Official End of Combat Operations in Iraq

Tomorrow marks the official termination of American "combat operations" in Iraq. When President Obama took office in January of 2009, there were over 140,000 American troops occupying Iraq. Today, that number is down to less than 50,000. The last American combat brigade crossed the border from Iraq into Kuwait a few weeks ago. The remaining troops are intended to serve as a transitional force, training Iraqi troops and being held in reserve in case of an emergency. If all goes well, by this time next year, all American forces will have been completely withdrawn.

The distinction between combat troops and transitional troops is, when you get right down to it, nothing but semantics. America's military misadventure in Iraq won't truly end until the feet of the last American soldier leave the soil of ancient Mesopotamia. But there can be no denying that the great reduction of troop strength in Iraq marks a significant success for President Obama, who is achieving one of the major goals he set forth during his presidential campaign in 2008, and one in which popular opinion in the United States is very much on his side.

There remains a divide between those who believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary and justified and those who believe the entire episode to have been a disastrous fiasco. The true history of the Iraq War won't be written for decades, but it is a fair guess that historians will declare the decision to invade Iraq to have been a grave and costly mistake on the part of the United States.

The war has been immensely costly in terms of human life. More than 4,400 Americans soldiers have died in Iraq, along with hundreds of troops from the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, Spain and a host of other countries. As far as Iraqi civilian casualties, accurate numbers are impossible to determine, it seems likely that as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a directly result of the invasion. The war has been bloody, indeed.

The war has been costly in treasure as well as in human blood. Indeed, the financial cost of the Iraq War is likely to top an astounding $1 trillion. Think of how much better off the world would have been had these funds been turned towards lowering the American deficit, reducing the tax burden on the American population, or used for purposes other than warfare.

The war has made the struggle against international terrorism far more difficult. It diverted resources away from the more significant campaign in Afghanistan, giving the Taliban and its allies the time they needed to regroup. Today, thanks to the distraction of the Iraq War, the Taliban are today stronger than ever. The continuing struggle in Afghanistan would not have been necessary if the Bush administration had finished the job back in 2003. A general rule of warfare is to finish the war in which you are already engaged before starting a second one.

Even worse, the invasion of Iraq inflamed Muslim popular opinion against the United States. Most of the world's Muslims have never accepted the rationales of the Bush administration, seeing only an overbearing superpower invading a relatively weak nation that had never attacked America. Besides, a foreign occupation of one's country is a humiliating and angering trauma, especially if it includes disgraceful incidents such as the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Every eight-year-old boy who was awoken in the middle of the night by American soldiers breaking down his door and dragging off his father or his older brother is a potential Al Qaeda recruit in the coming years.

The United States invaded Iraq after the United Nations Security Council had specifically rejected such an attack, greatly undermining the rule of international law. Article Two of the U.N. Charter clearly states that no nation can attack another nation except in self-defense. Article Six of the United States Constitution clear states that ratified treaties like the U.N. Charter form part of the supreme law of the land of the United States. By invading Iraq unilaterally and without provocation, the United States was launching a war that was illegal both under international law and its own domestic law. It was also undermining the international system which has been carefully crafted over decades to help ensure the peace of the world.

Finally, we have the glaringly obvious fact that there was simply no reason to invade Iraq. The entire war was undertaken to line the pockets of government contractors and to satisfy the absurd ideological convictions of the neoconservatives. Despite the assurances from the Bush administration, repeated over and over again in 2002 and early 2003, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction of any kind and was clearly not a military threat to anyone, least of all the United States. The media was duped into supporting the war and, through them, so were the American people.

If anything good is to come out of the Iraq War, let's hope it's an object lesson about how not to conduct foreign policy. It was a mistake that must never be repeated again in the future.

More African Trouble for International Criminal Court

Not long ago, we reported on the manner in which Chad invited Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to a regional conference in their capital, declining to arrest him and turn him over to the International Criminal Court as required by the Rome Statute. Now, it appears, the nation of Kenya has done the same thing. The Sudanese president has visited the Kenyan capital to participate in a celebration of Kenya's new constitution, being greeted as a friend rather than the wanted criminal that he is.

The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes related to the conflict in Darfur. Both Chad and Kenya are signatories to the Rome Statute and fully-fledged members of the ICC. The fact that they are refusing to live up to their treaty obligations is a disgrace.

The ICC has complained to the United Nations Security Council regarding the Kenyan refusal to arrest al-Bashir. At the very least, the Council should pass a resolution condemning the Chadian and Kenyan tolerance of the presence of al-Bashir on their soil. Ideally, the Council should implement some form of economic sanctions against the government ministers who made the decision not to arrest al-Bashir.

The Rome Statute is a binding treaty under international law. But if the ICC has to depend only on the goodwill of potentially uncooperative nations, and is unable to enforce the provisions of the treaty itself, it will remain a highly imperfect instrument for promoting global justice. And war criminals and genocidal killers will remain free.

Two Simple Ways to Further Peace in the Middle East

Last week's announcement that direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians would be resumed was something that excited Global Citizens around the world. But while diplomats from all over the world prepare to gather in an attempt to resolve the complex issues and problems that prevent peace from coming to the Holy Land, what can Global Citizens do as ordinary people to help promote peace in this strife-torn region of the world?

Off the top of my head, let me put forward two very simple and modest suggestions.

The first way Global Citizens can further peace in the Middle East is by making a simple change to their grocery shopping habits, by purchasing products from Canaan Fair Trade. This cooperative produces olive oil, honey, olives, tomatoes, soap, and other products made using sustainable practices by farmers and workers in the West Bank. If you purchase these products from Canaan Fair Trade, every dollar spent on these products helps generate economic activity in the West Bank, creating badly-needed jobs among the Palestinian population. This project enjoys healthy support from both the Israeli and Palestinian communities.

The more people in Palestinian territories who have meaningful employment and economic self-sufficiency, the fewer people there will be who can be seduced by the siren song of extremism and thus the fewer people there will be who will be turned towards violence and hatred against Israel. Fanaticism of all stripes flourishes most fervently where the people are cynical and lack hope for the future. By helping the economic development of Palestinian territories through such enterprises as Canaan Fair Trade, Global Citizens can counter the cynicism and despair that has so long infected the Palestinian people and help build a forward-looking social framework that will go a long way towards improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The second way Global Citizens can further peace in the Middle East is by supporting the organization called Seeds for Peace. This wonderful program brings together Israeli and Palestinian teenagers in summer camps, teaching them conflict resolution and leadership skills, while allowing them to build personal friendships with fellow young people on the "other side".

Thousands of teenagers have already graduated from the Seeds for Peace program since in began in 1993. These "Seeds" are hard at work building mutual trust and understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian communities in numerous fields of activity, ranging from politics to science to business. Even a small financial contribution to Seeds for Peace of, say, $25 helps further the cause of peace in the Middle East. (And not just the Middle East. Seeds of Peace has now started operating summer camps for Indian and Pakistani teenagers, too.)

Buying Fair Trade products made in the West Bank and supporting summer camps for Israeli and Palestinian teenagers may sound a bit distant from the events that will shape the future of the Middle East peace process. But such things are, in the most basic sense, the stuff of which peace is made. And you don't have to be a diplomat or government official to participate in these efforts. Being a better Global Citizen is simply a matter of spending some of your money in a different way than you otherwise would have.

