As published in the Huffington Post

President Obama, speaking from the Oval Office, told the nation (and the world) that it is time to "turn the page" now that U.S. combat operations have officially ended in Iraq. And while he talked about what we learned from the last "page," the President missed an important part of the Iraq war's lesson.  If we learned anything in Iraq, it's that our nation is most successful when we work in close cooperation with other nations as opposed to going at it alone.  Our greatest strength is when we convince nations to join together and play by a common set of rules that we are also willing to adhere to.  

President Obama correctly told us that:

"...one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example -to secure our interests and stand by our allies."

This is true, and I'm proud to here our President say this. But it's not just about "our power." During World War II, the U.S. initiated the creation of the United Nations system. The organization was built on a foundation of mutual security in response to a shared threat.  In the Korean War, the U.S. participated with sixteen U.N. member states that provided troops under a United Nations Joint Command.

In early 2003, opposing the run up to the Iraq war, I wrote that while:

"...the evils of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein are not in the same league ... what makes the two leaders equally problematic is that they both rely on national interest and national sovereignty to legitimize their use of military might and coercive force to achieve their aims.  Both threaten to act outside of international law, thereby decreasing human security while increasing the potential of global warfare. ... Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's new preemptive policy of acting against 'emerging threats before they are fully formed' undermines the basic principles of the United Nations and collective security. "

President Bush's invasion of Iraq did indeed fan the flames of "global warfare." In Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, and around the world, religious fundamentalism now spawns violence that threatens the stability of all nations. President Obama identified "our fight against al Qaeda "as the U.S.'s greatest security challenge. He also said:

"Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. "

But we don't and shouldn't have to bear the burden alone. This is the true lesson of the Iraq war.  Looking forward, it's time to focus on how we can work to make the United Nations a more perfect tool to share this burden.  

In Iraq and Afghanistan the U.N. has done an admirable job of supplying humanitarian aid and organizing elections.  But there is an opportunity now to empower the organization with robust peacekeeping forces, including U.S. personnel, to assist Iraq and other nations as they strive to build peaceful societies.

The end of combat in Iraq does not mean the end to violence. Rather than engaging in a perhaps decades long deployment to backstop the Iraqis - as we are still doing in Germany and Japan after WWII and in Korea after that war - we should invest our energies into a UN system that can truly end the scourge of war.  The UN was created to fight fascism. It then blocked the spread of communism.  With U.S. support it could prevent fundamentalist-induced terrorism.

At the core of American ideals and international law is the belief that no group or nation should use violence to impose its will on others. We will have truly turned the page after Iraq if the United States' goal is a world where nations unite and work together to make this a reality.

Don Kraus

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.

As published in the Huffington Post:

Thinking about sitting out the November elections because President Obama and Congress have let you down?  Think again. The 2010 mid-term could prove to be the most pivotal election of our lifetime.

This is already the most cutthroat contest I have experienced during the last 15 years of working on federal elections. According to The Cook Political Report, there are now 73 highly competitive House races, compared to 51 in August of 2008.  66 of these 73 endangered seats are currently held by Democrats, compared to 20 out of 51 in 2008.  Senate Democrats are equally pressured.

Although my organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, endorses on both side of the aisle, these numbers do matter.  In our latest Congressional Report Card the average Democratic grade was an A- in the House and Senate while Republicans averaged a D in the House and a D+ in the Senate.  

While Republican wins in swing districts could result in a more moderate party, there is also a looming possibility of losing the internationalist majority in Congress that Citizens for Global Solutions has worked so long to establish. Tea Party endorsed Senate candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Clint Didier in Washington both want to see the U.S. out of the U.N.  Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul insists that "funding of the U.N. as a whole becomes voluntary."  So does Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who sponsored legislation that would "shift the funding mechanism for the regular budget of the United Nations from an assessed to a voluntary basis."  Governments would vote with their wallets for their favorite U.N. line items; turning the U.N. into a Darwinian jungle.

2010 could decide if our nation will stay the course of responsible global engagement or slip back into a militant unilateralism. How the United States is governed matters not only to us, but to the world. All of the current international institutions that function today, from the United Nations to the International Criminal Court (ICC), were established with leadership from the United States.  Implementation of credible proposals to empower international organizations will not be achieved in the future without U.S. support.

