New START Is Done. Now What?

Having brought the New START ratification debate to a successful conclusion, the advocates of nuclear disarmament have won a major victory. The treaty will reduce the deployed nuclear weapons of both Russia and the United States by 30% and implement a badly-needed verification and inspection system to make sure that both sides fulfill their treaty obligations. It's a major step forward, and the people who worked hard to make this agreement a reality (especially President Obama, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar) deserve hearty congratulations.

But New START is merely a single step forward. We are nowhere near to crossing the finishing line in the campaign for nuclear disarmament. Now that New START is ratified, what are the next steps? Two immediate steps are obvious: the United States and Russia should immediately begin negotiations for a follow-on agreement to build on the momentum of success of New START, and the United States should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

As good a treaty as New START was, there were many areas of nuclear policy which it did not cover. One was the issue of tactical nuclear weapons (New START covered only strategic weapons). Russia has more tactical nuclear weapons than does the United States, but a very large number are deployed along the Russian border with China. The United States still holds a large stockpile, including some which are deployed at air bases in Europe. The two sides need to come to an agreement on tactical nuclear weapons similar to the one they just concluded on strategic nuclear weapons, and America should be willing to offer a withdrawal of their tactical weapons from Europe as a carrot to obtain significant Russian reductions if that's what it takes.

Another issue not covered by New START which should be included in any new bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia is the need to end the "launch-on-warning" posture of nuclear weapons, in which the strategic missile forces at primed and ready to be launched at a moment's notice. This raises the disturbing and all-too-real prospect of nuclear weapons being launched by accident, as has nearly happened many times since the beginning of the nuclear age. The two nations should agree to store nuclear warheads in a separate facility from their missiles, rather than having the missiles armed at all times. Similarly, bomber aircraft should not be pre-armed with their nuclear bombs. These measures are urgently needed in order to minimize the dangers of an accidently nuclear war.

In addition to negotiating a follow-up agreement on New START with the Russians, the United States should also ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which requires signatories to refrain from test detonations of nuclear weapons under any and all circumstances. Signing the treaty will do much to restore America's credibility on the issue, since it is the height of hypocrisy for America to pressure nations like India and Pakistan to refrain from nuclear testing when it refuses to adhere to the CTBT itself. Besides, advances in computer technology mean that such tests are no longer necessary. The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. There are no valid reasons for the United States not to ratify the CTBT, and many reasons for it to do so.

After a follow-up Russian-American treaty has been concluded and the United States has ratified the CTBT, the international community will be in good position to make real progress on nuclear reductions. Russia and the United States, which together control more than 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, will have earned a good deal of credibility and political capital through their efforts, which would make it much easier to push through additional international agreements that will include the rest of the world's nuclear powers.

Eventually, there will have to be a strict and binding international agreement to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to firmly secure all nuclear fissable material. Any such agreement must require all states to submit to international inspections.

Finally, as a purely symbolic measure, it would be lovely to see the United Nations General Assembly pass a resolution calling for the dismantling of all nuclear weapons on Earth by July 16, 2045, the 100th anniversary of the first test detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is nice to speculate that, a century into the nuclear age, the human race might have gained the wisdom to do away with nuclear weapons entirely.

Canadian Green Party's Positive Vision of United Nations Reform

The next Canadian general election isn't scheduled to take place until October of 2012. although the vagaries of Canadian politics might result in it taking place sometime before then. Whenever the election is held, the Canadian Green Party will be attempting to emulate their compatriots in the United Kingdom and Australia and win their first seat in the Canadian House of Commons.

As a political movement, the Greens leave much to be desired, as many of their policy positions are unrealistic and even utopian, and they often are simply too ideologically rigid. But as the only genuine worldwide political party, they also provide a refreshing presence of a global political perspective, and they have had a powerful and positive impact on global environmental issues. The world is considerably better with them than it would be without them.

Their global perspective also allows the Greens to look at issues which other political parties tend to ignore, such as the urgent need for reform in the United Nations. The Canadian Green Party has presented a detailed package of proposals for reforming the U.N., and we can hope that they make an issue of it in the next Canadian federal election, whenever that may be.

Among the proposals the Canadian Greens have for U.N. reform are:

1. Creating a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in which representatives are directly elected by the people rather than appointed by the governments.
2. Bringing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank under the control of the General Assembly.
3. Reforming the membership of the United Nations Security Council.
4. Expand the mandate of the United Nations Environmental Program so that it has a supervisory role regarding global environmental treaties.

These are all positive and interesting proposals, which deserve to be discussed intensively in the political discourse of all democratic nations. Hats off to the Canadian Greens for putting them forward, and let's hope that a full debate on these issues takes place before Canadians next go to the polls.

Remembering Carl Sagan: 1934-1996

Today is the 14th anniversary of the death of Carl Sagan, a Global Citizen before his time. Nearly a decade-and-a-half since his passing, Sagan remains one of the most recognizable public faces of science. His books remain as popular as ever, and his groundbreaking 1980 documentary series Cosmos is still one of the best productions of its kind.

Sagan was an outstanding scientist, making important contributions to our understanding of Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Titan, and also putting forward intriguing speculations regarding the evolution of the human brain and the origin of life on earth. But he is best known for his unrivalled ability to popularize science itself, taking complex scientific concepts and making them easily understood and spiritually thrilling for ordinary people.

The impact of Sagan's work in popularizing science is hard to overestimate. No doubt, there are thousands of working scientists today who would not have become scientists had it not been for Carl Sagan. And millions of people all over the world better understand the universe in which we live thanks to the work of this dedicated Global Citizen.

But Sagan's work did not end there, for he was more than a scientist and educator. He was also a passionate advocate for nuclear disarmament, using his fame as a scientist to draw attention to the urgent need to abolish weapons he feared were a threat to the continued survival of humanity. More than any other individual, Sagan helped publicize the dangers of nuclear winter. He was twice arrested while participating in the civil disobedience protest at the Nevada Test Range in the mid-1980s, when the United States was continuing nuclear test explosions despite a voluntary moratorium on such tests by the Soviet Union.

Sagan also helped organize opposition to President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as "Star Wars"), correctly seeing it as a technological impossibility and fearing that it would make impossible the termination of the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. He was right; the 1986 Reykjavik Summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came close to an agreement to gradually abolish nuclear weapons altogether, and only failed because of Reagan's stubbornness regarding the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Sagan was also one of the earliest public figures who sought to bring public attention to the problem of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer. Sagan's studies of Mars revealed to him what could happen to the surface of a world that had no protection from ultraviolent radiation, while his research on Venus told him similar stories about what happens to a world experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Sagan was also a tireless advocate for a strong and comprehensive space program. He co-founded the Planetary Society, which is today the world's largest space advocacy organization in the world. He lobbied on behalf of space exploration missions, and also suggested that a joint human expedition to Mars might have the side benefit of improving relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Sagan worried over the disturbing rise of pseudoscience and other irrational belief systems in Western culture. One of his most famous books, The Demon Haunted World, explores and effectively debunks such beliefs as astrology, UFOs, creationism, and other such things. In studying all questions, Sagan stressed, it is imperative to adopt a rational attitude, and apply the scientific method in all relevant questions.

So, on the anniversary of his death, let us remember the life and contribution of Carl Sagan, a model for Global Citizens in all times and places.

New START Being Debated in the Senate

At long last, having overcome the parliamentary obstacles put in its path by misguided Republican senators, the United States Senate is debating the New START agreement on nuclear reductions with Russia. The vote could come soon.

You can follow the debate, and the vote, on C-SPAN.

