Written by Don Kraus for the Huffington Post

What's more dangerous: the thousands of nukes that will still target U.S. and Russian cities if the New START treaty is not ratified OR the opportunistic, Tea Party pandering politicians who would derail this commonsense agreement?

If you answered "the nukes", you're wrong.

New START will reduce the global inventory of strategic nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert to levels not seen since I was born in 1954. But these weapons are not nearly as dangerous as the obstructive "Cold War" messaging that treaty opponents are deploying to upset New START's ratification.

Seven former commanders of the Strategic Air Command and the U.S. Strategic Command who recently endorsed the pact said, "There is little concern today about the probability of a Russian nuclear attack." The terrorist bomb that takes out Washington or New York will most likely come in a shipping container rather than an ICBM.

The utility of New START is that it makes the world more predictable. It replaces the START treaty originally negotiated by President Reagan that expired last December. Like its predecessor, New START not only reduces the number of warheads, it assures that both nations "trust but verify" each other's compliance with the terms of the treaty. Ratification will send a strong message that the U.S. is seriously pursuing its nuclear disarmament obligations, giving it more credibility to demand that nations like Iran and North Korea not build nuclear weapons.

New START is on track for approval. A huge list of Republican and Democratic policymakers, including five former defense secretaries and six former secretaries of state are pushing for ratification. But a gang of right wing politicos will try to use the August congressional recess to blame, frame and fundraise New START into oblivion.

Operatives including Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, the Heritage Foundation, and even the Tea Party's "Liberty Central" are launching misinformation campaigns to kill the treaty. This is part of an isolationist strategy that should be considered a greater long-term threat to our nation's security then the warheads that New START will eliminate. Their core belief is best expressed by the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly who, in her rant against New START said, "We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament."

But in fact, ratification of any treaty and participation in international organizations sends a message of cooperation, partnership, and a desire for clear rules and a level playing field. In a recent interview Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a hard-nosed realist, said "it's amazing how much trust matters in relationships, whether it's with governments or with individuals around the world." It's only human nature to prefer to do business with those we like and respect. The United States is stronger when perceived as a friend.

Unfortunately, a growing chorus of ultra-nationalist voices is spreading disinformation and fear when it comes to all things multilateral. Tea Party candidates, like former NFL star Clint Didier, know what their audience wants to hear, "We need to get out of the U.N. and to get the U.N. out of the United States" because, "they are out to take our guns and repeal American sovereignty." This sentiment is shared by Nevada's Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle who wants the U.S. to sever all ties with the United Nations.

Voices of fear are fanning xenophobic passions that threaten our nation's values, aspirations, and our ability to thrive in a connected world. Like the proverbial genie, globalization cannot be put back in the bottle. America cannot close its borders, nor can it afford to ignore the international community. Childlike temper tantrums will not make the world go away.

Ratification of New START is essential to the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Not only will it provide greater security by reducing the threat of nuclear annihilation, but it is also a valuable opportunity for internationalist adults -- Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative - to retake control of our foreign policy. It is time to advance the cooperative international institutions, laws, and norms that enhance U.S. security and promote democratic values.

Yes, the nuclear weapons that New START addresses present a clear risk to our nation. But the vocal cadres who will do anything to block the ratification of all international agreements present an even graver threat: At stake is our ability to enshrine our beliefs and values in the growing web of agreements that are the legal bedrock of this world.

Don Kraus is the CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions and co chairs the CEDAW Task Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

I just published this oped on the Huffington Post:

Our nation is blessed with a conscience that demands an end to unjust wars. During the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, tens of thousands of protesters chanted in the streets, crashed the phone system of Congress, and creatively made their collective shout of "No More War" heard.

Unfortunately, the anti-war movement was AWOL last month during one of the greatest opportunities humanity has ever had to put an end to war. During the first two weeks of June, representatives from 84 nations and more than 600 civil society groups met in Kampala, Uganda and took an historic first step towards criminalizing aggression. Imagine the impact on future tyrants and misguided leaders if the reward for planning and carrying out an offensive war was a trip to the slammer...  Read More

Take Action

Yesterday Pew Charitable Trusts ran this ad in the Washington Post and Politico, showing once again that the Law of the Sea convention has the largerst, broadest, extremely odd-bedfellow group of supporters of any issue moving forward inside the Beltway.  Where else can you see the American Petroleum Institute and the World Wildlife Fund sandwiching the likes of former Secretary of State Jim Baker, Lee Hamiliton, John Warner, the US Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, not to mention Citizens for Global Solutions. 

The ad gets right to the point:  our security can't wait.  Neither can our economy or our environment. It's great to see supporters coming together to speed ratification along. Pew is doing a great service and should be commended.  In addition their new site, RatifyLawOfTheSea.org is an excellent resource.

However, we are still waiting on word back from President Obama.  As I have said before, the Senate is not likely to adopt any major treaty without presidential leadership in raising the issue and pushing it to the floor.

