Yesterday, President Bush ordered a reduction of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, which would shrink to under 1/4th of its size at the end of the Cold War.  This announcement supports a previous decision in 2004, which aimed to cut the stockpile by 50% of the 2001 level by 2012.  Yesterday’s order will speed up the process; reductions are scheduled to take place by the end of this year.   In addition, President Bush wants to cut the remaining stockpile by another 15% by 2012.
 
How deep do these cuts run?  The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)  estimates that in 2001, the U.S. had approximately 10,500 warheads, thus the cut by the end of the year would reduce the stockpile to about 5,400. The remaining cut of 15% would leave the nuclear stockpile at 4,600 warheads.
 
This is an important development, as it shows that the U.S. is willing to lead by example and cut its nuclear stockpile as well as abide by arms control treaties.  This administration, however, has sent mixed messages to the world; it asked for $88 million in funding for a new breed of nuclear weapons, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (RRW).  These plans were hampered, as funding for this program was cut by Congress for the current fiscal year.     

As the first session of the 110th Congress winds to a close, it is good to see that there are increased signs of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on a issues that are critical to the well being of the country.

In particular, I was encouraged by comments from Rep. Hoekstra (the top Republican on the House Intel Committee) and Rep. Harman (D-CA) over the weekend. Hoekstra stated that “We want to hold the (intelligence) community accountable for what has happened with these tapes” and Harman echoed the sentiment when she suggested that Congress should resist the Department of Justice request for Congress to delay the investigation. As Harman noted, that request should be rejected by Congress because it “…smells like the cover-up of the cover-up.”

Readers of this blog know that we have supported an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Torture and U.S. Interrogation for some time. The destruction of these torture tapes confirms that such a Commission is needed. When it returns from the holiday recess, Congress should move quickly to create an Independent Bipartisan Commission on Torture and U.S. Interrogation Policy; it is past time that the U.S. comprehensively address the scandals of Abu Gharib and beyond.

An Independent Bipartisan Commission would bring together a broad range of experts able to collectively comprehend the totality of the issue, its consequences and necessary policy prescriptions.

The experts would be drawn from the intelligence, foreign policy, law enforcement, military, veterans, legal and human rights community. Additional members could include representatives of the faith community, theologians, cultural specialists and historians. They could look holistically at an issue that grows increasingly complicated and multifaceted.

So far, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama have returned Global Solutions Candidate Questionnaires. Much of what they have to say is predictable, but there are a lot of important differences in rhetoric and even some key differences in substance. They're worth a read through.

Given all that's going on in Bali, it's worth taking a closer look at what each of these candidates have to say about energy and climate. It's worth noting that all of their policies are leaps and bounds better than the status quo.

All of these candidates agree that something on the order of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is crucial. All of them also agree that negotiating a strong climate agreement to take hold after 2012 will be a priority, with Hillary Clinton going as far as to promise personal engagement to make it happen. Interestingly, despite explicitly being asked, none of the candidates offered a plan to deal with the impediment that access to energy presents to poverty eradication in the world's poorest countries.

But there are some important differences. Obama's domestic energy policy focuses mostly on the transportation sector.

Bill Richardson, whose energy policies I have praised before, seems to still have the strongest grasp of the issue. On top of aggressive moves in the transportation and electrical sectors, Richardson mentions the importance of working with developing countries and International Financial Institutions to help developing countries switch to clean energy. He also proposes a North American Energy Council to shore up our energy trade with our neighbors and a multilateral arrangement to maintain security in the Persian Gulf (presumably instead of U.S. forces). These are good ideas that push back against the mirage of "energy independence."

Unfortunately, John Edwards falls into the "energy independence" trap. Edwards suggests that we can somehow solve part of the energy puzzle by cutting off oil imports from "hostile countries" instead of trying to kick the oil habit altogether. He also puts a lot of faith in geological carbon sequestration (storing CO2 underground), while ignoring other more promising and safe technological fixes. However, it should be noted that Edwards was the first candidate to jump out of the gate on climate and capitalize on the grassroots enthusiasm for forward-looking energy solutions, and that's got to count for something.