Europa Jupiter System Mission Deserving Of Support

The "next big thing" in the robotic space exploration program is the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM), a proposed joint project between NASA and the European Space Agency intended to explore the moons of Jupiter. The mission would involve two robotic spacecraft, an American probe that will orbit Europa and a European probe which will orbit Ganymede. Both of these worlds are of a particular interest because they either certainly (Europa) or very likely (Ganymede) contain a layer of liquid water beneath their surface.

The existence of liquid water on these two worlds raises the intriguing possibility that that might serve as a habitat for alien lifeforms. The search for extraterrestrial life is one of the most fascinating pursuits of modern science. Ganymede has also been discussed as a possible target for human colonization in the far future.

Global Citizens support space exploration in general, but a particular aspect of this mission that should appeal to Global Citizens is its international character. In addition to the cooperation being America and Europe, there is the possibility that the Japanese space agency may participate in the project as well, contributing a spacecraft that would orbit Jupiter itself. Russia, too, has expressed interest, and is considering designing a probe that would actually touch down on Europa. Space exploration is not only good for its own sake, but builds understanding and good will between nations, thereby helping to reduce tensions.

In an age of immense budget pressure, it is difficult to find sufficient funding for ambitious space exploratory missions. Global Citizens obviously strongly support sound fiscal discipline, but this could better be achieved by a significant draw down in the American defense budget and a shrinking of the bloated goverment bureaucracies in both Europe and America. Projects like this, which advance the knowledge of the entire human race and cannot be done without the support of government, are things which should be protected.

The EJSM mission is still in the design phase and is not scheduled to launch until around 2020. Between now and then, there will be many efforts by misguided politicians and government bureaucrats to kill the mission, so it's important for American and European citizens to make plain to their legislative representatives that they support the EJSM mission.

British Voters Should Vote Yes In Referendum on "Alternative Vote"

When Prime Minister David Cameron asked the Liberal Democrats to serve as coalition partners with the Conservative Party after the most recent British general election, the Liberal Democrats made sure to extract their pound of flesh before signing on. The most important concession the Conservatives made, without which the coalition negotiating would have failed, was agreeing to hold a national referendum on whether to replace the existing "First-Past-The-Post" electoral system with the so-called "Alternative Vote" electoral system for elections to the House of Commons.

The vote is scheduled for May 5. This is a critically-needed reform and it is imperative that British voters approve the change in the upcoming referendum.

The First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system is the same system that Americans generally refer to as "Winner-Take-All". The electorate is divided up into individual districts and voters within each district are able to cast a singe vote for a single individual. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. It's quite simple, but it's also deeply flawed.

The main problem with FPTP is that in any election with more than two candidates, it is quite likely that the winner will be a person whom the majority of the citizens actually voted against. Using a British example, imagine a district in which a Labour candidate received 40%, a Liberal Democrat received 30%, and a Conservative candidate received 30%. The Labour candidate would win, even though 60% of the people voted against him.

Since most voters aren't stupid, FPTP also leads to the phenomena of people voting for candidates other than the ones they actually favor, in order to deny victory to a candidate to whom they may be especially opposed. In the UK, this is usually known as "tactical voting", and it means that legislative bodies are not fully genuine representations of the democratic will of the people.

Similarly, FPTP results in "spoilers" skewing the outcome of elections. In American politics, candidates from the Libertarian or Green parties tend to get a few percentage points in congressional elections, but this is often enough to throw the election, resulting in a Republican district electing a Democrat or a Democratic district electing a Republican. The most glaring example of this was in the 2000 Presidential election, where a small number of Green voters resulted in George W. Bush becoming President of the United States, even though it was the clear will of the people that Al Gore win the election.

So, despite its simplicity, it is clear that election results obtained through FPTP systems do not manifest the democratically expressed will of the people in the composition of the legislative bodies they produce. The so-called Alternative Vote (AV) system would be a great improvement.

In AV systems, rather than casting a single vote for a single individual, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of "first choice" votes, the candidate with the fewest "first choice" votes is eliminated and the "second choice" votes of the people who had cast their "first choice" votes for the eliminated candidate are distributing among the remaining candidates. This continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote, and is declared the winner.

Watch this video to get a better idea of how AV voting works (note that they use the American term "Instant Runoff"):



AV voting sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is. As far as any individual voter is concerned, they show up at the polling place and simply cast a ballot in which they rank the candidates by order of preference. For ordinary citizens, it's no more time-consuming than a FPTP election.

AV elections are more democratic than FPTP elections because the spolier effect and tactical voting are completely eliminated. No candidate who did not earn a majority of the cast votes at some point in the proces will be elected. In short, it is a far more accurate way to gauge the will of the people than a simple FPTP election.

There are other advantages. By eliminating the need for runoff elections, public money is saved. They may even reduce negative campaigning by candidates, as those competing for office will be less willing to alientate the supporters of their opponents so that they may obtain their secondary votes.

AV election systems are already in use in Australia, Ireland, and other places. It is also used by several municipalities in the United States to elect local officials, British political parties to elect their leadership, and even by many companies to elect their boards. Experience has proven that it is an effective and democratic system.

British voters should choose greater democracy by voting yes on the proposed referenfum to scrap FPTP election and replace them with AV elections. If the referendum passes, the United Kingdom will take a big step forward.

United Nations Needs a Rapid Reaction Force

On innumerable occasions since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has found itself burdened with the responsibility of preventing or ending military conflicts between nation-states, as well as attempting to rescue vulnerable populations from genocide and other crimes against humanity. It has had to monitor cease-fire lines and ensure that conflicts which have ended do not flare up again. On many occasions, it has also had to intervene many times to bring emergency relief and restore law and order in the wake of natural disasters such hurricanes and earthquakes.

All of this requires troops, and ever since the first authorized U.N. peacekeeping mission was launched in 1948 (to monitor the cease-fire between Egypt and Israel), the blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers driving their white-painted vehicles have become a common sight in conflict zones throughout the world. Over six decades of service, nearly 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers have been killed in the line of duty. In 1988, they were collectively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The U.N. peacekeepers have often achieved great success in the face of heavy odds. On numerous occasions, they have interposed themselves between warring Israeli and Arab armies to stop bloodshed. They have monitored cease-fires in the Middle East, the Balkans, Cyprus, and throughout Africa and Central America. They have supervised transitions to democracy in places like Cambodia and East Timor. They have been on the ground to help provide disaster relief in areas throughout the world. But there have also been several high-profile disasters, and what the U.N. peacekeepers have achieved pales before what they might be able to achieve if certain systematic restraints were removed.

It should be pointed out that U.N. peacekeeping operations cost about $5 billion a year. For comparison, this is less than 4% of the annual pork-ridden budget of the United States Department of Agriculture. Indeed, it is only slightly more than the cost of two United States B-2 bombers.

Amazingly, the U.N. technically has no military units of its own.  All U.N. peacekeeping operations are carried out by troops voluntarily contributed by U.N. member states. While this may sound like a good idea, it actually is the key weakness of many U.N. peacekeeping operations, and has been the main cause of many disastrous failures.

Consider Rwanda, perhaps the darkest chapter in the history of U.N. peacekeeping operations. When the Rwandan Genocide began in 1994, there were already U.N. Peacekeepers on the ground in the country, but intervening to stop the killings would doubtless have endangered the lives of many of these men. Consequently, many nervous governments declined to support an expanded mission for the U.N. force in the country and refused to contribute troops. Many of the troops that did remain were poorly-trained Bangladeshi and Pakistani troops, who had little understanding of or enthusiasm for the mission to which they were assigned. 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the subsequent genocide.

