As campaign season moves full speed ahead with Labor Day weekend approaching, Global Solutions PAC continues to endorse additional candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.  We are pleased to announce our endorsement of the following candidates, both incumbents and challengers, who share our global vision and have championed our issues in Congress.

Senate

• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA-Senate)  
• Representative Mike Castle (R-DE-Senate)
• Alexi Giannoulias (D-IL Senate) 
• Lee Fisher (D-OH Senate)

House of Representatives

• Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL-08)
• Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02)
• Representative Steve Kagen (D-WI-08) 
• Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA-2)
• Representative Chet Edwards (D-TX-17)
• John Waltz (D-KY-04)
• Dan Seals (D-IL-10)
• Katrina Swett (D-NH-2)
• Fred Johnson (D-MI-2)

For a complete list of CGS endorsements in 2010, visit http://www.globalsolutions.org/politics/elections_and_candidates/races/2010?action=endorsed.

Congratulations to all our newly endorsed candidates—we hope to see all of you in Congress next year!

Happy Birthday 19th Amendment!
Believe it or not, it’s only been 90 years since the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote in our democracy was made part of the Constitution. Since 1971, we’ve celebrated the anniversary of August 26, 1920, as Women’s Equality Day.

One great way to celebrate would be to make sure that every eligible woman is registered to vote. That includes women turning 18 and those who have recently become naturalized citizens. After all, as important as the right to vote is, it’s even more important to use the vote to help shape the direction of our nation. So make sure you’re registered and encourage everyone you know to do the same.

Women’s Equality Day is also the perfect time to consider what the United States can do to advance women’s rights as human rights. A good place to start is with CEDAW – the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

CEDAW, also known as the Women’s Treaty, is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women around the world. CEDAW helps women and girls by offering a practical blueprint for ending discrimination, stopping violence against women and trafficking of women and girls, ensuring education and vocational opportunities, and increasing political participation including the right to vote and to hold political office.

The United States played an important role in drafting CEDAW, which the United Nations adopted in 1979. But the U.S. remains one of only seven countries, including Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and three small Pacific Island countries (Nauru, Palau and Tonga), that have not yet ratified CEDAWThat could change this year. It takes the votes of 67 senators to ratify a treaty, and President Obama and over 100 national organizations have expressed their support for the treaty’s ratification.

Ratifying the CEDAW treaty would continue America's proud bipartisan tradition of promoting and protecting human rights, and it would strengthen the United States as a global leader in standing up for women and girls in countries around the world.
You can find more information about CEDAW and ways to take action now here.

The fight for women’s suffrage took more than 70 years of persistent advocacy, organizing and education and was only secured when a 24-year-old member of the Tennessee legislature, acting on a note from his mother, changed his vote from “no” to “yes” so Tennessee became the final state needed to ratify the 19th Amendment.

So let’s make history again – and help ratify CEDAW.

Established in the United Nations Charter, way back in that post-war year of 1946, the Division for the Advancement of Women firmly rooted the drive towards gender equality in the international agenda. Sixty-four years later, gender equality and the empowerment of women remain on the forefront of the UN agenda, as shown by the recent creation of the new agency: UN Women. This historic, and unanimous, step that was taken by the UN General Assembly on July 2nd of this year stood proof as both a testament to the agenda of advancing gender equality, and also to the necessity of reform throughout the organizations multi-faceted body. 

UN Women will encompass four previous UN agencies, including the Division for the Advancement of Women, the International Research and training Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and the United Nations Development Fund for Women. The responsibilities of these organizations will not be forgotten, but rather consolidated and streamlined under UN Women’s singular governing structure.