I mentioned one thing that sets Clinton apart from the pack, and that is a promise to personally engage to get an international climate treaty done right (though others may be willing to do so too). The other distinguishing feature of her policy is a proposal to set up an "E-8," a permanent forum for major carbon emitting nations to discuss progress on the climate front. Good idea, so long as it doesn't distract from the UNFCCC process as President Bush's major economies summit has done.

Check out the Candidate Questionnaires for more info: Clinton / Edwards / Obama / Richardson. And tell the candidate you support to fill out a CQ.

Scott Paul

I am not a lawyer and I didn’t even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but how could President Bush threaten to veto a bill that would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding? The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last night, would also require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.

As signatures to the Geneva Conventions our nation needs to adhere to this vital and humane international treaty.  However, this latest waving of the veto pen by our president appears to be just another act of defiance that must be turned around.

Today’s New York Times notes this by editorializing:

During the presidential campaign, candidates from both parties will warn of the risk of another terrorist attack on this country. Americans should insist that they also explain how they will repair the damage President Bush has done to America’s intelligence-gathering capabilities in the name of fighting terrorism….

The recent disclosure that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two Al Qaeda prisoners was a stark reminder of the catastrophic blunder that Congress made by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In addition to creating kangaroo courts to try the Guantánamo detainees, the bill permitted Mr. Bush to abrogate the Geneva Conventions by creating secret, extra-legal rules for interrogations by intelligence agents.

Meanwhile, at The Huffington Post, political reporter Sam Stein writes about 30 retired admirals and generals urging members of Congress to ignore Bush’s veto threat and “pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow strict standards for detainee treatment.”

Isn’t it about time we as a nation live up to the standards we request of other nations when it comes to human rights?  And, whatever happened to the Commander in Chief taking his lead from military leaders?  On this issue – and many others – the president would be wise to listen more and put his pen in his pocket.

In the last week, I've had over ten meetings with Senate staffers on the Law of the Sea Convention (I hope this explains and excuses my recent absence from this blog). In every meeting -- without exception -- staffers have agreed that U.S. interests are served by ratification of the Convention. Yet, every single staffer also added that they are being bombarded by calls from right-wing activists who say that ratification would mean a loss of sovereignty for the U.S.

These meetings were instructive for two reasons. First, it shows that some senators are more than willing to put politics over substance, which I think will come as little surprise to most readers. Second, it shows how badly right-wing activists misunderstand both the Law of the Sea Convention and the concept of sovereignty itself.

These activists misconstrue sovereignty as the notion that the U.S. should be able to do what it wants, where it wants, however it wants. And they reject the basic and legally indisputable premise that treaty law is expressly recognized as the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.

Even the most traditional definition of sovereignty, the ability to govern without external influence or meddling, would not be eroded with ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. In fact, it would be enhanced. The U.S. would gain formal international recognition over its claim of a 12-nautical mile territorial sea that would be subject to U.S. laws, a huge, 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone that would be subject to U.S. economic control, and exclusive economic rights in an extended continental shelf beyond that 200-mile limit. The idea that the U.S. would sacrifice control of waters beyond that point is ludicrous, as neither the U.S. nor any other country has sovereign rights in international waters.

The fact is that sovereignty is a two-way street. Other countries now suspect that America refuses to ratify the Convention because it does not respect their sovereignty. And you can bet that Indonesia, India and Malaysia, critical players in regional maritime security, will make a better effort to accommodate the navigational rights of the U.S. Navy when they are sure that the U.S. respects other countries' sovereign rights.

At some point I'll go into greater detail on how absenting ourselves from the treaty actually does threaten sovereignty, but not now. More on that later.

Scott Paul

Details are still emerging from Algiers where two bombs left dozens killed in and around the local United Nations offices. The death toll will probably not be known for a number of days and the findings of the UN security team will likely take longer to determine.

