Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator, published an op-ed in the Washington Post that reflects many of the   ideals that Citizens for Global Solutions is working towards. He stresses the need for the United States to take a collaborative role in the global community, working together with other states to solve critical issues: 

"We need a clearly defined strategy that accounts for the interconnectedness and the shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the United States -- whether economic, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy, or water and food shortages -- also threatens our global partners and rivals."

The best way for the United States to combat these problems is to work alongside other nations, specifically through the United Nations. The U.N. provides a forum in which countries can build "coalitions of common interests", so that they can work collectively to solve issues facing every nation in the world. These issues require such collaboration because they have such a wide reach, like climate change or the global food crisis, for example.

The United States cannot work as a lone force in the globalized world. Nations are interconnected in ways that were never imaginable years ago, and this requires a change in actions. The U.S. needs to use the U.N. as a tool to help solve the critical problems it is facing, along with the rest of the world.

On Wednesday, May 6, the Brookings Institute held a discussion on U.S.-Russia relations and the challenges posed by nuclear arms control. Panelists included Brookings President Strobe Talbot, Steven Pifer, Visiting Fellow and author of “Beyond START: Negotiating the Next Step in U.S. and Russian Strategic Nuclear Arms Reductions,” and Brookings vice president and director of Foreign Policy Carlos Pascual.

There are currently 9 countries with nuclear weapons now and 56 conducting research into nuclear enrichment programs. Of those 56 countries, 12 have the capacity to begin such programs. Additionally, 30 have indicated they will develop new programs; 14 of these nations are located in the Middle East and North Africa. If Iran acquires a weapon, it is a matter of time before other nations will do the same.

Following their meeting in London, President Obama and President Medvedev began negotiations on a new strategic arms reduction scheme. The panelists at Brookings explained that nuclear proliferation is one of the greatest threats to the global community today, and that both the United States and Russia must agree to reduce and control their stockpiles if other nations are expected to follow suit.

The success of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] is vital to the realization of weapons reduction and is dependent upon three conditions. First, the nuclear weapons states should disarm; the United States and Russia should agree to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals, while holding discussions on how to address non-deployed strategic warheads and tactical weapons. Second, non-nuclear weapons states should be given access to civil nuclear technology after agreeing to forgo it for military use. Lastly, all nations should commit to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Such a regime would be beneficial for both parties by reducing nuclear stockpiles, providing an incentive for nonproliferation to those nations seeking nuclear capabilities, and protecting such materials from acquisition by malevolent groups.  Finally, such a scheme would make the world a safer place and eliminate one of the deadliest threats to the human race.

The Council on Foreign Relations just released a report, The National Interest and the Law of the Sea, written by Scott Borgerson calling for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea convention.  The report is a well written and detailed document that methodically examines the treaty and the pros and cons of ratification.  Borgerson comes down strongly on the side of ratification for many reasons.  He says that the treaty will:

"Enhance U.S. global credibility -- by matching action to rhetoric regarding the rule of law. Joining this particular convention sends a powerful signal of commitment to this principle. The undeniable semantic message of the title "Law of the Sea" and the practical effect of officially becoming party to a legal regime over the vast expanse of the world's oceans combine to reinforce the strength of this signal."

Borgenson makes a strong case why joining the treaty now is strongly in the national intererest:

"Why is it imperative for the United States to join the convention? Why now? To fail to join the convention this year would be to lose a unique opportunity. The United States is experiencing a conjunction of circumstances that includes the "fresh start" effect of a new administration, the ascendance of two national security strategies founded on conflict prevention and partnership building, and a community of nations eager for renewed American multilateralism. By joining the convention now, the United States gains legal protection; for its sovereignty; sovereign rights and jurisdiction in offshore zones, the freedom of maneuver and action for its military forces; and protection for economic, environmental, and marine research interests at sea while seizing an opportunity to restore the mantle of international leadership on, over, and under nearly three-quarters of the earth. It is a bipartisan agenda, and one in the strategic interests of the United States."

During the reports release at the Council, Senator Kerry is reported to have said that the Law of the Sea could come up as early as June. Citizens for Global Solutions members have been working on this treaty since the late 1960's.  It's great to see the stars finally aligning.

Back in 2007 I urged progressives to support ratification and wrote:

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?

This is just as true today as it was then.  So if you haven't already done so, act now and send your Senators a message to support ratification.