When you get right down to it, securing peace for the Middle East is a human endeavour and requires the participation of all Global Citizens. The two simple ideas proposed here are just scratching the surface of what is possible, so get out there and start doing the work yourself. The Holy Land has been soaked in blood for centuries, and buying a bottle of Fair Trade olive oil isn't going to fix it. But every little bit helps.

Israeli Students to be Required to Learn Arabic

In a positive move, particularly symbolic as it comes on the eve of the resumption of direct peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, the Israeli government has announced a program which will make Arabic language lessons mandatory for Jewish 5th grade students.

Previously, Arabic students were required to learn Hebrew, but Jewish students were not required to learn Arabic. Both are official languages of Israel. This move will not only have practical benefits, but could serve to improve inter-religious harmony within Israel itself. Although Israel is officially a Jewish state, roughly one-fifth of its population consists of Arab citizens.

In some ways, Israeli Arabs enjoy lives that their fellow Arabs in Arab-majority countries might envy. They have access to higher education and a free press and may participate in the democratic process (about one-tenth of the membership of the Knesset consists of Israeli-Arabs). But in terms of housing, social services, and grade-school education, the Israeli Arab population suffers discrimination roughly akin to that suffered by African-Americans in the American South during the Jim Crow Era. Furthermore, under the Law of Return, Jewish immigrants to Israel are automatically made Israeli citizens, whereas immigrants from Arab countries are not.

The prospects for peace in the Middle East would be considerably enhanced if the Israeli government took more concrete steps to improve the quality of life for its Arab citizens and remove the barriers to equality that currently exist. The implementation of mandatory Arabic language lessons for Jewish schoolchildren is a good first step, and one that will hopefully improve understanding between the two communities, but there remains a very long road ahead.

Why the United States Must Ratify New START

The United States was the nation which first created nuclear weapons, and it thus far remains the only nation to ever actually use them in warfare. From the standpoint of Global Citizens, the United States has a moral duty to take up the cause of complete nuclear disarmament, perhaps the most important issue facing the world today. Right now, the United States Senate has an opportunity to move this cause forward in a very significant way, by ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia.

New START would reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by both nations by roughly 30% each and, perhaps more importantly, implement a strict system of inspection and verification to ensure that both nations are meeting their treaty requirements. It also lays the groundwork for future negotiations which have the possibility of leading to even bigger cuts in nuclear arsenals.

As we have noted before, there is some hesitation among Senate Republicans regarding New START. Unfortunately, this seems to have less to do with any genuine concerns they have and more to do with a desire to embarrass President Obama before the 2010 mid-term elections. When similar treaties were negotiated with Russia by Republican presidents, Senate Republicans fully supported them and they passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Senate is currently in the midst of its summer break, but we can expect New START to be one of the most important items on the agenda when it returns in a few weeks. The Senate must ratify the treaty without delay, for the following reasons.

First, the United States is technically obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (signed in 1968) to be taking steps towards eventual nuclear disarmament. Ratifying New START would be a loud signal to the world that America takes its responsibility seriously and is genuinely trying to live up to its treaty obligations.

Second, signing New START gives the United States more credibility in its efforts to prevent Iran and North Korea from pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs. It's frankly hypocritical for the United States to assert that certain nations have no right to develop nuclear weapons, when the United States itself is doing nothing whatsoever to reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Similarly, it will hep build goodwill between the Unites States and Russia, thus easing the way for future nuclear reduction negotiations in the future.

Third, the few hundred deployed warheads the United States will be giving up under the terms of the treaty are essentially useless anyway, since their loss will not meaningfully diminish America's nuclear deterrent (the only remotely rational reason for having nuclear weapons in the first place). Even if the country did not care about nuclear disarmament, maintaining these unnecessary weapons will cost a considerable amount of money. Considering America's current fiscal crisis, this is money that the country can ill afford to lose right now.

Fourth, until the treaty is ratified, there is no verification or inspection system in place between Russia and America, and the world consequently knows nothing about what is going on with the Russian nuclear arsenal. Considering the all-too-frequent occurrences of nuclear weapons material being smuggled out of the country, it is imperative for both American national security and for the security of the world at large to put a rigorous inspection system back in place. Not doing so is the same as casting a dark blanket over Russia's nuclear arsenal, through which we cannot see.

There are many reason why New START needs to be ratified, but the most fundamental one of all is the simple fact that nuclear weapon are a scourge upon the face of the world and that their very existence offends everything that is sacred about our planet. Eliminating them altogether must be the highest priority of Global Citizens, but it can only be done through a gradual, step-by-step process. New START is one of those steps, and the sooner it is ratified, the better.

The Persecution of Iranian Baha'is

The Baha’i Faith is a religion that started in present-day Iran, roughly 160 years ago. It has since spread to over 200 countries across the globe. But interestingly enough, this religion is hated the most in its own country of origin. Though the Baha’is have certainly not been around as long as the Jews, nor have they undergone such an atrocious holocaust, they can certainly understand what it means to be stripped of their most basic civil rights and to essentially be considered subhuman.

Early Baha’is have had a history of enduring incredibly severe forms of torture, such as bastinadoing and being branded with red hot iron rods. One individual even had holes drilled into him, which were then plugged with lit candles. It is truly shameful that a religion that believes in the equality of men and women, the incorporation of a universal auxiliary language, and in the unity of God, religion, and mankind, as well as other noble ideals, has been punished with such backwardness.

In more modern times, especially after the Iranian revolution of 1979, the persecution has remained constant in more subtle ways. Over the past 30 years, countless Iranian Baha’is have had their business licenses gratuitously revoked, their houses raided and possessions confiscated, their cemeteries razed to the ground, and their prerogative to a higher education barred by government-sponsored prejudice. In 1993, a secret memorandum that had been written two years earlier by the Iranian government came to light. It addresses “the Baha’i question”–frighteningly similar to the way Nazis addressed the Jews–and serves as a blueprint for the way in which governmental officials should treat Baha’is. The document has been translated in full here. Additionally, Over 200 Baha’is have been executed in Iran since the beginning of the revolution; many others were abducted, never to be seen again. Although these killings slowed down after the 1980s, the aforementioned more subtle methods of persecution are still going strong. Reports of Baha’is being imprisoned for ridiculous pretexts or simply no charge at all come out of Iran almost every week now. The most glaring example of this was when seven Baha’is, who were once members of an ad hoc body known as the Yaran (Friends), were arrested in 2008 on the basis of “insulting religious sanctities,” “spreading propaganda against the Islamic republic”, “espionage for Israel,” and “spreading corruption on earth” (which has historically carried the death penalty). Of course, not one of these charges was ever substantiated, nor have they been to this day. All seven were recently sentenced to 20 years in prison on absolutely no grounds. The Yaran essentially oversaw the administrative affairs of the Iranian Baha’i community. What is perhaps most ironic about this is that they had already been operating for over 20 years prior to these events, and the Iranian government was fully aware of their existence and had no problem with them then!

It is only natural to ask oneself in the 21^st century, truly an age of reason and rationale, what could have given rise to this blind animosity. What could fuel such unforgiving hatred towards one’s own countrymen? The answer is ignorance. For several decades now, Baha’is have been portrayed as something they’re not–malevolent, treacherous, two-faced–by Iranians all across the board: historians, theorists, intellectuals, religious clerics, and ordinary laypeople who have been indoctrinated by all of the above. However, depending on the audience, different methods have been used to brainwash Iranians into thinking Baha’is are evil. But the two most common ways are what I call the religious argument and the nationalist argument. I will explain both discourses below.