The destruction brought back painful memories of past attacks on UN officials trying to complete important diplomatic tasks in dangerous parts of the world. In particular, few reading about the attack by Al-Qaeda in Islamic North Africa would have failed to reflect on its similarities to the Al-Qaeda attack on the UN Iraq offices in 2003. That attack claimed the life of Sergio Vieira de Mello and 22 others and robbed the world of a man capable of solving the Iraq crisis.

The building that was targeted on Tuesday in Algiers housed core U.N. offices as well as those of the Development Program, the World Food Program, the International Labor Organization and the U.N. Population Fund. The comments attributed to Al Qaeda in Islamic North Africa indicate once more that for the terrorist network, the United Nations is clearly the enemy.

And perhaps that fact is something that U.S. based ideological critics of the UN would be wise to consider. Perhaps a period of introspection may make them understand that cheering on John Bolton (farcically appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN by the Bush administration) as he gleefully suggests that there would be no loss if the UN lost 10 floors from its HQ is beyond the pale.

I sincerely hope that there are some in the anti-UN camp here in the U.S. willing to reconsider their willingness to condone such rhetoric. Civilian diplomats are targets because they are doing work that we would consider to be in the American national interest.

Some good news from Congress -- the Genocide Accountability Act has gone to the President for his signature. CGS supported the bill and we have been pushing for Congress to plug this, and similar gaps, for some time. Here is our statement:

"Citizens for Global Solutions welcomes the passage of the Genocide Accountability Act by the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Durbin, Representative Berman and the bipartisan supporters of this initiative should be applauded for their hard work. We urge President Bush to promptly sign this bill into law and to ensure that it is implemented effectively.

The United States must not be a safe haven for war criminals and to that end we strongly urge Congress to build on this action by plugging remaining gaps in U.S. criminal law to ensure that anyone who commits torture, war crimes or crimes against humanity can be prosecuted in U.S. courts. The U.S. must contribute to preventing and punishing the crime of genocide by ensuring jurisdiction over every scenario of an offender committing this crime.”

While logistical and political roadblocks have slowed down efforts to deploy peacekeeping force to Darfur, support is growing for a new tool to address grave humanitarian crises – a United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS).  54 organizations just sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to support H. Res. 213 , a resolution calling for the creation of UNEPS.  

As envisioned, UNEPS would be a U.N. integrated mission capable of intervening in the early stages of civil conflicts, genocides or other humanitarian crises. Signatories to the letter include an array of NGOs representing the peace and conflict resolution community, think tanks, civil rights, faith-based and human rights organizations. Among the groups signing the letter are: Save Darfur, Refugees International, the Center for American Progress, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Presbyterian Church, USA and Human Rights Watch.  In the letter they say that:

“In recent years, the international community has been increasingly called upon to respond rapidly and effectively to emerging crises, yet lacks the tools to consistently answer this call. We believe the time has come for a permanent emergency response service, designed to complement the capacity of the United Nations to provide stability, peace, and relief in deadly emergencies.”

Another recent supporter of the concept is presidential candidate John Edwards who in response to Citizens for Global Solutions' candidate questionniare said:

"I support the formation and funding of the United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS). The UNEPS, an emergency response service, will allow the international community to respond rapidly and effectively to crises. UNEPS can help prevent early stage crises from escalating into national or regional disasters. It is an important step in providing the world community with the international emergency service it needs. "

H. Res. 213 was introduced by Reps. Albert Wynn (D-MD) and James Walsh (R-NY) and currently has 24 co-sponsors.  In a recent letter to their colleagues in the House, Wynn and Walsh noted:

“If the United Nations Peace Service (UNEPS) that we propose were in existence today, the people of Darfur would be already enjoying the protection of a well-trained peacekeeping unit capable of accomplishing its mission.” 

But UNEPS is not just about Darfur. It is about preventing future Darfurs from spiraling out of control. If a few more Members of Congress agree to co-sponsor the resolution, we can put it on the agenda of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Don Kraus

Senator Joe Biden is hungry.  How do I know?  He told me so in an e-mail today.  In fact, he’s so hungry he says he will “eat Rudy Giuliani alive.”  Here is part of the text of Sen. Biden’s e-mail:

I can't wait to debate Rudy Giuliani.

