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.
No comments:
Post a Comment