The religious argument

This is an argument that has historically been presented to those who are devoutly religious and has been delivered by those who are usually religious themselves (i.e. clerics). The religious argument dictates that Baha’is apparently reject many of the fundamental tenets of Islam, most salient among them being the belief in the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood. The fact that Baha’is believe in a prophet who came after Muhammad, called Baha’u’llah, poses a severe transgression in the eyes of fundamentalist Iranians, and is not something that can go without reprimand. This hostile discourse was most notably proliferated through the virulent radio sermons of one Shaykh Muhammad-Taqi Falsafi, a Muslim cleric, during Ramadan of 1955. In these sermons, Falsafi frequently lambasted the Baha’is for what he believed to be their heedlessness and the misguided nature of their “sect”. His unabashed hostility inculcated such a thirst for vengeance in uneducated Iranians that mobs actually galvanized and destroyed Tehran’s Baha’i center. However, in more recent times, a rift of mistrust has been expanding between the Iranian government and the masses. The former has been invariably continuing their tactic of shoving down irrational fanaticism down peoples’ throats, and as a result the latter has progressively been turning away from Islam, and many from religion altogether. Thus, the religious argument is not quite as effective in this age as it was under more secular rule, namely that of Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The nationalist argument

For Iranians who are not necessarily religious, or for those who are more attached to their country and its culture than their faith, the nationalist argument–which is nothing more than an appeal to treason–seems to be most potent in instilling a sense of antagonism towards Baha’is. In this discourse, Baha’is are branded as agents of foreign powers, be they Russian, British, or “Zionist”, who have historically been pursuing an agenda of inciting chaos within Iran. Through this reasoning, Baha’is and their most revered personages are reduced to tools of imperialist and colonialist powers with no will of their own, but are subject to everything their “Western masters” command them to do. They are thus not only divested of their own “Iranianness” but are considered enemies of the state altogether. Such claims were advanced in books with faulty references or forged tracts altogether (for more information on this, I refer you to my e-book, Debunking the Myths). Perhaps one reason why this discourse has proven to be more effective than the religious argument is because the hatred that results from this argument can be shared by both nationalists and religious people alike.

Fortunately, the growing mistrust of pro-government media among Iranian people is leading to a steady decline in the efficacy of these baseless accusations leveled against Baha’is. People are beginning to think with their own minds and not with the mind of their local cleric. They are learning to independently investigate the truth for themselves and not be led by blind faith. Hopefully, this wave of reason will triumph and draw a close to the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran altogether.

Violence in Venezuela Demonstrates the Failure of Hugo Chavez

It's official. Uncontrolled crime and sky-high murder rates in Venezuela have made that country a more dangerous place to live in than Iraq. This brutally simple fact should demonstrate to all the world to utter failure of Hugo Chavez as a leader and destroy whatever little credibility he has left.

Chavez came to power in 1998, promising a new era for Venezuela that would be based on upon his unique vision of what he called "21st century socialism" and the ideals of 19th Century Latin American liberator Simon Bolivar. In some ways, he made a good start. His government implemented much-needed medical and educational reforms that initially did much to improve the lives of the Venezuelan people. But after he narrowly survived a right-wing coup in 2002, things started to go downhill.

Thanks to Chavez's socialist policies, the economy began to tank and social services began to deteriorate. Chavez began curtailing the freedom of the press by shutting down media outlets which criticized him, and throwing his opponents in jail on trumped-up charges. Chavez pushed through laws allowing him to rule by decree. Corruption among government officials, the police, and the military reduced Venezuela to a stereotypical banana republic.

But the continually sky-high murder rates in Venezuela illustrate better than anything the complete failure of Hugo Chavez. The primary responsibility of any government is to protect the physical security of its citizens. With deaths from violence in Venezuela surpassing those of Iraq, it is clear that the Chavez government is completely unable to meet even this most basic requirement. Indeed, it's only action in the face of this crisis was to prohibit newspapers from publishing photos of dead criminal victims.

Influential Chinese General Urges His Country to Embrace Democracy

Some people are already calling the 21st Century the "Chinese Century", but whether it will be or not remains to be seen. Its economic and military power continue to expand at an astonishing rate, but its political system remains effectively unchanged. The Chinese Communist Party remains as firmly entrenched in power as the day it crushed the pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and untold numbers of Chinese citizens remain in prison for their pro-democracy activities. The only part of China that enjoys any kind of genuine democratic freedom is Hong Kong, thanks to the pre-1997 agreement between China and the United Kingdom.

But apparently there are voices from within the Chinese establishment that are beginning, perhaps hesitantly, to call for change. One such person is General Liu Yazhou, who is a two-star general and the political commissar for the National Defense University. He recently printed an article in a Hong Kong periodical, in which he called on China to adopt American-style democracy and do away with its present authoritarian system. Failure to do so, General Yazhou warns, will mean that China will inevitably collapse in a manner similar to that of the Soviet Union.

It's virtually impossible to gain much insight into the mindset that exists within the military and political leadership of China. But it is certainly surprising to see a high-ranking and apparently influential Chinese general speaking in such terms. As the Chinese economy continues to gain steam, as relations between China and Taiwan continue to warm, and as China's place in the world becomes ever more important, Global Citizens can only hope that steps toward a genuine democracy in China begin to be taken.

Perhaps this General Liu Yazhou fellow will be worth keeping an eye on.

Fiscal Realities Require Massive American Military Reductions

As the American federal budget deficit continues to spiral out of control, and its national debt continues to grow into a monster which could well destroy the lives of the current generation's children and grandchildren, it is time for the policy-makers in Washington to face the truth and admit to the American people that massive and painful spending reductions are coming. Most political leaders in Washington, Democratic and Republican alike, would like to pretend that this problem does not exist, but sticking their heads in the ground will not make it go away. Indeed, as the Baby Boomers retire and mandated programs like Social Security and Medicare come under even more financial pressure, it is only going to get worse.

The national debt is the most critical threat facing America today, far more dangerous than the most sinister terrorist plot imaginable. And it presents a serious danger to the global economy as a whole. If this challenge it to be met, America is going to have to put every option on the table, allowing for no sacred cows. One of the most difficult choices it is going to have to make it also the most obvious: America must massively cut its level of military spending.

For too long, politicians with the courage to state the obvious truth that American military spending is too high have often been labeled as unpatriotic or willing to endanger the lives of American soldiers. This name calling must stop. The vast majority of American military spending is not for the defense of America or the welfare of its soldiers, but for maintaining an unnecessary ability to project power around the world, or to line the pockets of politically well-connected defense contractors. It's also burning a massive hole in the federal budget, and there is simply no escaping the fact that it needs to be brought under control, for the good of the country and the world as a whole.

The budget for the United States Department of Defense is roughly $680 billion a year. Many other federal departments and agencies also contribute to the American military budget, such as the Department of Energy (which is responsible for the maintenance of nuclear weapons), NASA, and the intelligence community. When all this is added in, the annual American military budget comes to more than $900 billion.

The American military budget is roughly equal to the rest of the world put together, and accounts for nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget. Indeed, the federal government spent more on the military than on all other discretionary spending combined. It is clear that any effort to get the federal budget deficit under control is going to have to take military spending into account, and that any realistic plan to reduce the deficit and eventually balance the budget will require massive reductions in military spending.