In 2008, speaking before a jubilant crowd in Chicago the night after his election, President-elect Obama reached out to the world saying,

"to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

I was on a flight to The Hague that evening.  My fellow passengers shared great expectations: the U.S. would reengage globally in a responsible and multilateral way.  Obama would close Guantanamo, pull us out of Iraq, seriously address climate change, and begin to eliminate nuclear weapons. We would shift from being the world's "super power" to the world's "super partner."

The Obama administration has taken serious steps towards this vision.  They have paid off years of past due assessments to the United Nations, joined the Human Rights Council, negotiated and sought ratification of the New START treaty, engaged with the ICC, are removing all combat troops from Iraq, and more.  In a letter introducing the National Security Strategy President Obama laid out his world vision:

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds."

The President's desire for an "international order" is a signal to both support his administration's efforts and to push the envelope of what can be achieved. But will we have the opportunity to do so?  Or will the belief of uber-nationalists prevail, like those of the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, who in her rant against the New START treaty said, "We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament."

Citizens for Global Solutions is working hard for a positive outcome from the elections in November.  Global Solutions PAC is identifying and supporting candidates of any party or affiliation who share our internationalist values. We are reaching out to our members to volunteer, contribute and vote in November. In the end, it will be up to all of us.  No one ever said that change would be easy. It's time to get to work. 

Don Kraus

Dan Maes, the leading GOP candidate for governor of Denver, came out against his rival Mayor John Hickenlooper over a bike sharing program. Maes spoke about the B-Cycle program, which places 400 rental bikes around the city to make commutes healthier and more environmentally friendly. Maes claims “if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty."

 ICLEI is an international association of local governments committed to sustainable development. Denver became a partner with ICLEI before Hickenlooper was Mayor. Why is it then that Maes seems to think there is a deeper motive?

According to a Fox News poll, one third of Americans believe in UFOs. There has always been a conspiratorial fringe popping up in the pages of tabloids and conspiracy websites. These outbursts, which we used to tolerate as petty amusement, have somehow found its way into our political discourse. UN troops taking over Denver on bike is a bit harder to swallow than an ET invasion.

Citizens for Global Solutions CEO Don Kraus writes,

“Voices of fear are fanning xenophobic passions that threaten our nation's values, aspirations, and our ability to thrive in a connected world.” 

He cites Tea Party Candidate and former NFL star, Clint Didier who stated,

“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”

As Kraus goes on to say, “America cannot close its borders, nor can it afford to ignore the international community. Childlike temper tantrums will not make the world go away.”

Neither will paranoid delusions.

Until the city of Denver adopts UFO’s as a form of transportation, Denverites should be able to ride their bicycles without listening to fear mongering about supranational takeover. Eco-friendly cities are nothing to be afraid of. Aliens on bikes? Well that’s different.

By: Jeff Brooks

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Patrick Henry to discuss the proper treatment of the British and Hessian prisoners-of-war captured at the Battle of Saratoga.  In this letter, Jefferson writes a remarkable sentence: “It is for the benefit of mankind to mitigate the horrors of war as much as possible.”  As only he could, Jefferson summed up in a few simple but eloquent words an Enlightenment concept that should today be held up as a sacred principle.

Today, two international treaties stand forth as shining examples of the principle of mitigating the horrors of war: the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  The former bans the manufacture, use or stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines, and the second does the same for cluster bombs.  Both of these hideous weapons, which are of dubious military value, have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians over the years, including large numbers of children.  Many thousands of others have been permanently maimed by them, and their indiscriminant use prevents many refugees from returning to their homes, stifling recovery efforts in many former warzones around the world.

The international community has stepped up to the plate to deal with the twin problems of landmines and cluster bombs.  156 nations have signed and ratified the Mine Ban Treaty.  The Convention on Cluster Munitions has been signed 108 nations, of which 38 have completed the ratification process.  But conspicuously absent from both lists is the United States of America.

