at Captain's Quarters blog, 9/17/2007

Jim DeMint, who is fast establishing himself as the George Allen of the 110th Congress with his instinctive opposition to international institutions and problems keeping facts straight (he suggested at one point in today's Law of the Sea hearing that the U.S. is fulfilling its obligations under Kyoto while others are freeloading):

"Right now, our commander in chief and those he commands are daring greatly and our brave warriors are paying with blood, sweat and tears. Yet, many in Congress prefer to sit in the arena stands and offer scorn rather than support.
...
"Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding resolution that expresses disapproval of the president's plan to reinforce our troops in Iraq.

"Voting for such a resolution is not leadership; it is criticism -- criticism without offering alternative solutions.
...
"Voting to condemn the president's plan is a vote of no confidence in the mission that we have told our troops to carry out. It is also a smack to the face of Gen. David Patraeus..." - in the Politico, 2/6/2007

Apparently, the right wing's faith in military leaders stops at the water's edge. Both Inhofe and DeMint oppose U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea, which the President, civilian military leaders, and commanders say unambiguously will help them fulfill their missions and keep American service members safe.

Dick Lugar put it much more eloquently at today's hearing on the Law of the Sea. Lugar is usually understated and is generally inclined more to seek consensus than provoke confrontation. Today, though, he stood up to his ideological opponents and knocked one out of the park:

"The Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Navy, in time of war, are asking the Senate to give its advice and consent to this treaty. Our uniformed commanders and civilian national security leadership are telling us, unanimously and without qualification, that U.S. accession to the treaty will help them do their job.

"We have charged the U.S. Navy with maintaining sea lanes and defending our nation's interests on the high seas. They do this every day, and even in peacetime these operations carry considerable risk. The Navy is telling us that U.S. membership in the Law of the Sea Convention is a tool that they need to maximize their ability to protect U.S. national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with this task.
...
"Mr. Chairman, the military is not always right. But the overwhelming presumption in the United States Senate has been that if our Amred Forces and our entire National Security apparatus ask us for something to help them achieve a military mission, we do our best to provide them with just that tool within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting."

And finally, the hypocrisy shines through:

"In recent weeks we have heard a great deal of advocacy about the necessity of heeding the advice of our military leaders as they seek to carry out the missions we have given them. Senators rose to declare that General Petraeus, an acknowledged counterinsurgency expert, was better positioned and trained to assess our progress in Iraq than critics in Congress. In the coming debate on Law of the Sea, we should be similarly respectful of the expertise of military commanders. "

(As delivered; hyperlink to statement not yet active)

Hypocrisy has become so commonplace among isolationist conservatives that it doesn't always register, but this time it's too blatant to ignore. Those most vocal about giving the President and the military a blank check to put troops and treasure on the line in Iraq are also dead-set against giving them the tools they need to protect and enable the Armed Forces at sea.

I'll try to get some more updates up on yesterday's hearing. More details on Bolton and his Law of the Sea lobbying on the way, too.

Scott Paul

The Washington Post has been a supporter of the Burmese people for years and what they have to say on the current stand off matters. However, while I agree with the WP that the EU and the US acted well in collectively pushing for the UN Security Council to consider sanctions, I disagree that failure to secure Security Council action can be blamed only on Russia and China .

The WP is right that China and Russia deserve condemnation for blocking Security Council action - and yes they will have blood on their hands for doing so - but this cannot get the EU and US off the hook. IF they really believe, as British PM Brown stated, that "The whole world is now watching Burma, and its illegitimate and repressive regime should know that the whole world is going to hold it to account...The age of impunity in neglecting and overriding human rights is over" they must work to win over Russia and China. Make this a central issue between the two blocs. China has shown some pragmatism of late when it has been hammered for protecting rights abusing regimes, what would happen if the EU and the US put Burma at the top of their agenda with China? I'm guessing China would feel pressured and let SC action occur - diplomacy is hard work and it is time that the EU and US start getting used to doing some heavy lifting....surely the monks of Burma deserve that much. 

U.N. basher John Bolton has supposedly been talking to the very conserative Senate Republican Steering Group, a shadowy entity that does not appear in the congressional directory and is headed by Senator Jim DeMint. Bolton was there to hammer on the Law of the Sea convention, which is slowly working its way towards ratification.

Today the ultra right wing group America’s Survival ran an anti-treaty ad on a major cable channel.