The good news is that finding ways to cut American defense spending will not be very difficult, because most of the money spent on the military is either entirely unnecessary or, at best, of very dubious value. Immense financial wastage is generated by an obscenely large nuclear arsenal, unnecessary permanent military bases overseas, and unjustifiable purchases of large numbers of extremely expensive weapons. It is time for the United States Congress to scrutinize the military budget and go at it not with a scalpel, but with an axe.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) have joined forces to call for significant cuts to the military budget, an act all the more admirable as the two of them agree on very little aside from their shared opposition to bloated military spending (Congressman Ron Paul would not normally be mentioned positively in terms of being a global citizen). They have called together a panel of experts from across the political spectrum, known as the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which recently issued a comprehensive report on the issue. Its stated aim is to highlight the measures necessary to cut $1 trillion from the American military budget over the next ten years, without endangering American national security.

The report makes some good recommendations, but in many cases does not go far enough. For example, it calls for reducing the American nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, to be deployed on seven Ohio-class missile submarines and 160 Minuteman ICBMs, which would save over $110 billion over the next ten years. They might have recommended reducing the arsenal down to 350 warheads and eliminating the land-based element altogether, which would not have reduced the ability of the United States to deter any potential enemy while saving considerably more money.

Similarly, the report calls for reducing American forces in Europe from about 70,000 men to 35,000 men. No one can articulate how deploying a single American battalion in Europe does anything to improve the national security of the United States. If the authors of the report had wanted to be truly bold, they would have called for eliminating the American military presence in Europe altogether.

Other recommendations in the report are quite good. The reports suggests that the Navy should be reduced from 287 warships and 10 air wings to 230 warships and 8 air wings (including retiring two aircraft carriers), reducing the Army from 45 combat brigades to 40 and reducing the Marine Corps from 27 battalions to 23 battalions, abolishing two Air Force tactical fighter wings, and many other proposals. These are all excellent proposals, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, significantly easing the pressure on the federal budget.

If the proposals are flawed, it is only in that they do not go far enough. The military establishment of any country should be kept at the level necessary to ensure proper security, as true defense in the Nuclear Age lies only in collective security. The bloated American military budget is merely a swindle of the American taxpayer, as well as a dangerous enticement to political leaders towards foreign military adventures, like those we saw in Iraq.

The United States is one of the most geographically blessed nation on the planet. The Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans provide unbridgeable moats to its west and east, while its borders on the north and south face friendly neighbors that pose no military threat. To protect the territorial integrity of the United States requires no major land army, but only a sufficiently large navy and air force to secure the nearby sea lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This could be done for a fraction of the $900 billion America is currently spending on its military every year.

Many policy-makers and pundits commonly claim that a massive military is necessary in order to defend America's "vital interests" around the world, but they rarely articulate what they mean by the term "vital interests". Usually, it comes down to defending a nation allied with the United States, thus giving the taxpayers of the ally in question a free ride and requiring American taxpayers to pick up the bill for the defense of a nation on the other side of the planet. Loosely-defined economic or trade issues are sometimes tossed around as an excuse for high military spending, which is a rather silly red herring. Pray tell, does Germany's comparatively low level of military spending somehow threaten its economic relationship with, say, India?

The stated goal of the Sustainable Defense Task Force was to find ways to reduce the American military budget by $1 trillion over the next ten years. This would be quite an achievement, but nevertheless America needs to aim higher. Real national security for the United States can be obtained even if it reduces its military spending to half of its current level, and perhaps even more. That would enable it to save half a trillion dollars every year, which would go a long way to solving the terrible fiscal crisis that threatens not only its future, but the future of the rest of the world as well.

The United States is a republic, not an empire. There is no need for it to militarily dominate the globe, nor is there any need for it to obsess about being the most powerful nation in the world. That wasn't the dream of America's Founding Fathers, nor should it be the dream of the present American generation.

Electoral Breakthrough for Australian Green Party

Confusion reigns down in Australia as election results continue to trickle in and fears of a hung parliament look as though they may be realized. But one thing has emerged clearly: the Australian Green Party has scored a major breakthrough. They have won 14% of the popular vote, more than double their vote share from the previous election and won their first seat in the Australian House of Representatives, with Adam Bandt taking the Melbourne seat from Labor. They have also expanded their number of seats in the Senate (which is chosen by proportional representation) and may even end up holding the balance of power in the upper house.

The Greens can credit the fumbling climate change policies of the two major parties for a large part of their success. Tony Abbott, leader of the Liberal Party (which, despite its name, is the main conservative party in Australia) is a skeptic of global climate change, but the Labor Party of Prime Minister Julia Gillard has previously promised major action on climate change and then failed to deliver. The success of the Australian Greens indicates both a fatigue among the Australian people with the partisan gridlock of the two major parties and a desire to keep environmental issues at the forefront of political discourse in the country.

Global Citizens should cheer the success of the Australian Greens, which comes on the heels of the Green Party of England and Wales winning its first seat in the House of Commons in May. The Greens of the world certainly have their flaws, including a tendency towards ideological rigidity and (in the United States, at least) a habit of embracing extremely questionable candidates. But they also represent the only organized global political party, have had a powerful and positive impact on environmental issues in many countries, and raise subjects that other political parties would prefer to ignore, such as election reform. The world is a better place with the Greens than it would be without them.

Anti-Muslim Hysteria in America Hinders Fight Against Radical Islamists

A disturbing trend of anti-Muslim hysteria seems to be sweeping the United States, with protests over the construction of mosques or Islamic community centers from New York City to the middle of Tennessee. Many groups are now protesting the existence of mosques that have been operating for years. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the moderate Muslim cleric behind the project and a very decent man, has been subjected to a vicious smear campaign which attempts to falsely portray him as a terrorist sympathizer. In the spring, someone set off a pipe bomb at a mosque in Florida (an event which received almost no coverage in the national media). Influential political personalities and right-wing talk radio hosts are getting in on the act, whipping up anti-Muslim fever in much the same way that the Nazis whipped up anti-Semitism in the days before they seized power in Germany.

All of this is very disquieting for Global Citizens, who believe that the spirit of religious tolerance must prevail over religious bigotry. We must be united and brought together by our human commonality rather than be set against one another by whatever our religious differences may be. Unless seduced by the darker forces that lurk within the human soul, there is nothing to prevent people who hold profoundly different religious perspectives from living together in peace and cooperating for mutual benefit.

But the Islamophobia gaining steam in the United States is not disturbing only because it violates our perspective as Global Citizens. There are also more direct and immediate dangers associated with it, specifically the fact that anti-Islamic anger in the United States is certain to be harnessed by Islamist extremists around the world in order to fuel their own sinister cause.

Al Qaeda and their allies have always asserted that the West and the Islamic world are at war with one another. Their propaganda often includes references to historical events going back to the Crusades, the Reconquista, and other examples of Muslim-Christian strife. The more they are able to persuade ordinary Muslims that the United States is an enemy of Islam, the more recruits and funding they obtain, and the more their strength grows.

Radical Islam can not be defeated on the battlefield, because for every terrorist we kill, there are two more to take its place. Al Qaeda and its allies can only be defeated if they lose the battle of ideas, and if the people of the Muslim world become convinced that their lives will be better if they reject the extremism of the radical Islamists. This can only be done if the West, and America in particular, is able to persuade the Muslim world that it is not their enemy, but their friend.

The controversy about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is receiving extensive coverage in the Muslim world, and the opponents of the project simply reinforce the radical Islamist propaganda that America is a country that hates Muslims. The extremists feed on this perception, which draws additional recruits and funding to their cause. In other words, all the protesters holding up bigoted anti-Muslim signs at the mosque protests are the best friends Al Qaeda could ever ask for.