Both agreements have already had a significant positive impact across the world.  Worldwide, the production of antipersonnel landmines has plunged and stockpiles amounting to more than 42 million mines have been destroyed.  Vast areas previously infested with landmines have been successfully cleared, allowing war refugees to return to their homes.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions has come into force much more recently, but we can expect it to have a very similar effect.  Already, many nations that until recently were producing and exporting large quantities of cluster bombs have signed and ratified the treaty, boldly putting the moral imperative of mitigating the horrors of war ahead of the profits they would otherwise have earned from the sale of these weapons.  Advocacy organizations have also been motivated to promote divestment in companies which manufacture cluster bombs or their components.

The United States should sign and ratify both of these international agreements.  Doing so would not only contribute greatly to the progress already being made, but would encourage other nations not yet party to the agreements to join them as well.  Perhaps most importantly, it would send a message to the world that the United States shares the common global goal of mitigating the suffering of war as much as possible, which Jefferson articulated so well.

Jeff Brooks is a teacher and political activist living in Austin, Texas. He is an active member of Citizens for Global Solutions and serves on the Global Solutions Political Action Commitee.

The United Nation’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on July 22nd that the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo from Serbia does not violate international law.  

The ICJ’s decision, by a vote of 10-4, does not officially assert that Kosovo is a legal state.  Rather, the Court more narrowly says that no international laws were broken when Kosovo declared its independence.  

Kosovo’s leaders praised the Court’s decision, with foreign minister Skender Hyseni saying “This is a great day for Kosovo.”  Serbia, however, still refuses to recognize Kosovo as an independent state.  Both Serbia and its ally Russia, as well as some legal experts and analysts, have warned that the ICJ decision on Kosovo may make declarations of independence by other separatist enclaves in countries around the world more likely.

Kosovo declared itself an independent state in February 2008, following the 1999 NATO military campaign to end hostilities between Serbia and Kosovo rebels and a subsequent eight year period of administration by the United Nations.  Serbia strongly opposed the independence of Kosovo, which many Serbs see as a central and historic part of their nation.   

Until now, Kosovo has been recognized by 69 countries, including the United States and most of the European Union.  The ICJ’s ruling may encourage other countries to recognize Kosovo.  The effect of the decision on future declarations of independence by other potential new states around the world—in areas as far-flung as South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia, northern Cyprus, and Somaliland--remains to be seen.

Sunday, July 11th marked a sober anniversary for Bosnia, Europe, and the world.  Fifteen years ago, approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were massacred at Srebrenica by Serb forces, in the worst incident of genocide on the continent since World War Two.

On July 11, 1995, Serbian forces arrived at Srebrenica, which had served as a safe haven for Bosnian Muslims.  The Serbs overpowered the Dutch UN peacekeepers protecting the town and forced them to open the gates of the UN military base.  The Serb troops then took away thousands of Muslim men and boys, whom they later massacred.

Former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic is currently on trial in The Hague after being indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal for genocide related to the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.  Former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic, leader of the Serb troops in Srebrenica, remains a fugitive from justice. 

To commemorate this tragedy, 775 coffins holding the bodies of victims of the massacre were buried yesterday in a mass funeral ceremony in Srebrenica.  The event was attended by Serbian President Boris Tadic, who described his presence at the ceremony as an “act of reconciliation.”  He was welcomed by Kada Hotic, representative of the Srebrenica widows, who told him “…we are receiving you in peace.”  President Tadic pledged to “do everything” to track down all those in Serbia still suspected of war crimes.

Among other foreign dignitaries attending the commemoration was US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp, who represented the United States.  On the Saturday before the ceremony, Ambassador Rapp spoke from the Croatia/Serbia border to participants in CGS’s Partners’ Call about the recent ICC review conference in Kampala, Uganda.  For more information on this topic, visit http://globalsolutions.org/partners.

To learn more about genocide prevention and take action, visit CGS’s website at http://www.globalsolutions.org/genprev.

The bumper sticker on my wife’s car reads, “Well-behaved women seldom make history!” I believe proponents of CEDAW, the Women’s Treaty, have been minding their manners a bit too much.  CEDAW is the most important international mechanism for women’s equality, and provides a universal standard for women’s human rights. The treaty is a basic framework for ending violence against women, ensuring girls access to education, and promoting economic opportunity and political participation for women.

