The Bush administration has bent over backwards to cater to business interests. At least, that's been my perception from the outside.

Last week, I met with an influential operative in the business community about the Law of the Sea. We agree on the importance of U.S. accession to the Convention as critical to national security, business interests and global sustainability -- but probably little else.

This individual had a very different perspective on the White House's relationship to business. He told me -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that the White House rarely gives them advance notice when the administration does or says something that affects their interests.

In particular, he recalled with anger the maelstrom surrounding Vice President Cheney's energy task force. He promised me that there was nothing secret about the meetings and that some of them even took place in the offices of a trade association. And he continued -- furious at this point -- to complain that the task force's recommendations were more or less ignored as the White House presented its energy package to Congress.

None of this changes my view that Cheney's energy task force was highly irregular or that business interests carry too much weight in the Bush administration. But the fact that these folks don't feel heard in a very, very friendly White House speaks to the general incompetence of the administration and helps to explain why no one, not even Bush's natural base, wants more of the same.

Scott Paul

Steve Killelea, a self-described "conservative businessman and philanthropist," gave an excellent presentation on his brainchild, the Global Peace Index (GPI).  One day, Steve asked the question, what is it that makes nations peaceful? He found out no one really knew.  So he hired the Economist Intelligence Unit and funded an international panel of peace experts from Peace Institutes and Think Tanks as well as the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, Australia to find out.  The GPI is the result of their efforts.  They weighed 24 indicators for 120 nations to do the study, which will be expanded over the next few years.  The U.S. was 96th out of 121 nations surveyed.  It's worth taking a look at.

Steve is a true citizen for global solutions.  He believes that:

“Peace and sustainability are the cornerstones of humanity’s survival in the 21st century. The major challenges facing humanity today are global – climate change, accessible fresh water, ever decreasing bio-diversity and over population. Problems that call for global solutions and these solutions will require co-operation on a global scale unparalleled in history. Peace is the essential prerequisite, for, without peace, how can the major nations of the world co-operate to solve these issues?”

Coming up Sources of Violent Conflict and Conflict Prevention in the 21st Century

Don Kraus

Mr. Philip Alpers of Sydney University gave a compelling presentation on small arms disarmament.  He felt that too much effort was being put into nuclear weapon disarmament, and not enough into small arms.  His rationale was simple:

Deaths caused by nuclear weapons since 1945 = 0
Deaths caused by small arms = 1000 per day

He used a public health analogy and discussed small (hand held) weapons as a disease vector.  Here’s the formula:

Gun is to armed violence as mosquito is to malaria.

Next the “Global Peace Index”

Don Kraus

The discussion on conventional weapons continues:

Archie Law discussed the Cluster Munitions Convention and the Oslo process to establish a ban on these terrible weapons that cause indiscriminate civilian casualties.  Cluster bombs are weapons that have a “parent” delivery device (usually drop from a plane) that then breaks up into “bomblets” that scatter and kill over a wide area. Some 34 nations, including the U.S., make these weapons.  21 nations have been affected by them.

One of the problems with these devices is that a large percentage of the munitions do not explode on impact.  When civilians return to their homes after the fighting stops these weapons can fall from trees or be picked up by children – and the killing continues.

Their use in Lebanon has touched off a process to ban them led by Norway.  A treaty has been drafted and so far 40 nations have signed on.  A meeting to be held in the near future in Oslo is expected to attract over 100 signers.  Unfortunately the United States, along with Russia, China, Israel, Sudan, and others is not on board.

More later

Don Kraus

This afternoon I chaired part one of a panel on “Reduction of Conventional Weapons and National Forces.”  Citizens for Global Solutions just signed onto a letter supporting a House resolution urging President Bush to engage in the new Arms Trade treaty that negotiations will begin on next week.  Unfortunately the United States was the only nation to oppose a U.N. resolution “examining the parameters and feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty.”

A draft of the House resolution (which should be introduced next week) notes that the U.S. as the:

“world’s largest exporter of conventional  weapons, has a special obligation to promote responsible practices in the global arms trade and should actively work to prevent arms from being used to perpetrate:

• breaches of the UN Charter relating to the use of force;
• gross violations of international human rights;
• serious violations of international humanitarian law;
• acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
• acts of terrorism.
• destabilizing buildups of military forces and weapons

While I am not well versed on conventional weapons (and was drafted into the chairmanship) my panelists, Ambassador Jonathan Dean and Dr. Marianne Hanson were.

Ambassador Dean presented a paper on “Negotiating Conventional Reductions” which calls for a phased draw down of conventional forces on a regional basis.  He sees this prerequisite for a shift to a system of “UN-controlled multilateral forces.”  Clearly this is a tall order, but it was an interesting presentation.

Professor Hanson gave a status update on the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty.  Not good news here. This is a cold war treaty that did ground breaking work on confidence building measures to prevent war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.  It called for transparency, reduction of conventional weapons and for military maneuvers to be announced in advance. 

Although Russia ratified the treaty the U.S. and NATO never did.  As a result, Russia has suspended its participation in the treaty as of December 2007.  One of the contentious issues involved is the U.S desire to deploy a missile defense system in Poland.

The treaty enabled a draw down of weapons on both sides.  The cost of letting it fall by the way side is that these levels cannot be reduced further; Russia can now build up forces on the border, and an overall loss of trust.

More later ….

Don Kraus

I’ve traveled to Brisbane Australia to participate in the annual Global Action Plan to Prevent War (GAPW) conference.  GAPW is the brainchild of Professor Saul Mendolvitz, Ambassador Jonathan Dean and the late Randy Forsberg.  Each year a group of academics, advocates, and officials gather in some part of the world to review progress on a few of the 68 steps that needed to create the conditions necessary to effectively prevent war.  The primary reason I am here is to plan the next steps needed to create a U.N. Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), one of GAPW’s current priorities.  However, I’ll try to give you a flavor of the meeting over the next few days.  Unfortunately, there’s no internet where the sessions are being held at the University of Queensland so these will be after the fact reviews.

From the onset it is clear how U.S. policies and politics impact the work that we do.  Professor Kevin Clements, our host here at the Austrailian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in Brisbane, was interviewed by the national news prior to the meeting.  While they were interested in our goals, what they really wanted to know is how the race for president would affect our outcomes?

Kevin introduced my friend Pera Wells, the Secretary-General of the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA) who gave the morning’s keynote address.   She read a message for Hans Blix, WFUNA’s president and former Swedish foreign minister and head of the IAEA.  In it he noted that:

“The United Nations and all of its agencies and funds spend about $20 billion each year, or about $3 for each of the world’s inhabitants.  This is a very small sum compared to most of the government budgets and tit is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military spending, estimated by SIPRI to be $1.3 trillion in 2007 ... or about $184 for every person in the world.   These funds could be much better used for peaceful purposes that serve the good of humanity as a whole, for instance helping to save our planet from disastrous global warming.”

More to come later.

Don Kraus