So long as the troops for U.N. peacekeeping missions are delegated from the armies of member states, there were always be a reluctance on the part of governments to commit their troops to potentially dangerous situations. Even when there is the necessary political will, it inevitably takes time to organize a multinational force that will undoubtedly consist of battalions from many different nations. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan once likened it to being the chief of a fire department who had to recruit volunteers, raise money, and buy a fire truck every time there was a fire in town.

More fundamentally, the units delegated to U.N. peacekeeping duties often have no training whatsoever for the tasks to which they are assigned. Indeed, the bulk of troops that make up U.N. peacekeeping forces are usually contributed by developing nations with poorly-equipped an poorly-trained militaries. This has not only resulted in an inability to achieve the objectives of the mission, but has also contributed to a disturbing rise in child prostitution in African and Balkan nations where U.N. peacekeepers have been deployed.

There is a potential answer to all these problems: the United Nations needs it own military Rapid Reaction Force. Having such a force at its command would allow the U.N. to undertake emergency operations within hours of a crisis erupting anywhere in the world. There would be no need to go begging to member states for a battalion or two, and there would be no concern about the level of training or professionalism of the troops being sent into harm's way.

Imagine how the Rwanda crisis might have unfolded had the U.N. had a Rapid Reaction Force at its disposal. Without the reluctance of member states to send their own young men into danger, the U.N. force could have been ordered to intervene immediately. And in contrast to the poorly-trained and poorly-motivated contingents making up the U.N. force in Rwanda, we would have seen well-trained professional troops with experienced officers at their head. The 800,000 Rwandans who died in the genocide might have been saved.

We can envision of force of perhaps 20,000 troops organized perhaps into ten regiments, stationed around the world at bases allowing them to rapidly deploy to trouble spots wherever conflicts might conceivably break out. The bulk of the force would obviously be light infantry, but would also have to include transport and logistics units, light artillery and armor for protection, and air elements for reconnaissance.

The potential locations for the bases of such a force would clearly need to be carefully thought out. Just as a thought experiment, I might suggest French Guyana (to cover the Western Hemisphere), Ghana or Cote D'Ivoire (to cover West Africa), Malta (to cover Europe and the Mediterranean), Djibouti (to cover East Africa and the Middle East), and Brunei (to cover Asia).

How would such a force be recruited? One military unit that stands out as a potential example is the French Foreign Legion. This legendary unit of the French Army accepts only the most fit and motivated recruits, and doesn't much care where they come from or what their past history has been. Consequently, the French Foreign Legion is made up of men who either want to start their life over again or are simply seeking adventure. With the right training, these men have proven themselves time and again to be among the best soldiers who ever walked the Earth, fiercely loyal to their unit.

Another potential example is the Brigade of Gurkhas. The British, having fought a brief but bitter war with the men from Nepal in the early 19th Century, decided that it was much better to co-opt them than fight them. Subsequently, battalions of Gurkhas have served in the British Army (as well as the Indian Army and with the Singapore police) ever since. They are universally considered to be among the finest infantry in the world. Perhaps the United Nations could recruit a battalion or two?

However the recruiting is done and wherever these troops will be based, the urgent need for a U.N. Rapid Reaction Force is clear. Long term peacekeeping operations, obviously, would still require units volunteered by member states, but immediate emergencies would be much more effectively dealt with if the U.N. had an easily deployed military force of its own. The Security Council would be more likely to act quickly if they kne they would have need to deal with the complicated politics of persuading member states to contribute troops to peacekeeping operations.

The Security Council should immediately begin laying the groundwork for a permanent agreement on a U.N. Rapid Reaction Force, perhaps beginning with a single battalion and building up from there. In the long run, a respectable U.N. force, with its own proud unit identity and elan, is essential.

Venice Must Be Saved

The city of Venice captures the imagination and intoxicates the soul. As if by magic, it appears to float in the lagoon at the head of the Adriatic Sea. For a time in the late Middle Ages, the relatively small city was the most powerful political and economic power in Europe. Among its famed citizens were the master architect Andrea Palladio, the painter Titian, and other artistic masters, who made Venice one of the centers of the Renaissance and the envy of the entire world. To this day, the architecture of Venice brings visitors from across the world.

Over the course of its thirteen-century history, Venice has had to defend itself from the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Turks, innumerable Italian rivals, and the French armies of Napoleon. But today, Venice faces a far more dangerous enemy: nature itself.

On November 4, 1966, a massive rising tide completely swamped the entire city of Venice, causing evacuations and damaging many priceless architectual buildings. This event drew public attention to the fact that Venice was sinking. Emergency measures were implemented, which may have slowed or stopped the sinking (no one is entirely sure). But the problem is now made much worse by the rising sea levels caused by global climate change.

If nothing is done, the entire city of Venice may eventually disappear completely. This is something that the international community cannot allow, and all Global Citizens should consider the preservation of Venice from destruction as a high priority.

One proposed solution to the problem is the MOSE Project. One of the most ambitious engineering projects in the world, it is designed to protect Venice from high tides by creating three sets of enormous flood barriers across the three inlets that lead from the Adriantic Sea into the Venetian lagoon. Under normal circumstances, the pontoons are filled with weater and rest at the bottom of the inlets, but when a dangerous tide is detected, they fill with air and raise themselves into the blocking positions.



The MOSE Project will cost billions of euros and is being funded by the Italian government, which has never exactly been a model of efficiency and consistency. Consequently, funding levels have occasionally been threatened. But with more than half of the construction now completed, and with the problem of climate change becoming ever more acute, the continuation of funding seems reasonably secure.

There are many critics of the MOSE Project, including some environmentalists who worry over its potential impact on sealife in the Venetian lagoon. Others object to the high cost of the project, or worry that it will be ineffective. These concerns deserve to be fully addressed, but cannot be allowed to derail the project.

Venice is a priceless treasture that, in a very real sense, belongs to the entire human race. It is our duty to protect it.

New START Agreement Must Be Ratified Before January

This blog has frequently discussed the critical importance of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the United States and Russia, which was signed in April. The treaty would reduce the deployed nuclear weapons of each nation by about one-third and institute a rigorous inspection and verification system for both countries.

Up until recently, it looked as though the treaty's ratification by the United States Senate would be a fairly routine matter, as have arms reduction treaties between the two sides since the days of the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, ever since the Republican successes in the American mid-term elections earlier this year, right-wing ideologues among the Republicans in the Senate have held the ratification process hostage.

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) is now attempting to block the treaty's ratification until the new Senate takes office in January. Although he denies it, there seems to be no motive to his actions aside from a desire to embarass President Obama by denying him a foreign policy success. Playing politics with foreign policy is an old story and has been indulged in by both parties, but never on nuclear arms reduction treaties. Before this year, there has always been a general understanding among both Republicans and Democrats that nuclear arms reduction was too serious an issue to be dragged down into partisan politicking. Senator Kyl's actions are reprehensible.

If the treaty is not ratified by January, it is unlikely that it will ever be ratified. The next Senate will have a much more isolationist and unilateralist element in its ranks, including such men as Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), who have constantly expressed disdain for bilateral and mutlilateral international agreements such as New START. Internationalist Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) will have their influence within their party caucus sharply curtailed. In other words, if the treaty cannot be ratified during the lame duck session of the current Senate, it is extremely unlikely that it will be ratified in the next Senate.

The consequences of this would be disastrous. Most obviously, nuclear weapons that would otherwise have been dismantled will remain intact, and the world needs to be getting rid of as many nuclear weapons as possible as quickly as possible. In addition, a rejection of the treaty would deal a sharp blow to American-Russian relations in general, and good relations between those former adversaries are critical for the well-being of the world. Furthermore, American credibility on disarmament issues will be badly damaged, hindering American-led efforts to deal with the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Finally, the absense of an effective inspection system of the Russian nuclear arsenal will mean that the wider world will have no idea what is happening with Russian nuclear warheads, many of which have already come within a hair's breadth of falling into terrorist hands.