Don Kraus

All over the world, millions of women are denied equal access to property, legal action, civic life and public participation on a daily basis. Seventy percent of the poorest people in the world are female. Of a total of 771 million illiterate adults, two-thirds are women. One out of three women will experience physical abuse or violence and one out of five will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW], seeks to help change these unacceptable statistics. The international agreement forms standards for basic women's rights and is widely supported around the world. Out of the United Nations members, 185 have already ratified, making up over ninety percent. President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980; however, it was never ratified in Congress. Currently, only seven other nations have yet to ratify.

CEDAW signatories commit to the improvement of the status of women and the end of discrimination against women worldwide. It would also establish legal functions to protect the rights of women and create a system for accountability to the United Nations. Committees would monitor reports made every four years regarding the steps each nation has made to comply with the treaty.

As a leading industrialized nation, the United States' failure to ratify appears to other countries as indifference. The nation fails to acknowledge that these rights are universal and that they deserve advancement and enforcement through international law. Ratifying the Convention would give the U.S. credibility in the international community regarding women's rights and it would answer the calls of the over 200 leading advocacy organizations. The nation would lend its global influence to furthering the cause of women's rights, putting an end to discrimination against women around the globe.

With the recent passing of a Shia law in Afghanistan , which will require women to ask the permission of a male relative before leaving the house and will allow her husband to have intercourse with her even if she refuses, women's rights have been forced into the spotlight. While the United States has already expressed its objection to the law, such an occurrence makes the ratification of CEDAW in the U.S. and the enforcement of the treaty on a global level that much more urgent.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a vocal advocate of the treaty, said, "CEDAW is essential to advancing the status of women around the world. It establishes rights for women in realms never before subject to global standards, such as political participation, legal protections, and access to jobs, education and health care." President Obama plans to push for ratification of the treaty, which will restore the United States' standing as a leader in the international community.

Yesterday the Senate adopted by unanimous consent the Kerry-Lugar Amendment to restore $4 billion to the International Affairs Budget cut by the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate budget now includes the President's request for this account of $53.8 billion in FY 2010 to fund next year's budget ' an increase of 8%, or $4 billion, over last year's funding level of $49.8 billion.

In his statement on the Senate floor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) said:

From pandemics to climate change to failed states, this century's security challenges demand that a new level of commitment to diplomacy and development. With this relatively small investment, we are making significant strides toward restoring America's leadership role in the world. It will make the world safer, and it will make us safer.

Citizens for Global Solutions staff and members along with other members of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign worked hard to make this happen. Thank you Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar.

"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization." -- Franklin Roosevelt

More than 60 years ago, President Roosevelt reminded us that protecting the human rights of others is the only way to protect our own human rights. Here in the United States, human rights is an issue that has been overshadowed by other concerns during the past few years, but now we are beginning to see our way clear to making this, once again, a cornerstone of U.S. policy. One of the first actions of the Obama administration was to announce the end to policies that allowed for the torture of anyone in U.S. custody. One of their next actions was to announce plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Now, the Administration has taken yet another step and announced that the U.S. will run for election on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

This action sends a strong signal to the international community that the Obama administration is committed to defending human rights for all global citizens, and it moves the U.S. one step closer to returning it to its previous role as a leader in the defense of human rights around the world.

As a member of the Council, the U.S. will be able to provide a voice for the voiceless, and to ensure that those who violate human rights will be held accountable for their crimes, anywhere in the world.

The Human Rights Council is the only international body through which promotes human rights and addresses pervasive human rights violations. The Council will only be able reach its potential with the help of strong leadership from the United States. It is also a key platform through which to empower those who are discriminated against the most, including women and girls.

The decision by the Obama administration to seek a seat on the Council demonstrates its commitment to work more closely with our allies around the world, a move that can only make Americans safer, in every way.

According to the New York Times and other media sources indicted Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir has visited with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Bashir has not been deterred by the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. He visited Eritrea on Monday and is expected to attend an Arab League summit meeting in Qatar next week.

Neither the State Department nor the Whitehouse has commented on Bashir's travels and defiance of the Court's jurisdiction, other than to say that he is not welcomed in the United States. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood, when asked if the U.S. is encouraging other nations to arrest Bashir dodged a clear response and said:

"Well, first and foremost, we're not a party, as you know, to the Rome Statute. There are countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, and they have obligations, international obligations under that statute."

In fact other than a supportive statement by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the White House has basically withheld comment on the ICC until it completes a review of U.S. policy regarding the Court. The administration should finish this policy review quickly. It should call for extensive and thorough U.S. cooperation with the Court and support for its prosecutions and trials. It should support U.S. participation in the Court's meetings. And it should make clear that U.S. relations with the Court are in an entirely new era. The historic ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir makes these steps especially urgent.