Documentary Video on the Problem of Kashmir

The recent upsurge of violence in Indian-administrated Kashmir, which follows a few years of relative calm, is causing the international community to again pay attention to a problem that has festered since the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent following the demise of the British Raj in 1947.

Western media doesn't usually report on the Kashmir issue, probably because they simply don't understand it. To be fair, the twists-and-turns of Kashmir and the rival claims of India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris themselves are enough to make even the most brilliant and well-informed person's head spin. It has been the cause of two major wars between India and Pakistan, and innumerable low-level periods of conflict. Tens of thousands of people have died, and both sides have been guilty of human rights abuses.

Global Citizens should work hard to educate themselves about this problem, and the video below is a good place to start. Crossing the Lines: Kashmir, Pakistan, India was done by the famed Pakistani physicist (and vocal critic of both militant Islam and his own country's nuclear weapons program) Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, it explores the Kashmir problem from the perspective of both national leaders and ordinary people, packing an enormous amount of information into less than an hour while always remaining easy to follow and understanding.

(Note that the video was produced in 2004, and significant events have happened since then. Still, the general situation remains largely unchanged.)

In Defense of Citizens for Global Solutions

Because I am an internationalist who believes strongly in the need for nations to work together in order to solve global problems, I am a member and supporter of the organization Citizens for Global Solutions. Indeed, I proudly serve on the Global Solutions Political Action Committee. Let me stress, however, that I am not a paid staffer of CGS and have never received any financial compensation from the organization, nor does this blog reflect the official positions of CGS.

Earlier this week, a conservative commentator named Jennifer Rubin, of whom I had never previously heard, wrote a two-part online piece for Commentary, a neoconservative magazine. In an effort to attack Joe Sestak, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania currently running for the Senate (who has been endorsed for reelection by Global Solutions PAC), Ms. Rubin's piece highlights Sestak's close ties with Citizens for Global Solutions and tries to make the case that CGS is an "extremist" and "radical" organization, and that Sestak is therefore tainted by his association with it.

About the nicest thing that can be said about Ms. Rubin's assertion is that it is complete nonsense. She paints a picture of Citizens for Global Solutions that has no basis in reality. But I shall give her the benefit of the doubt (a courtesy she failed to extend to CGS) and assume that she is simply misinformed about the organization. Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to clear up the misconceptions she has about the organization.

First, Ms. Rubin makes the assertion that Citizens for Global Solutions is an anti-Israel organization, saying it deserves an "A+ in Israel bashing". For evidence, she cites a statement that was once posted on the personal blog of a junior staffer, who has since left the organization, which decried the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006. This was obviously nothing but a personal opinion and not a statement of official organizational policy. In truth, as Ms. Rubin should have been well aware, CGS has no official position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and never has.

For what it's worth, my own view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same as that of Sir Brian Urquhart, a former Under-Secretary of the United Nations: "Personally, I have always been pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, believing that, since they cannot avoid each other, they must eventually learn to live together." In my opinion, any comprehensive peace agreement between the two sides must include ironclad security guarantees for Israel. If I thought for a moment that CGS was an anti-Israel organization, I never would have joined them.

Ms. Rubin also takes issue with CGS's support of the United States returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This U.N. organ has certainly had a rocky history, as many nations which themselves have deplorable human rights records have held seats on it and also seems to have had an unhealthy fixation on Israel to the expense of other nations. This, to me, makes it all the more important for the United States to participate in the UNHRC, since the alternative is to allow the suspect nations to have free reign within it. It is better for the United States to participate in U.N. entities that are in need of reform, since America can then help implement the necessary changes. UNHRC is not a perfect organization, but it would be far more imperfect without an American presence. This is so obvious to me that I cannot understand how any rational person can fail to see it.

Ms. Rubin also attacks CGS for its support of a permanent and independent United Nations peacekeeping force. Having a permanent peacekeeping force is an idea of long-standing, which was supported by President Ronald Reagan, among others. It would allow the U.N. to react quickly to emergency situations, without having to take the time to organize various contingents from different national military forces. Being able to react immediately would help prevent catastrophes like the genocide in Rwanda from taking place. Its support for a U.N. rapid reaction force is not something that should be held against CGS, but something for which it should be applauded.

But the underlying theme of Ms. Rubin's rather ill-organized piece is that since Citizens for Global Solutions is an organization that promotes the idea of internationalism, in which the nations of the world work cooperatively through global institutions to solve global problems, it must somehow be sinister and untrustworthy. This is simply silly, and reflects a paranoia more fit for irrational conspiracy theorists than genuine and serious commentators on current events. Taking her logic to its obvious conclusion, the United States should immediately withdraw from the U.N. and disavow every treaty it has ever signed. To suggest that the global problems of the 21st Century can be addressed without taking a global perspective is simply ludicrous.

In short, Ms. Rubin's attack piece appears to be a manifestation of ignorance combined with a willful disregard of the facts in a mean-spirited attempt to score political points. Citizens for Global Solutions is a fine organization of which I am proud to be a member. The attacks on it by Ms. Rubin were uncalled for, unfair, and not worthy of either a serious commentator or a serious magazine.

Direct Middle East Peace Talks Most Welcome

Today's news that the Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to direct peace talks once again is a very welcome development. However, no one should be fooled into thinking that bringing the two sides to any sort of agreement will be anything other than extremely difficult. Too many times in the past have direct peace talks been held to much fanfare, only to achieve nothing. Israel continues to expand settlements on Palestinian land and maintain a de facto siege of Gaza, while the Palestinians continue to launch missile attacks on Israeli communities.

Still, the international community has to try to bring the two sides to some sort of peace agreement. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an open wound on the body of the world, which not only brings untold misery to the Jews and Muslims of the Middle East, but also feeds worldwide Muslim resentment against the West, thus playing into the hands of extremist groups such as Al Qaeda.

The sticking points are now so well known that it seems almost silly to describe them. The Israelis wants diplomatic recognition from the Arab world (thus far, only Jordan and Egypt recognize Israel), peace and security for their people, and a unified Jerusalem as their national capital. The Palestinians want a halt to the construction of Israeli settlements on their land (and ideally a dismantling of those that have already been built), recognition of their independence by Israel and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank, and a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who have been living in limbo since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

This basic retelling of the issues involved almost makes it sound as if the Israeli-Palestinian peace process might not be so difficult after all. The difficulties become more evident when one actually talks with Israelis and Palestinians on the streets of their communities and directly touches the atmosphere of deeply-ingrained mistrust and suspicion that prevails throughout the region. Even more fundamental is the deep pessimism many Palestinians feel about their future prospects, and the cynicism many Israelis feel about the possibilities of a lasting peace. There is a feeling among many on both sides that peace talks are a waste of time and that the status quo is virtually certain to continue indefinitely.

The essence of negotiation is to find an agreement that both sides can live with, even if they may not like it. The problem in this case, as in so many others, is that the two sides are absolutely intractable in their respective, mutually exclusive demands. The international community must deploy a full phalanx of carrots and sticks if it to have any hope of success, and they can't let the fact that no one has been able to resolve this problem for six decades discourage them.

Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems utterly intractable and unsolvable, it's important to remain optimistic. After all, who could have imagined in 1985, with South African apartheid still firmly entrenched and Nelson Mandela still in prison, that a united and democratic South Africa would successfully host the World Cup twenty-five years later? Who could have imagined in the 1920s, as the Greeks and Turks waged ethnic cleansing against one another, that Greece would be championing Turkey's accession to the European Union in 2010? For that matter, who in their right mind would have expected Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the leader of a country that had fought four bitter wars with Israel in the space of thirty years, to dramatically fly to Jerusalem in November of 1977, address the Knesset, and the lay the groundwork for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel?