This is a very serious matter. The Senate needs to ratify the New START agreement at once.

Why Hasn't the United States Signed the Cluster Bomb Ban Treaty?

Last week, the nations which have signed the Cluster Munition Convention held their first meeting of state parties to discuss ways to ensure proper implementation of the treaty. Fittingly, the meeting was held in Laos, which is likely the country which has suffered more than any other from the use of cluster bombs.

The Cluster Munition Convention was first signed in Dublin in late 2008, and came into force on August 1, 2010. It was a landmark demilitarization treaty which marked the culmination of years of effort by activists and diplomats across the planet. The treay bans signators from using, producing, or stockpiling cluster bombs. To date, it has been signed by over a hundred countries.

Cluster bombs have been a scourge on humanity ever since they were first developed. Because they scatter small bomblets over wide areas, it is difficult and in many cases impossible to avoid civilian casualties when using them, especially when they are deployed during fighting in urban areas. Furthermore, a surprisingly high proportion of the small bomblets fail to explode on impact, leaving a lethal danger to civilians that can persist for months and even years after the fighting has ended.

Used in conflicts such as Vietnam during the 1970s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Kosovo in 1999, Iraq in 2003, and Lebanon in 2006, among many African conflicts, cluster bombs have killed thousands of innocent civilians over the years, and continued to do so today. Indeed, cluster bombs kill significantly more noncambatants than soldiers, and four out of ten people killed by cluster bombs are children. They are barbaric weapons by any moral standard.

This issues involved in the cluster bomb debate are very similar to those of the debate over whether to ban anti-personnel landmines, which this blog has touched on in the past. As with the landmine ban treaty, the United States is conspicuous on the list of countries which have thus far refused to sign the Convention. This fact should outrage every American. It's time for Global Citizens in the United States to stand up and demand that their country join with the rest of the world and sign the treaty.

Congressional Redistricting Reform Needed in the United States

Last week, the world got to watch yet another mid-term election in the United States, the nation which Churchill liked to call "The Great Republic." But there is a dirty little secret to American elections. When we watch the returns on election night, we like to think that American voters are choosing their legislators, but it is closer to the truth to say that the legislators have, ahead of time, chosen their voters in such a way as to ensure their reelection.

This is due to the process of partisan redistricting, also known as gerrymandering. Essentially, gerrymandering involves the majority party in a legislative body deliberately drawing the lines of legislative districts in such a way as to maximize the number of districts their party will win and minimize the numbers of districts the opposition will win. In pursuit of partisan advantage, absurd district shapes are created, usually taking no account of such things as natural borders or keeping communities such as towns or cities within the same legislative district.

This is nothing new. During elections for the very first American Congress in 1788, Patrick Henry tried to gerrymander James Madison out of a congressional seat. Indeed, the very term "gerrymander" comes from Elbridge Gerry, a contemporary of the Founding Fathers who, as governor of Massachusetts, made the gerrymandering of his political enemies a standard policy for his tenure in office. But the fact that it has been done for a long time is no justification for its continuation, for gerrymandering is blatantly undemocratic and should be abolished as soon as possible.

Because of gerrymandering, the vast majority of congressional districts in America have become extremely skewed towards one of the two major political parties, usually by a ratio of around 70% to 30%. This means that if a person is unfortunate enough to be a Republican in a Democratic district or a Democrat in a Republican district, he or she has no real representation.

Another consequence of gerrymandering is that shockingly large number of representatives face no competition on election day. Since the minority party in a gerrymandered district sees little chance of victory, they often decide it's not worth the effort and resources and simply don't run a candidate at all. This means that the incumbent need not fear the judgment of the people, and can act in ways that would otherwise get him thrown out of office by his constituents. The easier it is for an incumbent to remain in office, the less attention he needs to pay to the wishes of his constituents, thus degrading the very principles of representative democracy.

Gerrymandering also contributes to voter apathy. Seeing the incumbent win reelection over and over again, citizens often see little or no value in casting their vote on election day. Why bother, when the outcome has already been settled by the gerrymandering process?

It is a commonplace practice for a member of a state legislature who is planning on running for Congress to use his influence to create a congressional district for himself, including the areas where his support is already the strongest. Thus he not only gains an unfair advantage over any candidate from the other party, but against any potential opposing candidate from his own party. While legal, it is still immoral and corrupt.

The essence of a representative democracy is that the wishes of the people form the basis for the actions of the government. Through gerrymandering, however, partisan factions can achieve decisive political power even if the majority of the people do not want them to have it. Gerrymandering stifles political debate and allows incumbents to be free from the threat of defeat by their constituents. It should come as no surprise that something like 90% of Congressmen are usually reelected every two years, a fact which would have dismayed Thomas Jefferson and most of the other Founding Fathers.

Rather than allowing the legislatures of the various American states to keep the power to draw congressional and state legislative districts, which will inevitably result in the continuation of the practice of gerrymandering, each state should have a nonpartisan committee of citizens to undertake the redrawing of district maps after each census. Legislation creating such commissions must include language to ensure that these commissions should be made up of citizens who are not elected officials, active supporters of elected officials, officials of any political party, or who otherwise have some personal advantage to gain by gerrymandering.

Twelve states, including Iowa, Arizona, and Washington, currently have such commissions functioning. It's no coincidence that their elections have become more competitive, resulting in greater attention paid by incumbents to the wishes of their constituents and more fruitful debate and discourse in their political campaigns.

Under the United States Constitution, Congress has the authority to require the states to create independent redistricting commissions. Indeed, during the last Congress, a bipartisan group in Congress introduced the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting (FAIR) Act, which would have enacted exactly that kind of reform. However, it should come as no surprise that the bill went nowhere in Congress. After all, because the members of Congress are the ones who benefit from gerrymandering, how can we expect them to vote against their own individual interest?

It seems clear that, if any successful action is to be on the issue of gerrymandering, it must be done by the individual states. This presents obvious problem, due to the partisan divide currently splitting America. Consider the four largest states: California, Texas, New York, and Florida. If California and New York, which are dominated by Democrats, were to implement redistricting reform, it would be to the advantage of Republicans, whereas of Texas and Florida were to do so, it would be to the advantage of Democrats. Unless it was done everywhere at the same time, which seems extremely unlikely, one party or the other would gain an advantage, and this prospect would likely derail the entire process.

What must happen is a comprehensive grassroots efforts by American citizens to put enough pressure on their own state legislators to get them to get these bills passed. Twelve states have already done so, and as more follow suit momentum will be built to the point where it will be like a snowball rolling down a hill. If enough momentum is built, it can overcome the political inertia that holds the process back. Whether it's done on the state or federal level, comprehensive redistricting reform would be the most important electoral reform in the United States since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And it needs to be done soon, because with the 2010 Census now complete, all of the congressional district lines will be redrawn in 2011. The time to act is now.

It should be kept in mind that this is not an exclusively American problem. Gerrymandering is prevalent in Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other countries. Reform efforts need to be launched not just in the United States, but across the world. No country that allows the corrupt practice of gerrymandering can be said to be a genuine democracy in the full sense of the word.

Races to Watch in Tomorrow's American Mid-Term Elections

Tomorrow, Americans will go to the polls to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs (although only a fairly small portion of them are genuinely competitive), as well as one-third of the United States Senate. In addition, state legislative and gubernatorial elections are being held all across the country.