Over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani attacked the Biden plan for a political solution in Iraq, "They're saying, 'We will divide the country.' (The Iraqi government) has to decide to divide the country. We're trying to create stability over there."

I will eat Rudy Giuliani alive at a debate.

The former mayor never misses an opportunity to display how little he knows about foreign policy. My plan is to give regions in Iraq more control over their daily lives. It's a way for states to share power with a central government and achieve a political solution to the chaos there and it was endorsed by a bipartisan majority of 75 Senators, both Republican and Democrat. We've already seen it play out -- where local authorities have been given more control over their affairs, violence has gone down. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's attempt to create a strong central government is still not working -- for all the headlines the surge has created, we're no closer to a political solution in Baghdad than we were when the surge began months ago.

Folks, we've seen how dangerous it is to elect a president who doesn't understand how the world works. The last thing we need in the White House is four years of George W. Giuliani, or George W. Romney. Notice we haven't heard a word about their plans to reach a political solution in Iraq.

Maybe Biden is on to something here; after all, the electorate does seem to “hunger” for a change in direction of our nation’s current foreign policy.  But eating your opponent “alive”?  Wow.

 

CGS is proud to support this important grassroots effort:

Join Samantha Power, Nick Kristof and John Prendergast: Host a “Sand and Sorrow” House Party Join thousands of activists and viewers across the country to watch the HBO premier of Sand and Sorrow , a powerful film about the tragic and ongoing genocide in Darfur, on Thursday, December 6 at 8:00 PM ET/PT. ENOUGH and Campus Progress have teamed up to coordinate and organize house parties across the U.S. to view and discuss the film together. Samantha Power, Nick Kristof and John Prendergast will host a conference call following the film. The chat will give you the opportunity to talk about the film and discover practical ways that you can make a difference to stop the genocide. Sign up for the call here , and learn how to host a house party here . Discussion questions are available here .

"Should the anticipated discussions fail to clear the path to the deployment of an effective force, the international community will be confronted with hard choices: do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur." -- UN Under Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guehenno in remarks to the Security Council, November 28.

Only a few noticed, but Guehenno's report to the Security Council last week was far more challenging and confrontational than the average briefing from a UN official to member states, but these are not ordinary circumstances. First, according to Guehenno, Khartoum is threatening to renege on its promise:

Five months ago (on 17 June) in Khartoum, this Council received President Bashir's agreement with AU-UN plans for a peacekeeping operation in Darfur without preconditions. During the Secretary-General's visit to Sudan in September, President Bashir gave him personal assurances that his Government would facilitate the deployment of UNAMID. Over the past few weeks, the Government's reluctance to facilitate the practical preparations for UNAMID as well as the public statements made by its senior officials call into question that commitment.

Even if Sudan cooperates, there are a number of obstacles to success. There are still serious gaps in the UNAMID force that, unless filled, will ultimately doom the mission.

Another major issue is funding. As we saw with the AU Mission in Sudan, under-resourced peace operations fail. The U.S. is already projected to be over a billion dollars behind in payments to UN peacekeeping. That is a tremendous disincentive to other countries to contribute troops. UNAMID is the largest, most expensive UN peacekeeping mission in history. Failure to meet our obligations jeopardizes not only UNAMID, but the other UN peace operations that compete with UNAMID for funding.

Expectations for UN peacekeeping are sky high even though resources are nowhere to be found. I'm worried that the UN is being set up for failure.

President Bush included a $724 million for UNAMID in his war supplemental. Regardless of what happens to the rest of the bill, Democrats in Congress have to find a way to provide for the full amount, and then need to do it soon.

By the way: next time a major crisis happens, wouldn't it be nice to have a well-trained, interoperable service ready to deploy within days instead of months? It's been a while since I've written about the proposed UN Emergency Peace Service. Today, 54 organizations -- including a lot of heavy hitters and new players in the peace operations arena -- signed a letter urging its creation. This is an idea whose time has come.

-- Scott Paul