Nuclear proliferation equates to regional instability and insecurity. We have seen destabilizing situations. Pakistan- India, Iran-Middle East, and the fear of loose fissile material. It’s about time the U.S. change its rhetoric in regard to nuclear proliferation. Unlike the past administration, this administration does not shun the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has just arrived in Iran to conduct inspections, and the U.S. is finally holding high level talks with Iran on their nuclear program. These talks are being conducted through a multilateral approach --with the support of the Permanent-Five members of the United Nations.  

It is not surprising that Iran and North Korea’s attempts to process nuclear material have led to regional uncertainty and tension. States in those regions feel threatened and often feel the need to counter any shifts in regional power. During the Bush administration, Israel drew up plans to attack a few of Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran has also threatened Israel should it attack any Iranian territory. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other powers around the Korean Peninsula feel uneasy. These tensions only fuel our stance that nuclear proliferation is of no benefit to anyone. We still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

It is time for the U.S. to set an example. We have taken some steps with Russia to reduce our stockpile, but it is time to do more. We must ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fulfill our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, and must strengthen the IAEA.

On Thursday, July 23, the United Nations General Assembly gathered to debate the responsibility to protect, or R2P, which states that nations have an obligation to protect citizens from mass atrocities if their own government is unable or unwilling to do so. Although R2P was unanimously supported at the 2005 World Summit and the Security Council affirmed their agreement with R2P in 2006 by signing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1674, it remains a disputed issue. 

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon presented a report on R2P before the 192 General Assembly members, which he said was based on three principles: state responsbility; international assistance and capacity-building; and timely and decisive response. While some nations express concerns about sovereignty and many developing countries show suspicions that R2P could be used to justify interventionism, Ban Ki-moon stressed the need "to situate the responsibility to protect squarely under the UN roof and within our Charter, where it belongs." Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and president emeritus of the International Crisis Group, added that R2P "is not the right of big states to anything, including throwing their weight around militarily, but the responsibility of all states to protect their own people from atrocity crimes, and to assist others to do so by all appropriate means."

To read the remarks made at the debate by Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, U.S. Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs, click here.

World Peace Through Law: Rethinking an Old Theory and a Call for a UN Peace Force

by: James T. Ranney¹ of the Philadelphia CGS Chapter

World federalists make what they view as an airtight argument for world federalism which runs as follows. There are only two ways to resolve true conflict (conflict that cannot be mediated) at the international level: (1) by war (not such a good idea any more, since WWIII would entail the almost certain extinction of at least our species), and (2) by law. Therefore, they say, choose law. And by "law," they mean law that is the only kind worth having, enforceable law, enforceable upon individuals, i.e., world law, created by a global legislature and enforced by global courts and global police, unlike the inadequate currently-existing international "law" and the weak system of UN-based collective insecurity that we now have.²

This article will explore another possibility, that the "law" in the phrase "world peace through law" need not be that of a global legislature, that there are other ways of securing world peace through law, both in the short term and in the long run.

+download the article in its entirety here

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations and current president of the Egyptian National Council on Human Rights, has called for the creation of a direct, democratic relationship between citizens of the world and the world's international institutions through the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, a goal that Citizens for Global Solutions has long advocated. He stated that such an assembly is necessary for the strength and expansion of democracy, saying that, in this era of globalization, "democracy within the state will diminish in importance if the process of democratization is not extended to the system of international governance as well.

He also expressed the urgency of this issue, noting the abundance of "problems which can only be solved effectively at the global level" and the threat they pose to democracy. He cited economic concerns at the top of the list.

"The last time an economic crisis of such magnitude occurred, it ... contributed to the rise of fascism, the outbreak of the Second World War, and genocide," Mr. Boutros-Ghali remarked. "During the current global economic crisis, we should not turn a blind eye to this lesson."

Read the full article here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/boutros-boutros-ghali/UN-parliament-global-democracy