I serve on the Global Solutions Political Action Committee, which is associated with Citizens for Global Solutions, and I have been lucky enough to have something of a Global Citizen front row seat to these elections. Although they will essentially be a referendum about President Obama's domestic program rather than anything to do with foreign affairs, there are still several races that Global Citizens would do well to keep a close eye on. Here's a quick glance at a few of them.

1. Wisconsin Senate. This race pits incumbent Democratic Senator Russ Feingold against Republican challenger Ron Johnson, a prominent businessman. Feingold has a long record of distinguished service in the Senate and has been very strong on issues important to Global Citizens, particularly in terms of making human rights a priority in American foreign policy. While Ron Johnson has not made foreign policy much of an issue in the race, it would be a great disappointment for Global Citizens if Feingold were knocked out of the Senate.

2. Kentucky Senate. This race pits Republican Rand Paul, the son of the famous libertarian/isolationist Congressman Ron Paul, against Democrat Jack Conway, the state's attorney general. Although the younger Paul has not articulated foreign policy views as strictly isolationist as those of his father, he has spoken disparagingly about the United Nations, saying that American troops should never participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations and hinting that the United States should not pay its agreed-upon share of U.N. funds. He certainly is not the kind of person Global Citizens should want in the Senate. Let's hope Jack Conway wins this one.

3. Pennsylvania Senate. This race pits Democrat Joe Sestak, currently representing the state's 7th district in the House of Representatives, against Republican Pat Toomey, a former congressman. Congressman Sestak has long been a champion for internationalist causes, and is a member of the American Engagement Caucus, a grouping of House members who support closer American collaboration with other nations. Toomey, on the other hand, edges close to the isolationist wing of the Republican Party. We need more people like Sestak in the Senate and fewer like Toomey, so let's hope for a Sestak victory.

4. Nevada Senate. This race, one of the most closely watched in the country, pits Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid against Republican challenger Susan Angle. Reid is, frankly, not the best leader the Senate has ever had, and he certainly could have had the upper chamber move more aggressively on internationalist issues. But Angle is an extreme anti-internationalist candidate, calling, among other things, for the United States to withdraw from the U.N. A Reid victory in this race is a win for Global Citizens.

5. Louisiana House District 2. This is a Democratically-leaning district represented by a Republican, Congressman Anh Cao (the first Vietnamese-American in Congress), who is running for reelection against Democrat Cedric Richmond. Cao is a moderate Republican internationalist. He strongly supports full U.S. participation in the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and is generally outstanding on issues important to Global Citizens. He also is the co-founder of the House American Engagement Caucus. This will be a tough race, but hopefully Cao will pull through, thus helping turn the Republican Party away from their nationalistic policies.

Happy United Nations Day!

Yesterday marked the 65th anniversary of the birth of the United Nations. It was on October 24, 1945, that the U.N. Charter, signed four months earlier, entered into legal force. Few who were involved could have had the slightest notion of what the organization they were creating would eventually become.

When it was born in 1945, the U.N. had 51 members; today, it has 192. Its original mission of preventing war and preserving peace has been, at best, only partially successful. While there have been many failures, so to have there also been many successes. The U.N. helped stop aggression in Korea and Kuwait, and prevented conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and parts of Asia from spiraling out of control. The roughly 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers who have died in the line of duty should never be forgotten.

Beyond the prevention of war and the preservation of peace, the U.N. has taken upon itself tasks for which it was never intended. Today, it is at the forefront in the fight against epidemic disease, global poverty, environmental degradation, nuclear proliferation, and a whole host of other problems. Organizations like UNICEF and UNHCR have worked to bring comfort to those afflicted by the horrors of war or natural disasters, while agencies like UNESCO have served to build cultural, scientific, and intellectual bonds between the disparate cultures of the world. While much work remains to be done, only a fool could assert that the world would be better off today without the U.N.

The U.N. is far from perfect. As with any large institution, there have been scandals and cases of corruption, and these problems need to be fixed. But beyond that, there is a need for fundamental reforms to give the U.N. greater flexibility and strength to act proactively in confronting global challenges. The U.N. Security Council needs to be expanded and the use of the national veto reformed. There must be a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly and an independent Rapid Reaction Force designed to respond immediately to a crisis anywhere in the world. If these and other reforms were enacted, the U.N. would become an even more effective tool for human progress than it already is.

So, on this United Nations Day, let's remember the achievements of this great organization, while keeping firmly in mind the great challenges it will be called upon to face in the future.

MESSENGER Probe to Mercury Closing In On Its Target

If all goes as planned, exactly six months from now, a tiny American robotic spacecraft down near the Sun will fire its engine to slow itself down and allow it to settle into a stable orbit around the planet Mercury. If it is successful, the MESSENGER probe will not only become the first man-made object to enter orbit around Mercury, but will commence a year-long intense study of one of the most mysterious planets in the Solar System.

The name Messenger is both a tortured acronym (which stands for MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment GEochemistry and Ranging) and a reference to the Roman god Mercury, who served as the messenger of the gods. It is the first exploratory mission to Mercury in three-and-a-half decades, and the first one devoted primarily to Mercury. The previous mission, Mariner 10, was focused on Venus and only flew past Mercury incidentally.

Mercury is sort of an orphan child as far as planets go. Mars has been studied by a veritable fleet of American, European, and Japanese orbiters and landers, while Venus, Jupiter and Saturn have also been visited by multiple spacecraft. Mercury has, until Messenger, been left out in the cold.

This is too bad, because Mercury is a fascinating world that has much to teach us. ecause it is so near the Sun, it is extremely difficult to study with Earth-based telescopes, making Messenger's mission all the more important. Mercury seems to have a reasonably strong magnetic field, suggesting a large molten core. There is tantlyzing evidence of water ice hidden in the craters on the north and south poles of the planet. It also appears to have an extremely thin atmosphere (referred to as an exosphere) which scientists are eager to learn more about.

Messenger is well equipped to study the planet. An impressive array of cameras, spectronometers, a laser altimeter, and other instruments will rigorously survey the geographical surface and probe the interior of the planet. The data sent back from Messenger should revolutionize our understanding of Mercury, and with it, our understand of the Solar System and our place within it.

However, it may be that Messenger is just a preview for an even bigger show. A combined European-Japanese probe is in the planning stages, called BepiColombo (after the scientist who first devised the gravity assist maneuver now commonly used by spacecraft throughout the Solar System). Currently planned for a 2014 launch and a 2020 orbital insertion at Mercury, the scientific instruments of this probe will be even more powerful than those of Messenger. While it is studying Mercury, it will also carry out experiments designed to increase our understanding of general relativity.

The exploration of space is a glorious collective enterprise undertaken on behalf of the entire human race by scientists from many nations and every conceivable background. It not only increases the overall knowledge of the human race, but it serves to demonstrate what is possible when human beings turn their intellectual powers away from the development of weapons of war and towards the enlightenment of the human mind.

Socially Responsible Investing

In a world that it now irretrievably globalized and interdependent, a large portion of economic activity is being handled by large, multinational corporations of no particular national loyalty. Global Citizens are neither libertarians nor socialists, so we neither fervently support nor fervently oppose this economic model. It is simply a reality.

Living in a world largely run by multinational corporations is essentially like riding in a bus controlled by a programmable robot which, barring any instructions to the contrary, will steer the bus to its destination along the quickest and least costly route. If the quickest and least costly route involves running over dogs, cats, children, and grandparents, and smashing its way through houses of worship or childrens' hospitals, it doesn't matter at all to the robot. He's just trying to get the bus to its destination as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Multinational corporations, if left unguided by their shareholders, will pursue maximum profits by any means necessary. They will not care a wink if their activities cause massive amounts of environment damage, destroy the lives of indigenous populations, trample of the human rights of their workers, produce and sell hideous weapons, and get people hooked on addictive products. Common sense government regulation can help alleviate these problems, but multinational corporations will use every legal trick in the book to circumvent whatever restrictions are put in their way.