Why are these unilateralist so upset about a treaty that is supported by President Bush and the Pentagon?

For the very same reason that Citizens for Global Solutions is supporting ratification. Doing so will signal the beginning of a United States swing back towards multilateralism and international law.

If the Senate will not accede to this convention, how can we expect them to support the ratification of the backlog of multilateral treaties waiting for a vote including:, the International Criminal Court treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Women’s Convention (CEDAW), the Rights of the Child, the Biodiversity Treaty, and many others. What will happen when it is time for the Senate to consider the successor to the Kyoto protocol, which runs out in 2012?

Think about it. If a Senate with a Democratic majority can not muster the 66 votes to pass a treaty supported by a Republican president, what is the possibility of doing so under a potential Democratic president who will face much stiffer Republican opposition?

If the U.S, cannot join an agreement supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few) – what is the chance that we engage on other agreements?

One senate staffer I talked to recently has been yelling at groups coming to talk with him about climate change. He’s been telling them that he doesn’t want to talk to them unless the first words out of their mouth are “Law of the Sea,” because “if we can’t get this one through, none of the other agreements are going to get through.”

The majority of progressive groups outside of the environmental community are sitting this one out at the moment. I guess they are thinking that although the treaty sets the rules for two thirds of the Earth’s surface, it’s all wet. My hope it they will think again and vigorously support this treaty, if for no other reason than John Bolton opposes it. He knows a good multilateral treaty when he trashes one.

Don Kraus

So here's the latest statement from The Governor about Ahmadinejad and the United Nations... 

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly:

"Today's General Assembly address by Iran's President Ahmadinejad represents a failure of the United Nations to live up to its founding principles. Ahmadinejad has threatened the extinction of another member state, Israel. He not only speaks of genocide, but is pursuing a nuclear program that will provide him with the tools of genocide. Iran's treatment of women and minorities is abominable, as is its support for terror.

"Sadly, the Democratic presidential candidates have failed to strongly speak out against the UN's and Columbia University's decision to host Ahmadinejad's propaganda tour, in spite of the regime's record of human rights violations and the threat they pose to the world. We must continue to work to isolate Iran, just as we did with Apartheid South Africa, in order to bring about change."

And the purposes of the United Nations, according to the Article 1 of the UN Charter, are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. 

Long story short, Mitt: Engagement, diplomacy and collective action must come before isolation, force and unilateralism.

 

The Washington Times, too many presidential candidates, and far too many bloggers (to even hyperlink one) were less than supportive of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to NYC, including speeches at United Nations and Columbia University.

Honestly, I just don't understand what all the commotion is about. The Bush Adminsitration has eviscerated the U.S. Constitution, but we still nominally have the right to free speech, so let the bad man speak. Not because you agree with the cruel, hateful, intolerant, ridiculous ideas and policies he has to offer (and they are all too often cruel, hateful, intolerant, ridiculous ideas and policies), but because you know that those ideas will never stand the rigor of intellectual exploration and scientific investigation. No Holocaust? No homosexuality? And so on and so forth.

Must we, once again, go to Hollywood for a lesson in democracy and American values? For today's lesson, not just any America-hatin', (probably) flag-burnin', non-traditional-family supportin' liberal will do either. We need, none other than, pre-West Wing Aaron Sorkin! Without futher ado, I give you The American President...

In case you missed the money quote, here it is again:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

Although his opening remarks lacked restraint and courtesy for a guest of the university (no matter how "petty and cruel a dictator" the man may be), Columbia President Lee Bollinger got it right in the end -- "When you come to a place like this, this makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." (Read more.) That's right, President Bollinger, keep advocating at the top of your lungs against this man whose words make your blood boil. We need more discussion, not less. We need more critical thinking, not less. We need more citizens exploring democracy and its responsibilities, not less. We need more reason and rationality, not less. We need to raise our voices, not silence others.

All Americans and Iranians who want more freedom, peace, and prosperity must join together and demand it from our respective leaders. Why? Because we all need more peace, not less.

Christian Science Monitor, "U.N. Revs Up Over Global Warming":

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y. - The annual summertime retreat of the Arctic icecap, greater this year than perhaps at any time during the 20th century. The nightmare of intensifying storms in some areas and extended drought in others, already taking place in developing countries of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

It is against this backdrop of almost daily news of what scientists describe as signs of advancing global warming that the United Nations holds Monday what may be the largest high-level international meeting ever on climate change.

