While the Tea Party owes its origins to domestic concerns, a unified foreign policy has failed to emerge. Tea Partiers often find themselves holding directly opposing views--especially with regard to America’s military presence in the world. However, as Peter Baker’s Foreign Policy article points out, “[i]f there's one thing Tea Party activists can agree on foreign-policy-wise, it's their aversion to international organizations.

Possibly due to this rare seeing of eye to eye, Tea Party candidates have come out swinging against international organizations like the United Nations. Candidates like Dan Maes of Colorado, Sharon Angles of Nevada, and Rand Paul of Kentucky have each vocalized the call to get the U.S. out of the U.N.

Washington Post’s Colum Lynch writes:

“In the run up to mid term elections, Tea Party candidates have called for the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N., cited U.N. plots to rescind Americans right to bear arms, and decried so-called socialistic programs that promote bicycle rental programs in the heartland in an effort to curtail American freedoms.

Until the Tea Party can formulate a unified foreign policy, we can look forward to them continuing to resort to their lowest common denominator: fear of the big bad U.N.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to push forward with hearings on the New START Treaty, despite vocal opposition from stubborn opponents relentlessly repeating the same misguided objections. Listening to these obstinate Representatives continue to regurgitate these same obstructive statements, a listener is left wondering if any amount of information, military experts or hearings would really convince them to put security over partisan politics.

Working Across the Aisle for a New START

Bi-partisan collaboration is not only possible, it has been a cornerstone of non-proliferation treaties since START I. The New START Treaty is no different. It maintains a broad coalition of support from respected individuals, both Democrat and Republican. As noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the treaty “is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.” This claim has been echoed by a veritable parade of respected authorities, both civilian and military, that have come forward with their support.

During several hearings, the SFRC has heard the testimonies of former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense. According to James Baker and William Perry, ratifying the Treaty is crucial in preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. According to foreign policy experts Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley, the New START is fundamental to the relationship between the United States and Russia, while Brent Scowcroft warned that if the U.S. fails to ratify the treaty, diplomatic efforts for nuclear non-proliferation may be thrust into “a state of chaos.”

Why Should We Ratify?

The reasons for ratifying the New START treaty are numerous and compelling. Since the expiration of START I in 2009, the United States and Russia have lost a critical link between the two governments. For this reason, the treaty offers benefits far greater than an incremental decrease in nuclear weapons. It will reestablish definitions, counting rules, and a means of verification previously laid out in the expired START I treaty

Failure of Treaty negotiations will have even greater strategic consequences. Henry Kissinger noted the importance of passing New START in order to achieve other key objectives, specifically “to reduce or eliminate the danger of war by miscalculation…to bring about the maximum stability in the balance of forces to reduce incentives for nuclear war by design…to overcome the danger of accidents fostered by the automaticity of the new technology. Kissinger even broached the topic of disarmament, albeit cautiously, stating “All these measures combined might, if successful, merge into a strategy that would reduce or limit—and, in the end, perhaps eliminate—the use of these weapons as a conscious choice.”

To join the discussion and stay current with Committee proceedings, become a fan of the New START Page

On April 28, I had the chance to attend the Senate Foreign Relations Confirmation Hearing of Harold Koh for the position of Legal Adviser to the State Department. John Kerry chaired the hearing and welcomed Koh warmly. Kerry reviewed Koh's impressive record: he has a Law degree, two Masters degrees and he has served in Democratic and Republican Presidential Administrations. Under Clinton, Koh was unanimously confirmed to be the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the State Department. Koh would leave his current position as Dean of the Yale Law School to work at the State Department.

Koh was introduced by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) who are his neighbors and friends in Connecticut. Both Lieberman and Dodd encouraged their Senate colleagues to confirm Koh. In Koh's opening he promised to hold the United States to its own highest standards, use smart power , commit to rule of law, respect checks and balances in his foreign policy, and most importantly he would keep promises internationally.

Koh also cited Somali piracy as a "global problem that requires a global solution". Throughout the rest of the hearing Koh discussed his opposition to torture and his desire to promote the Geneva Convention. Koh also discussed the importance of engaging all actors in the international community, even North Korea. Koh left an overall impression of a man who would lay aside his personal opinion to give the best legal guidance to the United States possible.

North Korea tested a long range nuclear rocket over the weekend, following talks last Wednesday between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about reducing their countries' nuclear stockpiles. This act violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which prohibits North Korea from manipulating ballistic missile technologies. It was adopted unanimously in October 2006 as a result of claims that the country had performed successful nuclear tests in the beginning of the month.