Global Citizens must be the people who reprogram the robots driving the buses. They still want all the buses to reach their destinations (in other words, have a successful and vibrant economy), but they want them to do so without causing massive amounts of harm and damage. Global Citizens have to be the people who rein in the damage caused by far too many multinational corporations, and put them on the path towards achieving their profits through ethical and sustainable activities.

The best tool to achieve this lofty aim is called Socially Responsible Investing (SRI). People who engage in SRI invest their money only in those companies which meet rigorous ethical standards. Numerous mutual fund companies, such as Calvert Investments, provide their customers with various SRI fund options carefully screened so as to exclude companies which violate ethical standards in terms of environmentalism, human rights, violence, or other matters. SRI is a means of reprogramming the robots that are multinational corporations, so that they pursue profitability without inflicting harm.

If a person invests in a company that manufactures parts for cluster bombs, they are partly responsible for the deaths of the children killed by those weapons. If a person invests in a company that dumps toxic waste into rivers, they are partly responsible for the environment damage and deaths from illness that will result. If a person invests in a company that does business in Sudan, they are partly responsible for the genocide in Darfur.

Global Citizens want a strong global economy and are as eager as anyone else to invest their money in profitable ventures. But in doing so, we must be guided by what is best for the world as well as what is best for our pocketbooks. Socially Responsible Investing is certainly the way to go.

The World Needs a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

One of the main objections to the United Nations is its aptly-named "democratic deficit". The delegates the various countries of the world send to the United Nations are not elected directly by the people, but are selected by the governments themselves and cannot act independently of them. This certainly raises questions of credibility regarding delegates from autocratic states such as China and many Arab nations. But even the delegates from democratic nations are suspect, because they represent the agenda of the whichever political party is dominant at any given time, rather than the genuine wishes of the citizens of their country.

This problem could be addressed by the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, composed of delegates elected directly by the people rather than chosen by the individual governments. This would create a direct link between the United Nations and the citizens of the world it is supposed to represent. Implementing such an assembly would be the most fundamental reform ever enacted in the United Nations, and would mark a seminal moment in human history.

Assuming that all countries except the smallest will have multiple-member delegations to the proposed UNPA, we can expect that national delegations will be represented by more than one political party. We could see an American delegation that included both Republicans and Democrats, a British delegation that included Labour, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats (and perhaps even Scottish Nationalists), and so forth. This injection of varying political persuasions would do much to strengthen and democratize the United Nations as a whole, shaking up its deliberations and raising its profile with the citizens of the world.

Elections to the UNPA would have to be democratic, free and fair in order for the organization to have any credibility. Sham elections in places like Egypt, Iran, or China could simply not be tolerated. Therefore, it is imperative that the United Nations and independent observers oversee the elections to the UNPA in a completely unfettered environment. If any nation declines to accept this, then they should not be permitted to send delegation to the UNPA. Such close U.N. supervision of elections would have the added benefit of strengthening democratic institutions in emerging democracies, as citizens would gain greater experience in conducting free and fair elections.

The creation of a UNPA would also present an opportunity to resolve another common and deserved criticism of the General Assembly: the fact that all countries have a single vote, regardless of population. Currently, we can see the absurd spectacle of little Monaco (population 30,000) having the same voting power in the General Assembly as China (population 1.3 billion). Clearly, the number of voting UNPA delegates per nation would have to take population into account.

But if we followed a path of exact proportional representation by population, another problem immediately presents itself, in that the larger nations would simply overwhelm the smaller nations by sheer force of numbers. Indeed, two nations, India and China, would control more than one-third of the seats by themselves. Clearly, exact proportional representation will not work.

The problem here is very similar to that faced by the 55 men who wrote the United States Constitution. The small states obviously wanted each state to have an equal say in the legislative functions of the government, while the larger states wanted voting power to be based on population. To solve this, the Constitutional Convention adopted the famous Connecticut Compromise, creating a Senate in which the states had equality and a House of Representatives in which votes were determined by population. Clearly, to create a UNPA, we need to find an equally brilliant compromise.

Joseph Schwartzberg, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a strong proponent of the UNPA, has created an electoral matrix that attempts to properly balance the need to give more populous nations greater representation, while avoiding the danger of having the biggest nations completely swamp the smaller ones. It uses such factors as population and financial contribution to the U.N. budget to calcuate the number of seats each nation should have. Even the smallest state would have at least one seat, while the larger nations of India, China and the United States would have around fifty or sixty seats. While not a perfect electoral system, it could be the framework of an eventual compromise.

Beyond all these questions, of course, is the basic question of exactly what the purpose of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly would be. Initially, it would likely serve as merely as a consultative counterpart to the General Assembly itself, until the electoral system had been properly ironed out. Within a few years, however, the UNPA should begin to take on duties beyond merely giving advice. The UNPA, being directly accountable to the people, could credibly take on jobs such as selecting the U.N. General Secretary and exercising proper oversight of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Eventually, the UNPA and the General Assembly might effectively evolve into a bicameral legislature, with the UNPA representing the people and the General Assembly representing the nations.

Over decades, the democratic credibility of the UNPA as a manifestation of the sovereign will of the people could allow it to evolve into a genuine world parliament, with the ability to pass binding legislation on such matters as shall be delegated to it. An age of global problems requires a global approach to solving them, and a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly would seem to be a necessary step in that direction.

Liu Xiaobo Fully Deserves Nobel Peace Prize

Yesterday's announcement that jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was electrifying. As Mr. Xiaobo is one of the most prominent campaigners for human rights in China, the Nobel Committee had a fully justified choice in giving him the award, as the world needs to focus on the political liberalization of China now more than ever.

An academic by training, Mr. Xiaobo has been at the forefront of the movement for Chinese democracy since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Because of his activism, he has repeatedly be arrested and imprisoned by the Chinese state authorities. In 2008, he was one of the major authors of Charter 08, a manifesto calling for a comprehensive reform of the Chinese governmental system, including freedom of expression and religion, an independent judiciary, and legislative democracy. Not long after Manifesto 08 was issued, Mr. Xiaobo was again arrested and, in fact, is currently in prison.

The rise of China will be one of the most important stories of the 21st Century, and the potential power of the ancient nation, in both economic and military terms, is immense. While China has cast off its communist past as far as its economic development is concerned, the Chinese Communist Party retains its political power with an iron fist, ruthlessly crushing all internal opposition. Indeed, it's not surprising that the Chinese government has denounced the Nobel Committee for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to one of its citizens, and has even blocked internet searches on the subject.

The entire world should look to Mr. Xiaobo and the Chinese democratic movement he represents as one of the great hopes for the future. For a variety of reasons, the world has turned a deaf ear to the Chinese democracy movement since the Tiananmen Square protests were crushed twenty-one years ago. Mr. Xiaobo receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a hopeful sign that this is beginning to change. In the coming years, the world needs to focus on the political liberalization of China in the same way that it focused on the end of apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s.

Congratualtions to Mr. Xiaobo for his deserved achievement, and let's hope it's a sign of things to come.

United States Should Sign Mine Ban Treaty

The amelioration of human suffering is a sacred principle for all Global Citizens, and one cause of great human suffering in our age has been the deployment of massive numbers of antipersonnel landmines during conflicts in Africa, Asia, the Balkans, and Latin America during the 1980s. These devices are specifically designed to maim rather than kill, the sickening logic being that it requires an enemy to expend more resources caring for a badly-wounded soldier than to dispose of a dead body. Vast swaths of land remain infested with these minefields, usually long after the conflict for which they were deployed had ended.