President Obama, the ball's in your court.

Don Kraus

On June 24, 2009, the Senate voted to advance Harold Koh's nomination for the position of Legal Adviser of the Department of State and move towards a final confirmation of his position. The Dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor was nominated to be the primary legal counselor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on March 23, 2009 by President Obama..

As the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and former director of Yale Law School's Center for International Human Rights, Koh is a prominent advocate of human rights and authority on international law. He served as a delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission under the Clinton administration and has promoted a theory of "transnational jurisdiction," which looks to tenets of international law to inform and improve the domestic judicial process. He argues that "concepts like liberty, equality, and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement."

Citizens for Global Solutions supports the decisions of Obama and the Senate in the proposal and advancement of Koh's nomination and congratulates him on the great honor and exciting opportunity of this position.

The White House released its list of treaty priorities for the 111th Congress last week. Here is the complete list of treaties that the administration supports immediate action on:

Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty, done at New York September 10, 1996 and signed by the United States on September 24, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-28); submitted to the Senate on September 23, 1997.

Treaty with Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Sydney September 5,2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-10); submitted to the Senate on December 3, 2007.

Treaty with the United Kingdom Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Washington and London on June 21 and 26, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-7); submitted to the Senate on September 20,2007.

Annex VI on Liability Arising From Environmental Emergencies to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, adopted on June 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 111-2); submitted to the Senate on April 2, 2009.

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, done at Canberra on June 19,2001 (Treaty Doc. 110-22); submitted to the Senate on September 26,2008.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted on November 3,2001 and signed by the United States on November 3, 2002 (Treaty Doc. 110-19); submitted to the Senate on July 7, 2008.

1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. Done at London November 7, 1996; signed by the United States on March 31, 1998 (Treaty Doc. 110-5); submitted to the Senate on September 4, 2007.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, done at Stockholm May 22, 2001 and signed by the United States on May 23, 2001 (Treaty Doc. 107-5); submitted to the Senate on May 7, 2002.

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, done at Rotterdam September 10, 1998 and signed by the United States on September 11,1998 (Treaty Doc. 106-21); submitted to the Senate on February 9, 2000.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, done at New York December 18, 1979 and signed by the United States on July 17, 1980 (Treaty Doc. Ex. R, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess.); submitted to the Senate on November 12, 1980.

Treaty between the United States and Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, signed at Kigali on February 19,2008 (Treaty Doc. 110-23); submitted to the Senate on November 20,2008.

Convention between the United States and Malta for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, done at Valletta August 8, 2008 (Treaty Doc. 1I I-I); submitted to the Senate on January 15,2009.

International Labor Organization Convention No. 111 Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, adopted by the International Labor Conference at its 42nd Session held at Geneva on June 25, 1958 (Treaty Doc. 105-45); submitted to the Senate on May 18, 1998.

Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, done at Washington November 13, 1997 and signed by the United States on November 14, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-49); submitted to the Senate on June 9, 1998.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay December 10, 1982 (the "Convention") and the Agreement relating to Implementation of Part XI of the Convention, done at New York July 28, 1994 (the "Agreement"); Agreement signed by the United States on July 29, 1994 (Treaty Doc. 103-39); submitted to the Senate on October 7, 1994.

Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, done at New York December 9, 1994 and signed by the United States on December 19, 1994 (Treaty Doc. 107-1); submitted to the Senate on January 3, 2001.

Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted at The Hague on November 23, 2007, and signed by the United States on that same date (Treaty Doc. 110-21); submitted to the Senate on September 8, 2008

Citizens for Global Solutions was excited to see that three treaties that we have been lobbying for are included in this list. Ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be a huge step forward for America's leadership internationally.

To read the entire priority list, click here.

A House of Representatives Resolution (H.RES.363) was introduced on April 23 by Lynn Woolsey of California. The resolution calls for a "smart security platform for the 21st century," and its ideas and suggestions run parallel to the goals and ideas of Citizens for Global Solutions.

The resolution calls for:

1. Strengthening international institutions by working with the UN and other international institutions.

2. Adhering to, supporting, and strengthening existing and future nonproliferation treaties and, more importantly, for the US to set an example for the rest of the world by taking the lead on renouncing nuclear weapons tests and the development of new weapons.

3. Addressing the root causes of violent conflict in the world by integrating peace-building and conflict prevention into US development programs and engaging the international community in post-conflict reconstruction and political transition processes.

4. Greater investment in long-term sustainable and renewable energy sources to confront the threat of global warming.

5. Pursuing to the fullest extent alternatives to war through early warning systems, human rights monitoring, and multilateral rapid response mechanisms

These guidelines for a new US security platform are the ideas that Citizens for Global Solutions has presented for so long. These are the ideas that will strengthen the global community and allow us to work together to resolve and defeat global crises, from war and nuclear proliferation to energy and climate change.

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