The work of UN Women will be guided by prior principles of promoting gender equality worldwide, as described in two prior landmark international conventions – the Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. The agency will support inter-governmental bodies, civil society groups, and nonprofit organizations in their formulation of policy and global norms. Additionally, the agency will assist in the implementation of these standards and norms when help is requested by Member States. In the words of   Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, “UN Women will give women and girls the strong, unified voice they deserve on the world stage. I look forward to seeing this new entity up and running so that we — women and men — can move forward together in our endeavour to achieve the goals of equality, development and peace for all women and girls, everywhere.” 

Interestingly enough, UN Women was unanimously agreed to by all UN member States in a general assembly vote, although the BBC has reported that there were lengthy negotiations.  This is somewhat ironic given the United States’ prominence within the United Nations and its own dubious distinction of being part of only 7 countries out of all 193 that have not yet ratified CEDAW. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has made gender equality and the empowerment of women a top priority – will the Unites States Senate rise to the occasion?

CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women and girls. Much like the recent General Assembly vote, it  will not affect the actual laws of the United States. There are no additional costs or appropriations needed in order to ratify CEDAW – only the support of two thirds of the Senate, or 67 Senators. A vote for CEDAW is not only a vote for women, but a vote to strengthen the United States’ position as a global leader in standing up for the inalienable rights of women and girls. Click here to tell president Obama now is the time to prioritize CEDAW

Stephen Rademaker’s recent piece in the Washington Post is the latest in a series of offensives against the New START treaty with Russia.  He falsely plants the blame for the delayed ratification schedule on the Democrats, although it is the Republicans who have spent the past few months scrambling to hold the treaty hostage to political maneuvering. On the plus side, he implicitly concedes that the debate on the content of the treaty is essentially over – he has no beef with the text or implications of New START. At a loss for substantive things to critique, he turns to an otherwise tedious and boring topic: Senate processes.

Rademaker says that critics of the treaty have been unfairly excluded from the process, but the evidence is to the contrary. Claiming that Senate leaders haven’t given Republicans time to formally file their complaints with the treaty is a criticism of last resort. There have been 20 hearings, three classified briefings and almost 800 questions asked on the record. There have been countless meetings between concerned Senators (primarily Republicans) Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and various members of the negotiating team. 

The negotiating record on missile defense was shared with the Senators who asked for it, even though Senator Kerry pointed out that the precedent for this practice is minimal and should be repeated only with caution. That sentiment goes as far back as George Washington, who firmly opposed sharing a treaty’s negotiating record. 

Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically delayed the vote from August until September to give Senators who weren’t sure how they felt about new START more time to come to a decision. After announcing the delay, he said: "If we forced a vote today, I would have won. But I would have angered some people and made them feel they weren't being included," Kerry said. "I think it's important to build a broader consensus." Kerry has already solicited input from Senators on the resolution of ratification, which is exactly what Rademaker insisted must be done. 

Rademaker’s article makes a serious omission in its discussion of the negotiations between the administration and Republican senators who want the most bang for their “yes” vote. The issue of funding for nuclear modernization has taken center stage in the informal negotiations, with Senator Kyl and others demanding billions in nuclear pork in exchange for a yes vote on New START. Even though the administration already proposed almost historic funding for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, Republicans are trying to squeeze out more dollars.

But few Senators have been openly critical about the treaty, and most of them have not made any specific demands. The majority of Republicans are hiding in the shadows on the issue, and Senators Corker and Kyl are doing their dirty work. 

Complaining that Senators have not been given the opportunity to express their reservations on the treaty is ironic, given that Rademaker’s intent is to support ongoing efforts of Republican obstructionism in the Senate.  Opponents of the treaty – like Rademaker – are clearly struggling to escape the resounding support in favor of New START. The list of respected foreign policy and arms control experts from both sides of the aisle who support New START seems never ending. They all say that the treaty is necessary to our national security.  Why shouldn’t we believe them?

The delay in ratification only increases the time that will pass before we can get our hands on information about Russia’s nuclear program. Instead of relying on complaints from obstructionists about mundane Senate procedures, we need Senators to do the right thing and put national security over partisan games.  

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

Here's something you don't hear every day--a Secretary of Defense talking about reducing military spending. Yet Secretary Robert Gates has recently discussed the possibility of eliminating some weapons systems, command structures and other items which are no longer necessary for national security.

According to Miriam Pemberton, a principle author of a newly released report on our nation's security budget, Gates has proposed to "mount the most serious effort to restrain his own budget of any Defense Secretary since the post-Cold War period." Whether these plans are aspirational or will actually be achieved is another story.

While this is noteworthy, it brings up another question: where would the money go? If dollars previously spent on certain military projects are simply shifted to other Defense department programs, is the U.S. really going to be any safer as a result?

This is where the idea of a Unified Security Budget comes in which considers all such spending in one place. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary Gates, in addition to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all agreed that this idea makes sense.

The newly released 2010 report of the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget takes a combined look at all of our national security needs, from offensive military spending to preventative diplomacy. Following the recommendations of the Task Force as laid out in this report, we could shave $75 billion off of military spending this year alone, while making sure our money is being spent in a smarter way.

It's no secret that the U.S. spends a lot of money on defense. For the upcoming Fiscal Year 2011, the projected federal budget for national security is $852 billion, a number which includes defense, prevention, and all international affairs budget totals.

It also may not surprise many people to know that the vast majority of this money is targeted to the Defense Department for military spending. Out of this $852 billion total, a mere $65 billion is designated for the entire non-military International Affairs budget. Breaking things down further, only $3 billion is allotted for non-proliferation purposes. Clearly, something is out of whack here.

America needs a new way of assessing our national security spending. We have to start looking at national security funding as a whole, rather than viewing it piecemeal in the form of separate budgets for agencies such as the Defense and State departments. We need to take a longer view of where this money is going, and how our national security dollars can be spent in the most effective manner.

Secretary Clinton recently remarked that a Unified Security Budget would mean that "you can see the tradeoffs" between military and non-military security spending. She added that, "You cannot look at a Defense budget, a State Department budget, and a USAID budget without Defense overwhelming the combined efforts of the other two."

Indeed. A quick comparison of national security budget figures shows that spending on the military outnumbers spending on prevention-related activities by an astonishing 6 to 1 ratio. But this obvious gap isn't always so obvious when Congress and the Administration make their budgetary plans, because the current budget system separates funding for military and non-military national security spending into separate "silos," without comparing how much is spent and without being able to easily transfer any cost savings in one agency to another (i.e. from the Defense Department to the State Department).

It's hard, as a result, to see how the U.S. can get the best bang for its national security buck. A Unified Security Budget would solve this problem, and give Congress and the Administration a simplified tool to work off of when making their national security budget plans.

William Hartung, who served with me on the USB task force, asks these questions to put this into perspective:

What makes more sense? Spending billions on unproven Star Wars anti-missile systems or increasing funds needed to secure "loose nukes" and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists?

What makes more sense? Building another C-17 transport plane that even the Pentagon doesn't want, or adding over 1,000 new Foreign Service Officers to our understaffed diplomatic corps?

What makes more sense? Spending billions on the dangerous and unneeded V-22 Osprey aircraft or doubling U.S. support for peacekeeping operations designed to keep conflicts from restarting in areas of tension?

This integrated approach to national security spending should be adopted, and the sooner the better. Smarter security spending will benefit everyone, but we need to be able to see clearly where all of our money is going before we can truly get the most bang for our security buck.

Don Kraus

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.

Two members of Maroon 5, a widely popular American rock band, recently taped a PSA in support of new-START and the film Countdown to Zero. They are part of a growing number of musicians who have spoken out in support of the new-START treaty. You can watch the video below. The video is somewhat NSFW and includes questionable content, but it's ok to drop the f-bomb if it is supporting a nuclear weapons free world.

You can find more Musicians supporting new-START HERE.

To take action now visit the new-START treaty page on Facebook.

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.