The conference, called by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, kicks off what many experts and officials say will be the high week of a turning-point year in the global political response to the challenge of a warming planet.

Read the full article.

Last week, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released Congress and the United Nations: How to a Build a Better Relationship and Move Forward on Needed U.N. Reforms. The report states:

The relationship between the United States and the United Nations is in desperate need of repair. Although the United Nations owes its existence to the post-World War II leadership of America and its allies, in recent years the U.S.–U.N. relationship has spiraled downward into one that is too often dysfunctional. While the relationship has never been without tension, having endured Cold War-related polarization and other political disagreements, much of the breakdown has happened over the past decade—with the U.N. Secretariat, U.N. member states, and the U.S. executive and legislative branches all deserving a share of the blame. A significant part of the problem, however, has been the failure of the United States to provide sufficient support and leadership for the world body.

Unfortunately, the timing couldn’t be worse. The United States needs the United Nations more than ever to help tackle a range of transnational challenges that directly threaten U.S. national security interests. The dire situations in Iraq and Darfur, the continuing threat of global terrorism, the nuclear standoff in Iran, and the ongoing civil strife in Lebanon are just a few of the problems that cannot be adequately addressed without robust United Nations involvement.

Without an engaged and supportive United States, the United Nations will be unable to fulfill its mission. Fundamentally, without a strong and capable United Nations, the United States will be unable to accomplish many of its own strategic objectives.

The good news is that with a new Congress, a new U.N. Secretary-General, and a new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations there is a unique opportunity for positive change in this troubled relationship. While it may be difficult to fully repair U.S.–U.N. relations before a new U.S. administration can make a fresh start in 2009, there are several steps that the 110th Congress can take in the short run to demonstrate leadership and improve relations, thus improving the chances of pushing forward needed U.N. Secretariat, management, and budget reforms that affect U.S. interests.

In addition to the well-timed report on the U.S.-U.N. relationship, CAP also released the following Public Opinion Snapshot, Wanted: An Engaged U.N.

The Iraq war has not been kind to the notion that the United States should ignore the United Nations by unilaterally launching “wars of choice” without the support of the international organization. No wonder the U.S. public, in a 2006 Chicago Council of Foreign Relations poll, agreed by a 60 percent-to-36 percent margin that the United States should be willing to make decisions within the U.N.—even if that means the United States may sometimes not be able to follow its first choice of course of action.

 

 

In fact, the American public is clearly interested in having the U.N. do more, not less. For example, 75 percent in the CCFR poll favored giving the United Nations authority to go into countries in order to investigate violations of human rights. Seventy-five percent also favored creating an international marshals service that could arrest leaders responsible for genocide. U.N. peacekeeping operations are also popular, with 72 percent in favor of a standing U.N. peacekeeping force selected, trained, and commanded by the United Nations. And 60 percent favored giving the United Nations the power to regulate the international arms trade.

As the General Assembly of the United Nations gathers in New York this week and next, the Bush administration’s new ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Kahlilzad, should heed these poll numbers by working to repair our damaged relationship with the U.N. Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle should also consider these poll numbers when they debate whether to pay the $1 billion the United States owes the U.N. in arrears for, among other things, peacekeeping operations around the globe.

After reading the Washington Post's superbly investigated and reported article, "Missteps in the Bunker," my mind immediately turned to...

Quick question: If the United States has so many nuclear weapons that we accidentally can lose track of one or two or six for a day or so, is it possible that we have too many for a world that has only one remaining nuclear superpower? I guess not...

I stumbled across this op-ed by lawyer Rebecca Roe in the Seattle Times earlier this week, and thought some of you might find it interesting. Here's the money quote:

The absence of U.S. participation in the ICC is an embarrassment. Americans believe in justice; and as a society, we believe people who commit atrocious acts should be brought to account and punished. These values are the foundation of our criminal-justice system: accountability, punishment and restitution. The rule of law has made America the great nation that it is, and the goals of the American justice system are the goals of the ICC.

We cannot reshape societies and eliminate ethnic hatred. We can and we must help achieve accountability. To stand idly by is to suggest the slaughter of thousands of innocent people is not a moral transgression worthy of our time and effort.

If you agree with Ms. Roe's above assessment of the United States and ICC, I'd highly recommend reading the piece in its entirety.