US ratification is an opportunity for our nation to be a global leader in standing up for the rights of women and girls in countries around the world.  The United States is the world’s only democracy and one of seven nations including Iran, Sudan, and Somalia that has not ratified the treaty. And until we do so, our country cannot credibly demand that others live up to their obligations under the treaty. ?

While both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton support adoption, their rhetoric must be turned into actions.  For the last 30 years, the US has sat on the sidelines while CEDAW has been used around the world by to protect women and girls from discrimination.  Unfortunately, it looks as if the November mid-term elections could make it more difficult to secure the 67 votes needed in the Senate for passage.  The clock is ticking.  

Ratification is not about policy, it’s about politics.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has passed the treaty twice on a bipartisan basis.  There is clear support on both sides of the aisle for ratification now.  But there is only one way the White House and Senate leadership will only allow CEDAW its moment on the Senate floor this year.  They must hear loud and clear from you that failure to move CEDAW is a failure to support human rights for women. They need to know you believe it is worth fighting for.

If you are reading this, you are probably already hooked into the action alerts, call-ins, and other attention getting efforts. Taking these simple steps is crucial. Sharing information that you gather from your Senators is equally important. (So act now if you haven't already done so!)

But push it even further.  Don’t just call your Senators office.  Ask for the staff person who handles foreign affairs and let them know how important this is to you.  Contact campaign committees, and tell them that what happens to CEDAW this summer will impact how much you will contribute and volunteer. Send them $10,000 checks with “VOID UNTIL CEDAW PASSES” written over the front.   It’s time to misbehave, get loud, and make history!

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.

On Thursday, June 10th, the U.N.’s war crime tribunal on the Balkan wars handed down sentences of life in prison for two former high-ranking officers in the Bosnian Serb army, Vujadin Popovic and Ljubisa Beara.  Popovic and Beara were convicted of genocide, a charge stemming from the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995.  The Srebrenica massacre was the largest mass killing in Europe since World War Two.

Additionally, another Bosnian Serb, former brigade security commander Drago Nikolic, was convicted and sentenced to a 35-year prison term for the crime of aiding and abetting genocide.  Others on trial were acquitted of genocide but convicted for extermination, murder, and persecution.

Meanwhile, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is also on trial for genocide due to the Srebrenica massacre, following his arrest in 2008.  Former Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic, under whom the convicted officers served, remains at large as a fugitive 15 years after his own indictment.

Citizens for Global Solutions believes strongly in the need for those individuals responsible for genocide to be brought to justice under international law.  We applaud the U.N. tribunal’s decision as an important step in this direction.  For more information on genocide prevention, visit http://www.globalsolutions.org/genprev. To take action on genocide prevention and other related issues, visit http://www.globalsolutions.org/action/home.

Today the Obama administration releases its first National Security Strategy (NSS).  The NSS is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch for Congress which outlines the major U.S. national security concerns and how the administration plans to deal with them.  It’s a strong improvement over the last NSS issued by the Bush administration in 2006. Much of the language in the NSS could have been taken from globalsolutions.org.  This is a strategy of an administration on the right track. It’s also a signal to civil society to both support the administration's efforts and to be willing to push the envelope of what is possible.

The NSS is a strategic document that sets direction at 30,000 feet. While it calls for “a just and sustainable international order that can foster collective action to confront common challenges” it doesn’t recommend tactical steps such as better training for U.S. ambassadors or greater recognition for Foreign Service officers who work in multilateral institutions.  It doesn’t discuss how the U.S. will improve its capacity to win votes in international bodies. However it does clear the way for these steps to happen.

Below are a number of relevant quotes from the NSS on nuclear weapons, a strengthened international order, the U.N, Peacekeeping, Genocide Prevention, and the International Criminal Court.  I’ve underlined particularly worthwhile passages.

In a perambulatory letter from President Obama he says:

 “We are clear-eyed about the challenge of mobilizing collective action, and the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation. We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice – so that nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don’t….As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we will build new and deeper partnerships in every region, and strengthen international standards and institutions. This engagement is no end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times – countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds.”