In FY09 the U.S. will supply Egypt with $1.3 billion in military financing. Ideally, Congress should condition this funding to ensure Egyptian cooperation with the apprehension of war criminals like Bashir. At the very least the U.S. should quickly state its desire for Cairo and other Arab League nations to cooperate with the Court.

The United States is now in the odd and unsustainable position of strongly endorsing the most important action that the ICC has ever taken while evading any commitment to support or participate in it as an institution. While Secretary of State Clinton has been hindered by the slow confirmation process to bring on new political staff, she should not allow the United States to stand mute on the sidelines while allowing a mastermind of systematic mass-murder and rapes to freely roam the world and flaunt the jurisdiction of the Court and the U.N. Security Council which authorized the Court's actions in Sudan.

Thanks to all our Partners who joined us March 14th for our Partners Call on Darfur. Niemat Ahmadi of SaveDarfur joined us to give us the latest information on the situation there. Unfortunately, President Al-Bashir has disconnected many telephone lines and internet connections, in order to keep information from getting from Darfur to the outside world. Ms. Ahmadi told us about this very worrisome development and urged our Partners to press U.S. officials to take action quickly. She said,

"This is the right time for world leaders to show leadership. What's going on in Darfur is a humanitarian crisis, so it is the responsibility of world leaders to help."

See what Ms. Ahmadi had to say to the UN Security Council.

Senate passage of the Omnibus appropriations bill quietly marked the end of Congressional sanctions on nations that have ratified the International Criminal Court. It also officially ends the Bush administration's Bilateral Immunity Agreement (or Article 98) campaign, clearing the way for greater U.S. cooperation with the Court.

Thank you Representative Lowey, Senator Leahy and your staffs!

Beginning in the summer of 2002, the Bush administration aggressively sought to conclude bilateral immunity agreements with every country in the world. Bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs), also known as "Article 98" agreements, prohibited countries from sending U.S. personnel to the ICC for any reason. This includes U.S. servicemembers, nationals, or employees of the U.S. government (past and present, including non-national contractors). Over 100 nations were pressured into signing these agreements, even though doing so meant violating the commitment they took on when they ratified the ICC treaty. They were forced to put all U.S. citizens on their territory, even mercenaries and common criminals, above the laws that they expected their own citizens and leaders to obey.

In 2002 Congress passed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), which hampered U.S. cooperation with the Court and sanctioned nations that ratified it by withholding funding for military financing and education. By January, 2008, at the urging of the Defense Department, these economic sanctions were eliminated.

In 2004, then Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) introduced an amendment to the State/Foreign Ops appropriations bill to suspend Economic Support Funds to members of the ICC who did not sign BIAs. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), the Republican chair of the appropriations subcommittee, spoke strongly against this amendment when it came to the House floor: "At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. If we accept [this amendment], the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing [BIAs]." While the amendment originally failed by voice vote, it later passed by a roll call vote of 241 to 166.

Now, thanks in large part to the work of House Foreign Operations and State Sub-committee chair Nita Lowey (D-NY) and her staff, the language has been removed from appropriations bill. Although her counterpart in the Senate, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has successfully kept this language off of the Senate bill for many years, House Republican opposition ensured it remained in the final bill that went to President Bush.

With the removal of the Nethercutt language, the BIA campaign is now officially over.

Except... What will the Obama administration do once nations that were forced to sign these agreements begin to withdraw from them? Stay tuned

Today the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir (CGS just issues a press release and an action alert .) The warrant accuses the president of two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity in Darfur, by ordering government troops as well as Janjaweed militia to engage in a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture against members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. The Court has ordered government officials to hand over President Al-Bashir for trial on these charges, and asks all nations to help bring the president to justice.

This warrant is an example of actions that the Court was specifically created to take, in order to hold the world's most heinous criminals accountable for their actions. It proves that no one, including a head of state, is above the law.

The United States should immediately provide all assistance to the Court in apprehending President Al-Bashir, by taking him into custody if he enters our airspace, waters or territory; by freezing all economic and/or military aid to the Sudanese government until Sudan complies with this warrant; by using diplomacy to pressure President Al-Bashir and other nations to comply with the ICC demands; and contributing our enormous resources to this investigation to ensure that justice is served.

However, before the U.S. can credibly pressures other nations to hand Al-Bashir over to the Court, it needs to do 3 things:

• reinstate its signature on the ICC treaty;
• take a seat as an observer at the Court's governing body; and
• formally begin to cooperate with other investigations the Court is conducting in the DRC, Uganda, and eslewhere.

We need to take these steps not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will be difficult for other nations to take us seriously when we urge them to abide by the Court's rulings. You can help spread the word by taking action.