When confronted with such problems as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's always worth remembering the words of Ralph Bunche, one of the visionary founders of the United Nations: "I believe in the essential goodness of my fellow man, which leads me to believe that no problem of human relations is insoluble."

General Assembly to Meet in Emergency Session to Discussion Pakistani Floods

Having just returned from a personal inspection of the disastrous situation in Pakistan, where the devastation caused by massive flooding seems to be getting even worse, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called the General Assembly into an emergency session to discuss the situation. This follows rising criticism that the flow of international aid to Pakistan wasn't arriving quickly enough, and that a sizable majority of the eight million of people displaced by the floors have yet to receive any help at all.

The U.N. has issued an emergency appeal for $460 million in emergency aid. This amount is less than one quarter of the price of a single American B-2 bomber, but the money has simply not been flowing as well as should be expected. The world needs to be moving much more quickly to deal with this crisis.

In an op-ed piece published yesterday, the Secretary General made a moving personal plea to the international community to help the people of Pakistan:

If we act now, a second wave of deaths caused by waterborne diseases can still be prevented. It is not easy to mount relief operations in such difficult and sometimes perilous places. But I have seen it happen around the world, from the most remote and dangerous parts of Africa to Haiti’s shattered cities. And I saw it in Pakistan this week.

Global Citizens should do their part by contributing whatever they can to the relief agencies and organizations that are operating in Pakistan. Every dollar you can provide will help save lives.

United States Supports U.N. Inquiry into Crimes Against Humanity in Burma

According to this article from the Washington Post, the United States has decided to lend its support to the creation of a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate alleged crimes against humanity committed by the military junta that rules Burma. It's about time.

The members of the Burmese military junta, known by the Orwellian name of State Peace and Development Council and lead by the brutal thug Than Shwe, have been accused of human rights violations on a vast scale. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other groups regularly issue reports describing mass arrests and arbitrary executions of political dissidents, forced labor, soldiers being given permission to engage in mass rape, and many other atrocities. If this doesn't amount to crimes against humanity, I don't know what does.

If such a commission of inquiry is established, we can hope that it will produce a report grim enough to cause the United Nations Security Council to refer the case to the International Criminal Court. Although Burma is not party to the ICC, the Rome Statute gives the Security Council the authority to refer cases to the ICC in cases that are serious enough, even if the states and persons in question would not normally fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

The situation may turn out to be similar to that of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Like Burma, Sudan is not a member of the ICC and the court was given jurisdiction in the case by means of a Security Council resolution.

Chinese opposition may present a problem, as it has significant economic interests in Burma and sees the country as a potential client state. It would likely block any move by the Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry, though one could still be created by the Secretary-General himself. The United States and other members of the Security Council should begin to quietly cultivate China on this matter.

Let's hope this commission gets established and does its work well. And let's also hope, in the long run, for democracy and justice to come to the land of Burma.

Foreign Policy Magazine Lists the World's Worst Dictators

This article in Foreign Policy (one of those periodicals that all Global Citizens should peruse regularly) makes for some very interesting if discouraging reading. In it, George Ayittey, head of the Free Africa Foundation, compiles a list of the 23 worst dictators in the world today. The article can speak for itself, but the list itself is as follows:

1. Kim Jong Il of North Korea
2. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
3. Than Shwe of Burma
4. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan
5. Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan
6. Isaias Afwerki of Eritera
7. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan
8. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran
9. Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
10. Hu Jintao of China
11. Muammar Al-Qaddafi of Libya
12. Bashar Al-Assad of Syria
13. Idriss Deby of Chad
14. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea
15. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
16. Yahya Jammeh of Gambia
17. Hugo Chavez of Venezeula
18. Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso
19. Yoweri Museveni of Uganada
20. Paul Kagame of Rwanda
21. Raul Castro of Cuba
22. Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus
23. Paul Biya of Cameroon

In China, Burma, and Iran, the individual listed as the "dictator" for this list is really just the most visible face of a larger group of oligarchs that keep the country under their thumb (the Communist Party in China, the military junta in Burma, and the mullahs of Iran). This doesn't at all diminish the point that Ayittey is making in his article, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Anti-Internationalist Clint Didier Defeated in Washington Primary

(Full disclosure: I serve on the Global Citizens Political Action Committee, which has endorsed Democrat Patty Murray for reelection in this race.)

The polls have closed in Washington State in the Senate primary election. This race was of above-average interest to Global Citizens in America because of the presence on the ballot of anti-internationalist Republican Clint Didier, a former NFL star who decided to run for the Senate as a Republican, wrapping himself in the Tea Party banner.

Global Citizens can take heart from the fact that Didier has apparently suffered a heavy defeat at the polls and will not be a candidate in the November general election, which will now see Democrat Patty Murray face off against Republican Dino Rossi. But the very fact that he was considered a serious candidate at all should give all Global Citizens pause. In July, a Rasmussen poll actually showed Didier beating Democrat Patty Murray in a two way race, 48% to 45%. He managed to get 12% of the vote in Washington's unique primary system (in which all candidates are on the same ballot, regardless of party) and actually won a few counties.

Didier made opposition to American involvement in the United Nations a significant aspect of his campaign, saying "I would like to see the United States out of the United Nations, and the Untied Nations out of the United States." Siding with irrational conspiracy theorists, Didier also claimed that the United Nations plans to take away firearms owned by American citizens and then seize control the United States.

That a serious candidate for the United States Senate held such ridiculous views is bad enough, but the fact that he often got rousing applause from supporters when saying such things at rallies is even worse. Furthermore, Didier received the endorsement of some fairly big political personalities, including former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).

As a general rule, the so-called Tea Party and the candidates they support are isolationists and opponents of American involvement in the United Nations and other international institutions. Whatever one's views of them in terms of domestic policy in the United States, their anti-internationalist beliefs stand in stark contrast to the views of Global Citizens. Clint Didier may have gone down to defeat, but he's just one of many people we have to worry about.

China Passes Japan to Become the World's Second-Largest Economy

According to several media sources, recently-released economic data indicate that a long-predicted event has finally taken place: China has passed Japan to become the world's second largest economy. Considering that Japan's economic growth has recently slowed to a crawl once again, while China has continued to rocket upwards at an astounded rate, this is no surprise. It does, however, raise several interesting questions.

If current trends continue (always a tricky prediction), China is on course to surpass the United States to become the world's largest economy sometime around 2030. From a symbolic point of view, this would be highly significant, vindicating those historians and observers of current events who like to think of the 20th Century as having been "The American Century" and the 21st Century as being "The Chinese Century". History can't really be put into neat little packages like that, but no objective person can deny that, at least in economic terms, Chinese power is waxing and American power is waning.

For a long time, it was hoped and expected that economic growth in China would eventually lead to political liberalization as well. This, unfortunately, has yet to occur. The Chinese Communist Party seems as firmly rooted in power as ever, the massive Internet firewall remains in place, and the press controls briefly lifted for the 2008 Beijing Olympics are as well-established as they have ever been. Only in Hong Kong, where China continues to respect its agreement with the British not to abolish the enclave's democratic institutions, do Chinese citizens enjoy free and representative government.

China has already surpassed the United States on one count: it is now the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. China will have to be a party to any binding internationa agreement that attempts to address the crisis, and the lack of democratic institutions in the country may make this much more difficult that it otherwise would be.