On pursuing a "World Without Nuclear Weapons":

"While this goal will not be reached during this Administration, its active pursuit and eventual achievement will increase global security, keep our commitment under the NPT, build our cooperation with Russia and other states, and increase our credibility to hold others accountable for their obligations. As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments. But we have signed and seek to ratify a landmark New START Treaty with Russia to substantially limit our deployed nuclear warheads and strategic delivery vehicles, while assuring a comprehensive monitoring regime. We are reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security approach, extending a negative security assurance not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against those nonnuclear nations that are in compliance with the NPT and their nuclear nonproliferation obligations, and investing in the modernization of a safe, secure, and effective stockpile without the production of new nuclear weapons. We will pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And we will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons."

The NSS calls for a strengthened international order saying:

“[W]e have an interest in a just and sustainable international order that can foster collective action to confront common challenges. This international order will support our efforts to advance security, prosperity, and universal values, but it is also an end that we seek in its own right. Because without such an international order, the forces of instability and disorder will undermine global security. And without effective mechanisms to forge international cooperation, challenges that recognize no borders – such as climate change, pandemic disease, and transnational crime – will persist and potentially spread....Indeed, our ability to advance peace, security, and opportunity will turn on our ability to strengthen both our national and our multinational capabilities. To solve problems, we will pursue modes of cooperation that reflect evolving distributions of power and responsibility. We need to assist existing institutions to perform effectively. When they come up short, we must seek meaningful changes and develop alternative mechanisms.”

The NSS has a section on “Enhance Cooperation with and Strengthen the United Nations”.  It says:

“We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose – maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security. We favor Security Council reform that enhances the U.N.’s overall performance, credibility, and legitimacy. Across the broader U.N. system we support reforms that promote effective and efficient leadership and management of the U.N.’s international civil service, and we are working with U.N. personnel and member states to strengthen the U.N.’s leadership and operational capacity in peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, post-disaster recovery, development assistance, and the promotion of human rights. And we are supporting new U.N. frameworks and capacities for combating transnational threats like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, infections disease, drug-trafficking, and counterterrorism.”

On “Peacekeeping and Armed Conflict”:

“The untold loss of human life, suffering, and property damage that results from armed conflict necessitates that all responsible nations work to prevent it. No single nation can or should shoulder the burden for managing or resolving the world's armed conflicts. To this end, we will place renewed emphasis on deterrence and prevention by mobilizing diplomatic action, and use development and security sector assistance to build the capacity of at-risk nations and reduce the appeal of violent extremism. But when international forces are needed to respond to threats and keep the peace, we will work with international partners to ensure they are ready, able, and willing. We will continue to build support in other countries to contribute to sustaining global peace and stability operations, through U.N. peacekeeping and regional organizations, such as NATO and the African Union. We will continue to broaden the pool of troop and police contributors, working to ensure that they are properly trained and equipped, that their mandates are matched to means, and that their missions are backed by the political action necessary to build and sustain peace.”

It’s worth noting that absent from the NSS is any commitment to engage US personnel in blue-helmet peacekeeping missions.

There is great news on preventing genocide and mass atrocities:

“The United States and all member states of the U.N. have endorsed the concept of the "Responsibility to Protect.” In so doing, we have recognized that the primary responsibility for preventing genocide and mass atrocity rests with sovereign governments, but that this responsibility passes to the broader international community when sovereign governments themselves commit genocide or mass atrocities, or when they prove unable or unwilling to take necessary action to prevent or respond to such crimes inside their borders. The United States is committed to working with our allies, and to strengthening our own internal capabilities, in order to ensure that the United States and the international community are proactively engaged in a strategic effort to prevent mass atrocities and genocide. In the event that prevention fails, the United States will work both multilaterally and bilaterally to mobilize diplomatic, humanitarian, financial, and – in certain instances – military means to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.”

One item not mentioned in the NSS is a plan for the US military to develop a clear doctrine on civilian protection.  This would help to achieve the plans goals.

International Justice and the ICC:

“From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts. Those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable, and we will continue to support institutions and prosecutions that advance this important interest. Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC’s prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interest and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law.”

Don Kraus