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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, November 19, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 15, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 8, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)