Rapid Chinese economic growth over the past few decades has fueled Chinese demand for oil, of which it has few domestic sources. Consequently, China has worked hard to build friendly relationships with oil suppliers, including Sudan and Iran, making efforts by the Security Council to deal with Sudan's genocide in Darfur and Iran's nuclear weapons much more difficult.

China's developing economic power is rapidly shaking up the international system, and all Global Citizens should take note of its implications.

Chad's Irresponsibility Undermines the International Criminal Court

Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, is a wanted man. He has been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Darfur. According to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998, all nations which are members of the ICC are required to arrest Omar al-Bashir if he is encountered on their territory, then turn him over to ICC jurisdiction to face trial in the Hague.

However, when al-Bashir attended a regional conference last month in N'jamena, the capital of Chad, the Chadian authorities very publicly declined to arrest him. This is in spite of the fact that Chad is a signatory of the Rome Statute and, under international law, was obligated to take al-Bashir into custody and turn him over to the ICC. It was also in spite of a loud outcry from the international community at Chad's failure to live up to its responsibilities.

This decision was a disgrace from any moral or ethical standpoint. Al-Bashir is accused of truly horrific crimes, in which many tens of thousands of people were ruthlessly massacred. Many others were systemically raped and driven from their land. By declining to arrest al-Bashir, the Chadian government has behaved in a truly shameful manner.

But beyond its moral considerations, Chad's decision will also have negative effects in terms of its impact on international law. Al-Bashir is the first head-of-state indicted by the ICC, and his arrest and trial would set a very important legal precedent by establishing that being the head-of-state of a country does not confer immunity from prosectution for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. In deciding not to arrest al-Bashir, Chad significantly set back the cause of international justice.

We should take two lessons away from this sad episode. The first is that so long as developing global institutions like the ICC are forced to rely on voluntary participation by their members, they will often prove to be inadequate. Eventually, a system must be put into place allowing for coercive punitive measures against those countries which refuse to cooperate in the hunt for persons indicted for genocide and other crimes against humanity, perhaps in the form of economic sanctions.

The second lesson is less obvious but equally important. Although the European Union (which supports the ICC) was loud in its denunctions of Chad for failing to arrest al-Bashir, the response from the United States (which is not a member of the ICC) was not nearly as loud as it could have been. If the United States were a full-fledged member of the ICC, it could have brought the full force of its immense diplomatic muscle to bear against Chad for failing to arrest al-Bashir, and the result of this fiasco could have been very different. This episode is yet more evidence that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute and become a full member of the ICC at its earliest opportunity.

South Korea President Mulls Reunification of Korean Peninsula

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have been on the rise in 2010, with the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and a cryptic North Korean artillery bombardment of South Korea waters adding to a simmering crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It may, therefore, seem like an inauspicious time for South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to put forward a general outline a general program for an eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula. Yet that it exactly what he has done.

Myung-bak envisions a three-stage process. The first would involve a general peace between North Korea and South Korea, which would include an abandonment of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The second would be an economic phase, in which South Korea would assist North Korea in raising living standards of the North Korean people and developing its economy. The third would be a political stage that would culminate in complete reunification. According to this New York Times article, Myung-bak wants to prepare South Korea for this process by implementing a so-called "unification tax."

This is not so much a plan as a very vague outline, and it certain to be immediately rejected by Kim Jong Il in any event. Yet the very fact that the South Koreans are talking about it is most welcome. Reports indicate that the health of the North Korean dictator is not good, and the international community must prepare for the possibility of a power struggle in North Korea in the event of his death. An outstretched hand of friendship from South Korea could encourage any North Korean faction that wants to bring its country out of its xenophobic isolation and into the modern world.

As with other long-festering international disputes, between the Israelis and Palestinians, between India and Pakistan, or between China and Taiwan, the international community needs to keep the long-term complete resolution of the Korean dispute in mind. Therefore, the proposal of President Lee Myung-bak, even if it was purely rhetorical, is a welcome development.

Upcoming Burmese Election a Mockery of Democracy

The military junta which has ruled Burma for decades recently announced that multi-party general elections, the first since 1990, will be held on November 7. On the face of it, this news is welcome to those who favor global democracy. But when one gets down to the details, it quickly becomes clear that the so-called "elections" will be a complete sham.

First of all, no one with a criminal conviction is allowed to run for office. This instantly bars all of the prominent pro-democracy activists from participating (including Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the international face of the Burmese opposition), as they have all been arrested by the military government at some point or other. It also rules out members of religious orders, who have been at the forefront of opposition to the Burmese military regime.

This is all bad enough, but we can expect matters to be much worse. If their past behavior is any guide, the military junta will unleash their security forces to intimidate and harass anyone who dares to voice their opposition to the regime. Most of the votes cast by freedom-loving people are likely to simply be "lost".

Besides, the Burmese constitution reserves a quarter of the seats in its parliament for the military, while requiring a three-quarters majority to amend the constitution. This mean that, even if the upcoming elections were free and fair (which they won't be), the military would still be able to block any change in the country's constitution, thus perpetuating their hold on power.

The military junta ruling Burma is one of the most despicable regimes in the world today, and this announced election is unlikely to change a thing.

President Obama Comes Out in Support of "Ground Zero Mosque"

Earlier today, President Obama publicly commented on the controversy involving the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is not actually a mosque and not actually at Ground Zero, but I digress). In a statement that will cheer those who believe in religious freedom and religious toleration, he came out strongly in support of the project, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anybody else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and that they will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.

It is refreshing and gratifying to hear these words from the President of the United States. The recent upsurge in anti-Muslim bigotry in America should be a cause for deep concern among Global Citizens everywhere and Americans in particular. Almost as concerning is the fact that so many Americans are silently allowing these vicious hate-mongers to go unanswered.

This is not just a moral issue. If the anti-Muslim elements in the United States succeeded in blocking the construction of the Islamic community center, what message does that send to the world's Muslims about America? It would be handing Al Qaeda and its allies an invaluable propaganda weapon.

Global Citizens in the United States should follow the example of President Obama and vocally champion the right of Muslim-Americans to exercise their religious liberty.

America's "Empire of Bases" Must Go

During the Second World War, the United States undertook a massive military effort to defeat the fascist forces of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. During the Cold War, it maintained a sizable military in order to contain and deter the threat of Soviet communism. All of this was necessary at the time. But with the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union two years later, any rationale for a massive American military effectively vanished.

That being the case, why does a vast network of American military bases still encircle the globe? The United States has an army of 56,000 men permanently deployed in Germany. It also maintains nearly 10,000 men each in Italy and the United Kingdom, and another 10,000 scattered about the rest of Europe. It has 33,000 men in Japan and 28,000 men in South Korea. These are just the biggest deployments; thousands of other service personnel are based in scores of other countries. All told, America has nearly a thousand American military bases around the world, which the author Chalmbers Johnson refers to it as America's "empire of bases."

The expense of maintaining this "empire of bases" is truly astounding. A vast fleet of enormous transport aircraft provides the logistical blood of these bases. The cost of construction and maintaining these bases is huge, and all the more upsetting because the construction contracts usually go to politically well-connected corporations. The upkeep of these bases by itself costs American taxpayers roughly $100 billion a year, about one-eighth of the entire military budget of the country.