Members of the United Nations Security Council convened Sunday to discuss the event but were unable to give an official response due to Chinese and Russian resistance. Department of State Press Secretary Robert Wood said Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has since been in contact with the council's permanent members to negotiate a "strong, coordinated and effective response."

Following the launch, President Obama called for the immediate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty , which has been previously blocked by the Senate. He also announced yesterday that in addition to working towards a reduction in warheads in the US and Russia, he may provide the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with the authority it has lacked. Strengthening the treaty will ensure that in the event of a violation, offending actors face swift, strong international sanctions. In conclusion, the President stated: "I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly ' perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we . . . must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can'."

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 are in a rare, open moment of history.

Consider this. During the last week:

• President Obama has begun the process of reducing nuclear warheads to the lowest number since 1955.
• Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice have announced that the U.S. will run for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council.
• The Senate has agreed to accept a $4 billion amendment to restore President Obama's full International Affairs Budget request.

As I write, world leaders at the G20 are discussing fundamental changes to our international institutions. It's not a question of if they will change, but rather of how and when.

I never recall having this much good news at one time. Yes, I know we face daunting economic and security challenge. But this a moment to savor the wins. We are building momentum to advance the creation and empowerment of international institutions and laws more than at any point since the founding of the U.N. This is very good.

Now back to work ...

"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.

Today, Wednesday, April 1, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met to begin talks about reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia. Both leaders agreed to work towards expanding the terms set forth in the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is set to expire at the end of this year. Obama and Medvedev each agreed to immediately start work on an outline for a replacement treaty, expected to call for a further reduction in nuclear weapons by both countries to no more than 1,500 each. Currently, the United States has 2,200 nuclear warheads and Russia has 2,800.

This is really great news. Not only do these talks signify a bolstering of the U.S./Russia relationship, which has often been strained in recent years, but this is a step in the right direction towards the U.S. finally ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The United States signed the CTBT, which bans all nuclear weapons testing, but Congress has yet to ratify it. President Obama has stated his support for ratifying the CTBT, which would mark a signficant step towards ending the possibility of a new nuclear arms race and would guard against any further risks to human health or the environment that nuclear testing causes.

Another bonus: negotiating a new bilateral arsenal reduction treaty with Russia would almost certainly give the U.S. more leverage when talking to other countries like North Korea and Iran about their illicit nuclear production programs.

The U.S. is presently not a part of the ICC, so it does not have to follow the jurisdiction of the ICC. Yet, as a world power and a leader in promoting freedom and equality, many would agree that a stronger stance on arresting and persecuting Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir should be taken by the U.S. The U.S. State Department, during a press release on March 30, 2009, made a comment on the concern of such a warm welcome for al-Bashir by the Arab League. The State Dept. said that the Arab League meeting should have been a way for the League to express its condemnation of the Sudanese president, his actions, and show support for the ICC's decision and rejection of the current violence that has been ongoing in Sudan. This was hardly a direct answer, but a way of skirting around the subject. Directly quoting the U.S. State Dept.:

"The presence of President Bashir at this conference should be used as an opportunity to bring forth the international opprobrium [blame] to what is happening in Darfur and in South Sudan."

One would have to wonder how the U.S. State Department could answer the question of concern by the White House, and yet not answer a direct question about whether or not any action would be taken towards the Arab League for taking such a clear stance behind al-Bashir. Can't we just have a clear answer? It seems that despite the United States supporting the arrest of al-Bashir, little is being done by the U.S. to voice concerns that he remains free to roam about Africa, the Middle East and the world. This Sunday (March 29, 2009) al-Bashir attended the Arab League's meeting in Qatar, where other Arab leaders have all, in unison, declared their support for al-Bashir. The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said:

"We emphasize our solidarity to the Sudan and our dismissal and rejection of the decision handed down by the International Criminal Court [ICC].

(Read full story at Aljazeera.net)

Of course this concern or action by the Arab League did not happen as some may have hoped. The U.S. should be standing behind their support for the arrest and prosecution of this oppressive ruler who has allowed the starvation, rapes, and murders of thousands of his own people. It should be expected that a country such as the U.S. would pressure other countries to follow through on the arrest warrant that has been issued for al-Bashir. Of course it seems that the U.S. is not willing to publicly pressure countries of which al-Bashir has recently visited to arrest and extradite al-Bashir in order to achieve justice.

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.