Every week, hundreds of people are maimed and killed, many laid decades before for use in conflicts long since over. Almost all the people being killed by landmines today are innocent civilians with no connection to any combatant force. A very large proportion of those injured or killed are children.

Adding to the miserable human toll are numerous other costs. Landmine fields often prevent refugees from returning to their homes after the end of a conflict, hindering the economic redevelopment which might prevent a future war. Livestock are often killed by landmines, contributing to poverty and starvation. The long-term negative impacts of the deployment of antipersonnel landmines, both direct and indirect, boggles the imagination.

On December 3, 1997, 122 countries came together in Ottawa and signed a comprehensive treaty banning the production and deployment of antipersonnel landmines. Since then, many nations in Africa and Asia have made great progress in clearing their minefields, returning the land to productive use, and allowing people from war-torn regions to begin to rebuild their lives. The total number of countries that have signed the Ottawa Treaty now stands at 156. The movement to free the world from the scourge of antipersonnel landmines represents one of the most glorious episodes of the last few decades of human history.

But despite innumerable requests, the United States of America has refused to sign the treaty. Indeed, antipersonnel landmines are still being produced in American factories.

The fact that America has not joined the movement to ban antipersonnel landmines should not be tolerated by American citizens. Having an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of humanity, yet not taking it, is a failure on the part of the United States to live up to the Enlightenment values on which the country was founded.

It is high time for the United States to join with the rest of the world, submit its name to the Ottawa Treaty, and join in the effort to rid the world of antipersonnel landmines. All American Global Citizens should contact the White House and contact their Senators. Tell them that the United States should sign the Ottawa Treaty, and should do so immediately.

Microfinance: A Revolution in Foreign Aid?

It has become clear that the prevailing model of foreign aid is not nearly as effective in alleviating global poverty as is desireable. Pushed by celebrities like U2's Bono and high-profile activists like Jeffrey Sachs, the prevailing model often amounts to simply dumping massive amounts of Western money in poverty-stricken countries, and dispatching teams of Western experts to undertake development projects. Despite huge expenditures and decades of work, poverty rates in most of the Third World have barely budged, and some areas have actually gone backwards.


The hearts of those who pursue these policies are certainly in the right place and I have nothing but the highest respect for the hard work these aid workers put in. But facts are facts. Most efforts to alleviate global poverty using the prevailing model are not particularly effective. Many of the proponents declare that the failure has resulted from insufficient funds, and politicians are always calling for doubling foreign aid every time a new budget comes up. But the problem is not so much a lack of resources as a largely flawed approach.


The reasons for the failure of the prevailing foreign aid model are easy enough to see. By making the people of Third World nations dependent on Western money, no matter how well-intentioned its givers may be, a cycle of dependence is created from which it is usually impossible to break out. Individual self-sufficiency is the key to a prosperous society, and this is precisely the aspect most lacking in the prevailing model of foreign aid.


For Global Citizens, tackling the problem of global poverty is clearly a high priority. Not only does our basic humanity demand it, but it also serves pragmatic global interests. Global poverty creates instability, which in turn breeds dangerous extremism that can be taken advantage of by groups like Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the economic development of previously poverty-stricken nations opens the door for mutually-beneficial trading opportunities. But since the prevailing model of foreign aid has largely been a failure, what can be done?


The answer may lie in a relatively new concept for global poverty reduction: microfinance. This new approach to poverty reduction in the developing world has been pioneered over the last few decades by Muhammed Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank and the winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.


The idea behind microfinance is quite simple. Very small loans are made to people living in poverty, who use the loans to start small business enterprises. These people would obviously be ignored by conventional banks and are thus unable to gain access to financial capital, or would otherwise be taken advantage of by loan sharks and driven even deeper into poverty. By gaining access to the microfinance loans, these people are slowly able to build up their own self-sufficiency, all the while paying back the loan with the profits made from their small start-up businesses. Eventually, the loan will be paid back, and the person will have pulled themselves up from poverty into a position where they can stand on their own feet.


The genius behind microfinance is that it does not trap the person in a cycle of dependency, and lets loose the natural human impulse for self-improvement. This is not a case of some governmental or organizational bureaucracy micro-managing things, but of an individual gaining control of their own destiny. Between being forced to take a handout or having the opportunity for improve one's situation using one's own abilities, all people with the spark of humanity inside them will take the latter every time.


Western donor nations would do well to shift a large proportion of their foreign aid budgets away from projects using the prevailing model and instead turn their focus more to microfinance efforts along the lines laid down by Muhammed Yunis. If demonstrable successes can be achieved, an entirely new approach to reducing and eventuy eliminating global poverty could be formulated.
Below is a video about Grameen Foundation USA, the leading microfinance organization in the United States. It provides an excellent overview of microfinance in general.

Is ITER the Answer to Our Energy Problems?

Two months ago, representatives from the European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, India, China and South Korea met in France to discuss the future of the ITER project, a massive experiment based in southern France to determine whether a commercial nuclear fusion reactor is technologically and economically feasible. At this meeting, despite the severe budget pressures caused by the present global economic situation, it was determined to allocate the necessary funds to allow the project to go forward.

Discussions on launching the ITER project began all the way back in 1985, but it was only in 2005 that a location was selected and it wasn't until 2007 that serious work on the project began. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the participants will live up to their responsibilities in terms of funding, but the recent meeting seems to have laid these concerns to rest, at least for the moment.

ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Incidentally, it also means "the way" in Latin. If the project is successful, it could open the door for commercial fusion power by the middle of the century, thereby ending humanity's reliance on fossil fuels and potentially solving the vast majority of the world's environmental problems at a stroke.

The process of nuclear fusion is simple. Indeed, it is the same process that powers the Sun. By bringing isotopes of hydrogen together and causing them to fuse, a tiny amount of matter is converted into an enormous amount of energy. If harnessed, this energy can be used in precisely the same manner as in any other power plant, driving steam turbines to produce electricity.

The advantages of nuclear fusion are mind-boggling. Unlike fossil fuel power plants, there would be no production whatsoever of greenhouse gases. Unlike fission nuclear reactors, there would be no possibility of any form of Chernobyl-style meltdown and there could be no production of any material which could be used to make nuclear weapons. While the fusion reaction itself produces no radioactive waste, parts of the reactor wall would gradually become mildly radioactive over time, but this is a matter of little concern, as the amounts of radioactive material would be minuscule and they would have a half-life of less than a century.

Perhaps the greatest advantage to nuclear fusion is the fact that the fuel is readily available in enormous quantities all over the world. The most convenient fusion reaction would be combining hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium in a fusion reactor. Deuterium can be obtained by ocean water, while tritium can be produced in the reactor itself. In other words, the fuel for our potential nuclear fusion reactors is as cheap as we could possibly hope for it to be.

Considering the advantages of nuclear fusion, it's easy to wonder why we haven't built large numbers of fusion reactors all across the world already. The answer is that the engineering challenges to achieve economical fusion (in which more power is generated than is required to keep the reaction going) are immense. Not only that, but they are enormously expensive. Until we master the technology and devise effective techniques, nuclear fusion will remain a dream.

That's what the ITER project is all about. The seven partners in the project will share the cost, estimated at tens of billions of dollars, in order to build and operate an experimental reactor that will be used to design and develop the necessary technology and techniques over two decades or more. Assuming it is successful, it could serve as a prototype for genuine commercial nuclear fusion reactors that could be operating throughout the world by the middle of the century.