Many of these overseas bases are small American worlds unto themselves, with multiple bus lines for transportation and the whole array of American fast food restaurants. Recreational facilities, including everything from movie theaters to golf courses to health spas, are part of many of these establishments. A huge American school system exists within these overseas bases to provide education for the children of servicemen. This is all far from free, and one can ask whether the golf courses are really necessary.

The existence of these bases contributes to the rise of anti-Americanism around the world. With so many servicemen deployed overseas, it's inevitable that some will commit crimes, which discredit the entire American military in the eyes of the locals. In the last fifteen years, for example, assaults and rapes by Americans stationed on Okinawa has generated enormous anger towards America on the part of the Japanese people. The fact that the Americans involved in such incidents are often not tried by the justice system of the host country, but by the system of American military justice, only adds fuel to the controversies. American national security is not enhanced by engaging in actions which turn people into enemies of the United States.

The overseas American military presence also contributes to unnecessary tensions between the United States and other countries, disstabilizing the overall global situation. The present Chinese military buildup is spreading alarm among many armchair strategists in America, but few point out the obvious fact that it is taking place mostly because of the powerful American military presence throughout East Asia. Russia is attempting to rebuild its former military power, but one wonders if it would be so determined to do so if the American military presence in Europe vanished. And so long as America continues to maintain a military presence in the Middle East, the struggle between the United States and radical Islamists will continue to fester.

The powers-that-be in the United States would like their constituents to believe that the "empire of bases" is necessary to maintain American security. In truth, by stoking tensions with other nations and contributing to anti-Americanism among foreign peoples, its overseas bases almost certainly put the United States at greater risk. And it must be remembered that these bases signficantly contribute the the country's national debt, which is a far greater threat to America, and the world as a whole, than any possible foreign enemy.

America is supposed to be a republic, not an empire. Its "empire of bases" not only degrades its security and contributes to its debt, but represents a disgraceful betrayal of its Jeffersonian ideals. The United States should begin an immediate reduction of its overseas military presence, with a view of its eventual elimination.

Reports of Mistreatment of North Korean Football Team

The World Cup is, in a certain sense, what being a Global Citizen is all about. Every four years, the entire planet comes together in a spirit of sportsmanship, friendly competition, and celebration as some of the finest athletes in the world play "the beautiful game" to the delight of hundreds of millions of fans who breathlessly follow every match.

How infuriating, therefore, to read the reports that the North Korean football has suffered mistreatment at the hands of its government for their lack of success at the tournament.

The North Korean team was probably the biggest underdog of the 2010 World Cup, especially as they were drawn into a so-called "group of death" against Brazil, Portugal, and Cote D'Ivoire. Nevertheless, although North Korea was roundly defeated by Portugal and Cote D'Ivoire, they played very well against Brazil, losing only by a single point against a side widely considered the best in the world. The North Korean players could have left the tournament with their heads held high.

This was apparently not good enough for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. According to the BBC, the players were publicly humiliated for six hours and then ordered to insult their coach, who has reportedly been sentenced to hard labor. This is not the way for a civilized nation to behave. But then, so long as Kim Jong Il remains at its head, North Korea cannot be included among the ranks of civilized nations.

Quite properly, FIFA has launched an investigation into the accusations. Under FIFA rules, governments are forbidden from interfering with their national football team. If the accusations are true, North Korea could be banned from participating in international football. However, considering the extreme isolationaism of North Korea, it is open to question whether the investigation will be able to find out much.

Until such time as North Korea allows a full FIFA investigation of the charges, and until such time as the North Korean government allows its international football team to operate without interference, it should be banned from further participation in international football.

Will Senate Republicans Vote to Ratify the New START Agreement?

When the United States Senate comes back from its summer recess, the most important item on their agenda before the mid-term elections in early November will be the ratification of the New START nuclear reductions agreement with Russia. Because the ratification of a treaty requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, it will be impossible for the Obama Administration to get this treaty approved without considerable Republican support.

New START would reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads in both the Russian and American arsenals from 2,200 to 1,550, a decrease of roughly 30%. It would also institute a rigorous system of inspection and verification to reassure each side that the other is living up to its responsibilities under the treaty. It is a very important step on the road to eventual nuclear disarmament, especially as it will set the stage for further talks between Russia and America in the future.

Although the treay is supported by innumerable Republican figures in the diplomatic and military establishment, including such luminaries as Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, there has been chatter that Senate Republicans will seek to defeat the treaty in order to deny President Obama a high profle victory in the weeks leading up to the mid-term elections. It would be a great disgrace if Senate Republicans put partisan politics ahead of the need to safeguard the American people, and the world as a whole, from the nuclear threat.

But the tide may be shiting. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has come out strongly in favor of the treaty, and Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) has also hitned that he will vote for ratification. Even those Republican senators who have raised concerns about the treaty, including Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Kyl of Arizona, have suggested that they may vote to ratify if certain concerns of theirs are properly addressed by the President.

According to this NPR story, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is confident of getting significant Republican backing to ratify the treaty, so perhaps we are beginning to see a shift on the Republican side on the aisle towards ratification. If so, it would not only be a considerable victory in the fight for nuclear disamament, but a refreshing case of bipartisanship in what may b the most highly-charged American political environment in recent times.

India Missing an Opportunity for Peace

The news coming out of Pakistan continues to get worse. The most devastating floods in the nation's history have already killed at least 1,600 people, forced millions of people to flee their homes, and wrecked large tracts of the country. The number of deaths is almost certain to climb, and unless urgent measures are taken, an outbreak of disease will remain a disturbing probability.

The international community, lead by the United Nations, is trying to provide whatever help it can. Aid groups are already hard at work, and the U.N. and Western nations are trying to raise the necessary funds to mount a sustained recovery effort. This is not only demanded of us by our basic human values, but is necessary for strategic reasons, as a total breakdown in government authority in northwest Pakistan would allow the Taliban and its allies an opportunity to recover from the military offensives that have targeted them in recent years.

However, one nation that seems conspicuously absent from the list of those trying to help Pakistan is its neighbor to the east: India. Aside from a letter of condolence, India has not sent any funds or emergency assistance of any kind.

India and Pakistan, of course, have been enemies since they both gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947. Their rivalry over the disputed territory of Kashmir and India's repeated protests over covert Pakistani support for terrorists that target India have kept their relationship extremely tense down to the present day.

The enmity between India and Pakistan is a cause for grave concern throughout the world, for this is no ordinary international dispute. Both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, and it is on the Indian Subcontinent that a nuclear war is most likely to break out.

Considering the wrongs India has suffered at the hands of Pakistan, including the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008, it is perhaps understandable that they are not eager to help their afflicted neighbor to the west. But if they were to do so, they would be making a powerful statement on behalf of peace. They would also, in a sense, be the bigger man.

In the late 1990s, Greece and Turkey were still enemies, and often seemed on the verge of armed conflict over territorial disputes in the eastern Aegean Sea. But that year, Turkey was struck by a devastating earthquake that killed thousands of people. Greece immediately dispatched rescue teams, supplies, and other forms of help, which was greatly appreciated by the Turks. Indeed, when Greece was struck by an earthquake itself later that same year (albeit less devastating than that which had struck Turkey), the Turks immdiately reciporcated by sending help to the Greeks. These demonstrations of basic humanity between two ostensible enemies set the stage for a surprising improvement in relations between the two nations over the next decade.

India has an opportunity to follow the Greek and Turkish example. If it were to dispatch assistance to Pakistan and help raise funds to assist those unfortunate Pakistani civilians who have been affected by this natural disaster, it could be a useful step in improving relations between the two sides. And that is something all Global Citizens could get behind.