New START Is Done. Now What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Green Party's Positive Vision of United Nations Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering Carl Sagan: 1934-1996

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New START Being Debated in the Senate

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

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

Europa Jupiter System Mission Deserving Of Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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