The project is enormously expensive, but not nearly so expensive as the International Space Station (which, unlike ITER, has no specific object or goal in mind). Considering the potential payoff of commercially feasible fusion power, the investment is certainly worth the risk. While it would be foolish to imagine fusion as some sort of silver bullet that will solve all the world's energy problems instantaneously, it certainly has the long-term potential to be an enormously important part of the world's energy matrix in decades to come. But it will only work if we start now.

Below is a brief documentary, in two parts, produced by the European Union to give a general background of nuclear fusion power in general and the ITER project in particular. Keep in mind that it was created in 2005, and a great deal has happened since then.

European Space Agency Should Pursue Upgrades for Automated Transfer Vehicle

This article from the BBC, written by science correspondent Jonathan Amos, makes for some interesting. The European Space Agency (ESA) will soon be faced with a decision over whether to pursue significant upgrades to their Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program, or allow the program to run its course and end.

The ATV program has been highly successful thus far. The vehicle is designed to transfer large quantities of supplies and other cargo to the International Space Station, then serve as a disposal vehicle for waste generated by the crew, who fill the ATV up with the refuse and then dispatch the ATV to burn up in Earth's atmosphere. Most importantly, the vehicle operates only entirely by computer, being able to move towards the ISS and dock with it without any human guidance.

The first ATV, appropriately named the Jules Verne, was launched in the spring of 2008 and performed its mission successfully. A second ATV, with the equally appropriate name of Johannes Kepler, is scheduled for launch in the coming months. Several other ATV missions are in he works, with at least five more scheduled to serve the ISS between now and 2015.

The ESA is considered upgrading the ATV program so as to allow it to return cargo to the Earth by giving it the ability to reenter the Earth's atmosphere and land intact. Even more ambitious plans are being considered which would adapt the ATV into a vehicle capable of carrying a human crew. These plans are quite ambitious, though they would cost a considerable amount of money. As the ESA has only a fraction of the financial resources as NASA, and in light of the intense budget pressures currently facing European nations, this is not a decision that the ESA will make without long and perhaps heated debate.

Still, the ESA should pursue these plans, developing first an ATV which can survive reentry and thus return cargo to the Earth, and subsequently an ATV adapted for use by a human crew.

Manned spaceflight is going through some rough times. The Space Shuttle program of the United States is due to end next year, and President Obama has decided to terminate the Constellation program that was intended to create a successor manned spaceflight system, essentially turning over American manned spaceflight to private industry for the foreseeable future. By committing to the eventual creation of a European manned spaceflight capability, the ESA could give manned spaceflight a considerable boost.

More to the point, it's time for the ESA to step up to the plate of space exploration in a more serious manner. America's fiscal crisis is virtually guaranteed to curtail the American space program for the foreseeable future. The ESA has gradually emerged on the stage of unmanned space exploration in recent years, sending highly-successful missions to Mars and Venus and also contributing mightily to projects focused on cosmology, both on its own and in cooperation with other space agencies.

But manned spaceflight has remained a low priority for the ESA. All European astronauts have essentially been passengers on Russian or American missions. It's time for Europe to develop its own manned spaceflight capability, and adapting the ATV to serve as a manned space vehicle seems to be the most logical way in which it could do so. When it does, Europe will begin to recapture the exploratory spirit with which it once changed the world.

Veto Power in United Nations Security Council Must Be Reformed

Over the past few weeks, we have been discussing the urgent need to alter and expand the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council in order to better reflect the geopolitical realities of the 21st Century, thus making it a more effective instrument at preserving peace and security around the world. Under the system we have laid out, the new Security Council would consist not of five permanent members, but of ten: the United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, a seat held in annual rotation by the United Kingdom and France, and a seat held by a representative of the European Union.

Such a reform would be revolutionary, and it would do much to increase fairness and proper representation within the United Nations. But if enacted by itself, it would also add to a recurring problem with the functioning of the Security Council. Since any single permanent member can veto a Security Council resolution, it is often difficult if not impossible to get meaningful resolutions through unless there is perfect unanimity among the permanent members, which rarely if ever takes place. Expanding the permanent membership from five to ten makes this problem twice as bad as it already had been.

A cautionary tale from history is that of the Liberum Veto in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which lasted from the mid-16th Century to the end of the 18th Century. In many ways, Poland was far ahead of its time in terms of creating a constitutional government that allowed for religious toleration. But in the assembly of nobles which shared power with the king, any individual noble was able to exercise a veto and, if he so desired, terminate the proceedings. This eventually brought the workings of the Polish government to a complete standstill, leaving the country unable to resist the territorial aggression of Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

A quick glance at the history of Security Council vetoes serves to illustrate the problem of an individual, absolute veto. Permanent members cast vetoes, or block progress simply by threatening to cast vetoes, whenever they feel they must do so in order to protect their own interests or those of their close allies. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once compared it to allowing burglars to veto laws against theft. The United States routinely casts individual vetoes to block resolutions directed against its ally Israel, with Russia doing the same thing regarding Serbia. China has used its veto power to block resolutions condemning the repressive government of Zimbabwe, Sudan, or Burma, where they have economic interests. There has often been complete deadlock in the Security Council on these critical issues, and the peace and security of the world has suffered as a direct result.

So long as any individual member can veto any resolution, the United Nations Security Council can only function if all the permanent members are in complete accord. In the vast majority of situations, this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. If the permanent membership of the Security Council is expanded, the problem will only become worse. For this very reason, any expansion in the membership of the Security Council must be accompanied by a simultaneous reform in the Security Council veto.

There are those who favor abolishing the veto altogether, thus making all resolutions in the Security Council determined by a simple majority vote. Even if this were ideal, but it is also something to which the permanent members of the Security Council would never agree. It will be difficult enough to get them to reform the veto at all; persuading them to give it up altogether is likely to be a lost cause for at least the next few decades. And there are clear situations when it is both necessary and proper for permanent members to veto resolutions. For example, the United States has routinely had to veto resolutions that denounce Israel for taking retalitory actions in response to terrorist attacks yet fail to mention the terrorist attack itself, thus making it appear that Israel as though Israel had launched unprovoked aggression.

A solution that is both achievable and worthwhile would be an elimination of the individual veto in exchange for a requirement that all Security Council resolutions need a two-thirds majority of the permanent members of the Security Council to pass. In other words, all resolutions will require a simple majority of eleven of the twenty Security Council members (the ten permanent ones and the ten non-permanent ones), but will also require seven of the ten permanent members to vote in favor. This system would allow any three of the permanent members to block resolutions they oppose. In effect, this would replace the individual veto with a minority veto.

Some have also suggested that Security Council members not be allowed to veto resolutions dealing with specific issues. Citizens for Global Solutions has suggested that the permanent members of the Security Council "voluntarily restrict their use of the veto in situations involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humanity." Such a gentleman's agreement might prove useful, but should also be eventually be enshrined in the U.N. Charter itself.

(Full Disclosure: I am a member of Citizens for Global Solutions and serve on its political action committee.)

Replacing the individual national veto with a requirement that three permanent members must vote together for a veto to be enacted, as well as a prohibition on the use of the veto in cases involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humaniy (in other words, the sort of crimes which are within the jurisfiction of the International Criminal Court) would mak the United Nations Security Council and must more effective instrument in preserving the peace and security of the world.

The world is in urgent need of a United Nations Security Council that can function quickly and effectively, thus fulfilling the role the founders of the United Nations intended for it. Expanding its permanent membership to better reflect the realities of the 21st Century is a necessary step in this process, and must go hand-in-hand with the reformation of the veto process. Once these two changes are made, we can hope that we will have a United Nations that can more effectively prevent wars, stop genocides, block nuclear proliferation, and bring those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice.