As far as popular opinion around the world is concerned, the Secretary General of the United Nations is the leader of the organization. Whenever a massive natural disaster strikes or negotiations are being held to terminate a military conflict, you can always count on seeing the Secretary General hovering about somewhere. But in truth, the role of the Secretary General is largely symbolic and his duties are primarily administrative. The real power in the United Nations lies in the hands of the Security Council. At best, the Secretary General is the CEO of the U.N., with the Security Council playing the role of an unusually active and engaged Board of Directors.
The Secretary General is nominated by the Security Council, whose selection is then approved or rejected by the General Assembly. While there are no official requirements specified in the Charter, tradition dictates that the Secretary-General not be a national of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council and, for some reason, that the Secretary-General speak French as well as English. Every permanent member of the Security Council thus has a veto over the choice of the Secretary-General, which makes for some hefty horse trading among the great powers. The General Assembly has generally gone along with whomever the Security Council has decided upon.
Because the Great Powers that make up the permanent membership of the Security Council benefit greatly from maintaining the status quo, they have always chosen Secretaries-General who are unlikely to rock the boat. The only exception to this rule was Dag Hammarskjold (1953-1961), whose forceful and effective leadership came as an unwelcome surprise to the Security Council. For the most part, the Secretaries-General pretty much fit the mold of a joke told about Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar: they couldn't make a splash if they fell out of a canoe.
The current system of selection the U.N. Secretary-General is ridiculous. The person who eventually ascends to the top slot is simply the product of negotiations between the permanent members of the Security-Council, who are always striving to find the candidate least likely to shake things up. If the United Nations is ever to live up to its full potential, it must have more dynamic and charismatic leadership at the top. Equally, the Secretary-General has to be able to credibly claim to be a representative of the entire world, rather than just the powers-that-be in the world's most powerful nations.
There is an elegant solution to this problem. In the past, we have discussed on this blog the urgent need for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, whose delegates will be directly elected by the people of their nations rather than chosen by the governments. If we truly want to see the leadership of the United Nations be chosen by the people it is supposed to represent, there can be no better way to select the Secretary-General than by having the UNPA make the decision.
In practice, it would probably work in roughly the same manner as the selection of a prime minister the parliamentary Westminster system, which is used by legislative bodies all over the world (the greatest legacy of the British Empire, except perhaps for association football). If a single party controls a majority of the seats in the parliament, their leader becomes the prime minister. If no single party holds a majority, coalitions among two or more parties may be crafted, and the prime minister will be chosen through negotiations among the parties making up the coalition. Something similar might emerge as the manner in which the UNPA selects the Secretary-General, if it is decided that this should be the UNPA's job.
Under the Westminster system, a party or coalition must have a majority in order to form the government. But the UNPA will be a special case, because organized world-spanning political parties are practically nonexistent. The Global Greens and the Socialist International might qualify, but they are more akin to loosely-affiliated associations than genuine political organizations. While this would seem to be a recipe for complete confusion, it actually will create an enormous opportunity to advance the Global Civic vision.
Take, for example, the two major political parties of the United States, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. From the perspective of public policy, the Republican Party has more in common with the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, the Grand National Party of South Korea, and (its name notwithstanding) the Liberal Party of Australia than it does with the Democratic Party. The Democrats, in turn, have more in common with the Liberal Democrats of the United Kingdom, the Socialist Party of France and Indian National Congress than it does with the Republicans.
In trying to influence the decision as to who the next Secretary-General should be, as the Republicans and Democrats more likely to enter into a coalition with one another, or with political parties from other countries whose policy platforms more closely align with theirs? In the beginning, geographic politics may be the deciding factor (Western nations teaming up to nominate a Westerner, African nations and African, and so on). But as time passes and increasingly policy-driven matters are dealt with by the UNPA, we will almost certainly see the rise of global political organizations pursuing common aims within the assembly. This, in turn, would powerfully strengthen the Global Civic outlook.
Just as important, having the Secretary-General chosen by election from the UNPA would help ensure that the top leadership at the U.N. would be more dynamic and energetic than has been the case up this point. The U.N. has bureaucrats aplenty within the Secretariat. What it needs in its Secretary-General is a popular figure with charisma, who will also be able to stand up when necessary to the great powers on the Security Council. A political leader skillful enough to navigate the coalition-building and electioneering necessary to emerge triumphant from a leadership contest within the UNPA would have an excellent chance of fitting the bill.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
District of Columbia Deserves Representation in the United States Congress
The ideas about democracy and equality which today inspire Global Citizens the world over were largely born in the fire of the American Revolution, a conflict which was sparked by a belief among the American colonists that the British had no right to tax them directly, as they themselves were not represented in the British Parliament. Strangely, however, the capital of the republic created by that very Revolution today suffers the very fate that their ancestors fought so long and hard against.
The District of Columbia has a population of nearly 600,000. This is more people than the state of Wyoming. Although the citizens of the District have the right to cast their votes in Presidential elections, thanks to the 23rd Amendment, they are still denied any meaningful representation in Congress. The District has a single non-voting member in the House of Representatives and no representation at all in the Senate. Despite this lack of congressional representation, the citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to the federal income tax and all other federal taxes just as if they were citizens of New York or Texas. This truly is a case of taxation without representation.
This shameful situation must be properly remedied by providing the citizens of the District with full representation in the United States Congress.
Some have called for this situation to be solved through the simple expedient of making the District of Columbia a state in its own right. Another possible solution is to simply give the district back to Maryland and toss the 600,000 D.C. residents into the political mix of that state. However, either of these two proposals face a particular problem: they would give a state control over the territory housing the federal government. James Madison pointed out in Federalist #43 that "a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." In other words, having the seat of federal government within the confines of a particular state could give that state disproportionate influence over the federal government.
Madison probably wrote this with a particular incident in mind. In late 1783, Congress had been threatened by mutinous soldiers demanding back pay. The Governor of Pennsylvania, in sympathy with the soldiers, had refused to provide adequate protection for Congress, thus forcing them to flee to Annapolis. The lesson had been learned: the seat of the national government had to be under the direct control of the national government, because they could not always depend on the government of a state.
A better option than making D.C. a state or giving it back to Maryland would be to pass legislation that simply states that the District of Columbia should, for the purposes of elections to the House of Representatives, be considered a state. This is the intention behind a bill currently making its way through Congress (giving an extra seat to heavily-Republican Utah to ensure the party balance remains unaffected), but its ultimate fate is uncertain. A report from the Congressional Research Service indicates that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant voting power to the District. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states clearly that only states can send representatives to the House. D.C. is not a state, and therefore the law is unconstitutional.
It seems that giving D.C. representation in Congress would require a constitutional amendment. This was done in 1961 to give D.C. the right to vote in presidential election, when the 23rd Amendment was enacted. Congress did, in act, pass an amendment to give D.C. congressional representation in 1978, but it was not passed by enough state legislatures to become law. We need to do it again, and this time do it right.
Whether D.C. representation in the Senate should be included in this proposal is up for debate. However, given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting record of D.C. residents, any measure that included D.C. representation in the Senate would have a difficult time becoming law, as the Republican party would block any such proposal with all the means at their disposal. It's better to push for legislation that gives you half of what you want and has a chance of actually passing then going to wall for legislation that gives you everything you want and has no chance of passing.
If enacted, this amendment would remove a small stain on the American governmental system that has been ignored for too long.
The District of Columbia has a population of nearly 600,000. This is more people than the state of Wyoming. Although the citizens of the District have the right to cast their votes in Presidential elections, thanks to the 23rd Amendment, they are still denied any meaningful representation in Congress. The District has a single non-voting member in the House of Representatives and no representation at all in the Senate. Despite this lack of congressional representation, the citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to the federal income tax and all other federal taxes just as if they were citizens of New York or Texas. This truly is a case of taxation without representation.
This shameful situation must be properly remedied by providing the citizens of the District with full representation in the United States Congress.
Some have called for this situation to be solved through the simple expedient of making the District of Columbia a state in its own right. Another possible solution is to simply give the district back to Maryland and toss the 600,000 D.C. residents into the political mix of that state. However, either of these two proposals face a particular problem: they would give a state control over the territory housing the federal government. James Madison pointed out in Federalist #43 that "a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." In other words, having the seat of federal government within the confines of a particular state could give that state disproportionate influence over the federal government.
Madison probably wrote this with a particular incident in mind. In late 1783, Congress had been threatened by mutinous soldiers demanding back pay. The Governor of Pennsylvania, in sympathy with the soldiers, had refused to provide adequate protection for Congress, thus forcing them to flee to Annapolis. The lesson had been learned: the seat of the national government had to be under the direct control of the national government, because they could not always depend on the government of a state.
A better option than making D.C. a state or giving it back to Maryland would be to pass legislation that simply states that the District of Columbia should, for the purposes of elections to the House of Representatives, be considered a state. This is the intention behind a bill currently making its way through Congress (giving an extra seat to heavily-Republican Utah to ensure the party balance remains unaffected), but its ultimate fate is uncertain. A report from the Congressional Research Service indicates that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant voting power to the District. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states clearly that only states can send representatives to the House. D.C. is not a state, and therefore the law is unconstitutional.
It seems that giving D.C. representation in Congress would require a constitutional amendment. This was done in 1961 to give D.C. the right to vote in presidential election, when the 23rd Amendment was enacted. Congress did, in act, pass an amendment to give D.C. congressional representation in 1978, but it was not passed by enough state legislatures to become law. We need to do it again, and this time do it right.
Whether D.C. representation in the Senate should be included in this proposal is up for debate. However, given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting record of D.C. residents, any measure that included D.C. representation in the Senate would have a difficult time becoming law, as the Republican party would block any such proposal with all the means at their disposal. It's better to push for legislation that gives you half of what you want and has a chance of actually passing then going to wall for legislation that gives you everything you want and has no chance of passing.
If enacted, this amendment would remove a small stain on the American governmental system that has been ignored for too long.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Who Are the Enemies of the Global Citizens?
Global Citizens envision a world of vibrant nations, united by global institutions, working together to solve common problems and to preserve the peace of the world. A century from now, if the perspective of Global Citizens prevails, war shall no longer be a scourge on humanity, disease and poverty will be but unpleasant memories, and the true potential for our species can finally be unleashed.
It's a beautiful vision. Unfortunately, it has enemies. The story of the 21st Century is likely to the struggle between the Global Citizens and those who will stop at nothing to see their vision of the world defeated.
Who are the enemies of the Global Citizens? Let's look at a few of them.
1. The Dictators. There are dozens of nations around the world that are ruled with an iron fist by individuals or small groups who have set themselves up as autocratic tyrants. Most of the Arab world, Central Asia, and much of Africa remain under the thumb of the Dictators, who ruthlessly exploit the human and material resources of their nations for their own self-aggrandisement. Generally speaking, the Dictators grow rich while their people starve.
The Dictators fear the Global Citizen vision, which upholds the idea of maximum freedom for all the people of the world. Concerned only with power, the Dictators will do anything necessary to maintain their positions, and deny their people basic freedoms and human rights as a matter of course. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of waging genocide against his own people in Darfur. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (a recipient of American military aid) has been known to execute political dissidents by boiling them alive. In the case of all the dictators, ideas such as freedom of the press or fair elections are a pipe dream.
The Dictators, sad to say, have enablers in many democratic Western nations, include wealth corporations who seek business deals with them in order to gain economic access to valuable natural resources. Many Western governments also provide military aid to the Dictators to further short-sighted strategic aims.
2. Radical Islamists. Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers remain, even nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, a potent enemy of Global Citizens. Their radical and medieval interpretation of Islam, a perversion of that great religion, makes them ferocious enemies to modernity. Democracy, human rights, and religious toleration are subjects worthy of derision to them, and they have nothing but contempt for the values of Global Citizens.
The problem with the Radical Islamists is that they cannot be deterred, since it is only possible to deter a person who fears his own death. Nor can they be defeated in a military sense, any more than organized crime can be. Their funds must be cut off and their leaders killed or apprehended, but in the long run, they can only be defeated in a war of ideas.
3. American Neoconservatives. This sinister segment of the American foreign policy establishment emerged during the 1970s and reached the peak of its power during the Bush Administration. Although sidelines by the election of President Obama in 2008 and discredited by the disaster in Iraq, they still retain substantial influence in Republican circles in the United States, and they are far from finished.
The most prominent names are familiar to anyone who follows the foreign policy of the United States: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, and many others. The movement claims to be the defender of the world's democracies, but what it really seeks (as is apparent from studying its own writings) is American hegemony over the globe. This was a concept that would have been firmly rejected by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who envisioned their creation as a republic, rather than an empire.
The American Neoconservatives disdain the United Nations and have constantly sought to undermine global institutions like the International Criminal Court. They tend to ignore the existence of the European Union, as if anything even hinting at supranationalsm is offensive to them. Motivated by a strange combination of free and a lust for power, they pursue an American foreign policy based on military strength and a rejection of internationalism.
4. The Nationalists. I'm not referring here to people like the Scottish National Party or Bloc Québécois, who are perfectly capable of being Global Citizens, but to those people in Russia, China, and some other countries who still want to play the Great Power game. Whether we're talking about China establishing a military presence in the Indian Ocean and aiming missiles at Taiwan or Russian forces invading the independent nation of Georgia and threatening Ukraine in disputes over natural gas, these Nationalists act as though the world today is pretty much the same as it was in the middle of the 19th Century.
Russian and Chinese Nationalists play a dangerous game. In the Nuclear Age, major powers can no longer operate in the same manner that they did before 1945, because the rules changed the moment the first nuclear weapon was detonated. It will only be through collective security, provided by strong global institutions, that the nations of the Earth will avoid a self-inflicted nuclear disaster, which is otherwise inevitable.
These groups entirely reject the perspective of Global Citizens, looking to their own interests and either unable or unwilling to see the human race as a collective whole. When the story of the 21st Century is written, we can only hope that the historians are able to write about their complete defeat, after which humanity could begin to move into what Winston Churchill called the "broad, sunlit uplands."
It's a beautiful vision. Unfortunately, it has enemies. The story of the 21st Century is likely to the struggle between the Global Citizens and those who will stop at nothing to see their vision of the world defeated.
Who are the enemies of the Global Citizens? Let's look at a few of them.
1. The Dictators. There are dozens of nations around the world that are ruled with an iron fist by individuals or small groups who have set themselves up as autocratic tyrants. Most of the Arab world, Central Asia, and much of Africa remain under the thumb of the Dictators, who ruthlessly exploit the human and material resources of their nations for their own self-aggrandisement. Generally speaking, the Dictators grow rich while their people starve.
The Dictators fear the Global Citizen vision, which upholds the idea of maximum freedom for all the people of the world. Concerned only with power, the Dictators will do anything necessary to maintain their positions, and deny their people basic freedoms and human rights as a matter of course. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of waging genocide against his own people in Darfur. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (a recipient of American military aid) has been known to execute political dissidents by boiling them alive. In the case of all the dictators, ideas such as freedom of the press or fair elections are a pipe dream.
The Dictators, sad to say, have enablers in many democratic Western nations, include wealth corporations who seek business deals with them in order to gain economic access to valuable natural resources. Many Western governments also provide military aid to the Dictators to further short-sighted strategic aims.
2. Radical Islamists. Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers remain, even nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, a potent enemy of Global Citizens. Their radical and medieval interpretation of Islam, a perversion of that great religion, makes them ferocious enemies to modernity. Democracy, human rights, and religious toleration are subjects worthy of derision to them, and they have nothing but contempt for the values of Global Citizens.
The problem with the Radical Islamists is that they cannot be deterred, since it is only possible to deter a person who fears his own death. Nor can they be defeated in a military sense, any more than organized crime can be. Their funds must be cut off and their leaders killed or apprehended, but in the long run, they can only be defeated in a war of ideas.
3. American Neoconservatives. This sinister segment of the American foreign policy establishment emerged during the 1970s and reached the peak of its power during the Bush Administration. Although sidelines by the election of President Obama in 2008 and discredited by the disaster in Iraq, they still retain substantial influence in Republican circles in the United States, and they are far from finished.
The most prominent names are familiar to anyone who follows the foreign policy of the United States: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, and many others. The movement claims to be the defender of the world's democracies, but what it really seeks (as is apparent from studying its own writings) is American hegemony over the globe. This was a concept that would have been firmly rejected by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who envisioned their creation as a republic, rather than an empire.
The American Neoconservatives disdain the United Nations and have constantly sought to undermine global institutions like the International Criminal Court. They tend to ignore the existence of the European Union, as if anything even hinting at supranationalsm is offensive to them. Motivated by a strange combination of free and a lust for power, they pursue an American foreign policy based on military strength and a rejection of internationalism.
4. The Nationalists. I'm not referring here to people like the Scottish National Party or Bloc Québécois, who are perfectly capable of being Global Citizens, but to those people in Russia, China, and some other countries who still want to play the Great Power game. Whether we're talking about China establishing a military presence in the Indian Ocean and aiming missiles at Taiwan or Russian forces invading the independent nation of Georgia and threatening Ukraine in disputes over natural gas, these Nationalists act as though the world today is pretty much the same as it was in the middle of the 19th Century.
Russian and Chinese Nationalists play a dangerous game. In the Nuclear Age, major powers can no longer operate in the same manner that they did before 1945, because the rules changed the moment the first nuclear weapon was detonated. It will only be through collective security, provided by strong global institutions, that the nations of the Earth will avoid a self-inflicted nuclear disaster, which is otherwise inevitable.
These groups entirely reject the perspective of Global Citizens, looking to their own interests and either unable or unwilling to see the human race as a collective whole. When the story of the 21st Century is written, we can only hope that the historians are able to write about their complete defeat, after which humanity could begin to move into what Winston Churchill called the "broad, sunlit uplands."
Monday, February 7, 2011
Author Recommendation: Michael Pollan
One of the greatest concerns for Global Citizens should be the fact that the vast majority of our food supply has been taken over by multinational corporations and that citizens who grow their own food are about as common as dogs that can talk. Not only that, but our food is now so overly-processed and loaded with chemicals that our people from the 18th Century would probably not recognize 95% of what is on sale in the average grocery as even being food.
Indeed, what passes for food in most of the West (especially America) in the early 21st Century is not really food at all, but chemically-infused high fructose corn syrup spoon fed to us by agribusiness corporations. This so-called "food" is making us sick, making us fat, and making us dependent upon their model of industrialized food production. It is destructive of the environment and degrading to our sense of human dignity.
More than anyone else, the American author Michael Pollan has been putting these issues front and center in recent years. In his outstanding books, particularly In Defense of Food and An Omnivore's Dilemma, he has done a great public service in raising awareness about the need for all of us to reassess our relationship with what we eat and question whether or not it makes sense for us to continue eating whatever it is the multinational corporations continue to serve up for us. All Global Citizens should read these books and become that much more enlightened.
Below is the video of a talk that Michael Pollan gave for the Authors-At-Google lecture series.
Indeed, what passes for food in most of the West (especially America) in the early 21st Century is not really food at all, but chemically-infused high fructose corn syrup spoon fed to us by agribusiness corporations. This so-called "food" is making us sick, making us fat, and making us dependent upon their model of industrialized food production. It is destructive of the environment and degrading to our sense of human dignity.
More than anyone else, the American author Michael Pollan has been putting these issues front and center in recent years. In his outstanding books, particularly In Defense of Food and An Omnivore's Dilemma, he has done a great public service in raising awareness about the need for all of us to reassess our relationship with what we eat and question whether or not it makes sense for us to continue eating whatever it is the multinational corporations continue to serve up for us. All Global Citizens should read these books and become that much more enlightened.
Below is the video of a talk that Michael Pollan gave for the Authors-At-Google lecture series.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Experiment a Triumph of International Cooperation
If all goes as planned, the American space shuttle Endeavour will lift off within the next few months in what will possibly be the final flight of the space shuttle program. Fittingly, this last mission will carry one of the most important scientific experiments in the history of the space program: the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS).
Except for the Large Hadron Collider, the AMS is probably the greatest physics experiment in human history. After being flown into orbit by Endeavour and attached to the International Space Station, it will spend years gathering data on cosmic rays, antimatter, and the mysterious "dark matter" which makes up the majority of mass in the universe and about which we know next to nothing. The AMS will help answer fundamental questions about theoretical physics, and will hopefully shed light on the nature of dark matter and what happened to the primordial antimatter which, according to our current theoretical models, should have been created at the moment of the Big Bang.
The AMS is not only an amazing scientific experiment that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and its origin, but it also represents a great achievement in international cooperation. Scientists from sixteen different nations worked together to devise and construct the experiment: China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Such international cooperation is a testament to the way in which the scientific enterprise can unite the human family. It is especially nice to see scientists from China and Taiwan, so often divided by politics, working together on such a glorious project. The overall head of the project is Chinese-American physicist Dr. Samuel Ting, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The project has been in the works since 1995, and has cost well over a billion dollars. But for a time after the 2003 Columbia disaster, it appeared for a time as though all the money and effort had been in vain, as NASA decided against flying an "unnecessary" shuttle mission to transport the AMS to the International Space Station (ISS). Luckily, in a rare example of politicians placing a proper value on scientific enterprises, wiser heads prevailed in Congress and NASA was directed to send the AMS to the ISS.
Both the Space Shuttle Program and the ISS have been expensive distractions from what should be the process course of long-term human space exploration. The shuttle program, lest we forget, has also cost the lives of fourteen brave men and women. But by making the AMS experiment possible, and therefore helping to advance the collective knowledge of humanity, both programs go a significant way towards redeeming themselves.
The AMS represents much of what is good in the human spirit, and is a project in the best traditions of Global Citizenship. Is it not better for us to use our intellectual powers and financial resources to solve fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it, rather than turning them towards developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons? Is it not better for our most brilliant scientific minds to work together on collective scientific enterprises, rather than devising means to destroy one another's countries?
Best wishes to the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavour as they embark on their final mission, and to the men and women behind the AMS experiment as they strive to advance the knowledge of humanity.
Except for the Large Hadron Collider, the AMS is probably the greatest physics experiment in human history. After being flown into orbit by Endeavour and attached to the International Space Station, it will spend years gathering data on cosmic rays, antimatter, and the mysterious "dark matter" which makes up the majority of mass in the universe and about which we know next to nothing. The AMS will help answer fundamental questions about theoretical physics, and will hopefully shed light on the nature of dark matter and what happened to the primordial antimatter which, according to our current theoretical models, should have been created at the moment of the Big Bang.
The AMS is not only an amazing scientific experiment that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and its origin, but it also represents a great achievement in international cooperation. Scientists from sixteen different nations worked together to devise and construct the experiment: China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Such international cooperation is a testament to the way in which the scientific enterprise can unite the human family. It is especially nice to see scientists from China and Taiwan, so often divided by politics, working together on such a glorious project. The overall head of the project is Chinese-American physicist Dr. Samuel Ting, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The project has been in the works since 1995, and has cost well over a billion dollars. But for a time after the 2003 Columbia disaster, it appeared for a time as though all the money and effort had been in vain, as NASA decided against flying an "unnecessary" shuttle mission to transport the AMS to the International Space Station (ISS). Luckily, in a rare example of politicians placing a proper value on scientific enterprises, wiser heads prevailed in Congress and NASA was directed to send the AMS to the ISS.
Both the Space Shuttle Program and the ISS have been expensive distractions from what should be the process course of long-term human space exploration. The shuttle program, lest we forget, has also cost the lives of fourteen brave men and women. But by making the AMS experiment possible, and therefore helping to advance the collective knowledge of humanity, both programs go a significant way towards redeeming themselves.
The AMS represents much of what is good in the human spirit, and is a project in the best traditions of Global Citizenship. Is it not better for us to use our intellectual powers and financial resources to solve fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it, rather than turning them towards developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons? Is it not better for our most brilliant scientific minds to work together on collective scientific enterprises, rather than devising means to destroy one another's countries?
Best wishes to the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavour as they embark on their final mission, and to the men and women behind the AMS experiment as they strive to advance the knowledge of humanity.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What Electoral System Should Be Used For a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly?
We have previously discussed the need for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), a new body of delegates at the U.N. whose members will be directly elected by the people rather than selected by the governments, with the numbers allocated to each nation decided by the Schwartzberg system of weighted voting, so that the undemocratic "one-state-one-vote" paradox will be avoided, but the largest nations will be unable to completely dominate the proceedings. The creation of such an assembly would go far in eliminating the "democratic deficit" at the U.N. and vastly improve the ability of the world to establish the rule of international law. Consequently, it should be a major priority of Global Citizens in all countries.
But assuming that the UNPA becomes a reality, what sort of election system should be used to select its delegates? Presumably, each nation will decide this matter for itself, but all should carefully consider the question. After all, the creation of the UNPA would present an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with voting systems that have been developed in the last few decades in order to maximize the level of genuine democracy. It would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass by.
Let's look at a few of the possibilities.
1. First-Past-The-Post. This system (known as Winner-Take-All in the United States) is the most simple voting system imaginable, and the one currently in use for congressional and state legislative elections in the United States and to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. If this system was adopted, each country would be divided up into constituency districts, each of which would elect a single candidate, the winner being whichever candidate gets the most votes. While simply, it is also profoundly undemocratic. If there are more than two candidates, the winner can be a person who did not have an actual majority of the vote, and all the constituents who voted for a different candidate are denied meaningful representation.
There are other problems with FPTP. Voters may decide against voting for the candidate or party they truly support, in order to "tactically" vote in a way calculated to defeat a particularly distasteful candidate. Furthermore, the presence of "spoiler" candidates who represent a tiny portion of the electorate can deny victory to the candidate who actually represents the genuine interest of the constituency.
While simple, FPTP is simply too undemocratic and has too many problems. It should be firmly rejected for UNPA elections.
2. Alternative Voting. This system (known in the United States as Instant-Runoff-Voting) is considerably better than FPTP. In AV elections, voters rank the candidates by preference rather than casting a single voter for a single individual. Over a series of ballots, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated each round, with the secondary votes for that candidate going to the other candidates, until a candidate obtains a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.
This system, which is already being used successfully in Australia, largely eliminates the problems of tactical voting and spoiler candidates. However, it still leaves the constituency with the conundrum of a single candidate being selected, against whom many of the people will have voted. So, while superior to FPTP, it is still imperfect. Nevertheless, for those nations which will be sending a single delegate to the UNPA, it is probably the best option available.
3. Single Transferable Vote. This system is similar to AV in that voters rank their candidates by preference rather than casting a single vote for a single individual, but it differs in that constituency districts elect more than one delegate, thus adding an element of proportional representation into the picture. Rather than a single candidate winning after receiving a majority vote on a ballot, multiple candidates are elected after receiving a sufficient number of votes (i.e. if a district elects four people, a candidate is elected upon receiving 25% of the votes).
This has all the advantages of AV, with the added benefit of electing a slate of representatives who better represent the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of the district. It should be strongly considered for elections to the UNPA. Nations with ten or fewer delegates might consider treating the entire nation as a single STV district, while larger countries that will be sending dozens of delegates could divide the nation up into multiple STV districts.
Obtaining a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is going to be a tremendously difficult struggle. Should Global Citizens achieve this objctive, they must ensure that elections to the UNPA are as democratic and representative as possible, and the choice of what form of electoral system to use will be crucial.
Clearly, FPTP systems should be rejected because they are undemocratic. Thse nations which will send only one delegate should use an AV system, which is the most democratic system possible for elections choosing a single person. Nations sending between two and ten delegates should use STV systems that treat the entire country as a single constituency, while nations sending more than ten should divide their nation up into different constituencies that select delegates by STV.
If this is done, we not only will have a UNPA, but we can make sure that it represents the human family in the most genuine and democratic manner possible.
But assuming that the UNPA becomes a reality, what sort of election system should be used to select its delegates? Presumably, each nation will decide this matter for itself, but all should carefully consider the question. After all, the creation of the UNPA would present an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with voting systems that have been developed in the last few decades in order to maximize the level of genuine democracy. It would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass by.
Let's look at a few of the possibilities.
1. First-Past-The-Post. This system (known as Winner-Take-All in the United States) is the most simple voting system imaginable, and the one currently in use for congressional and state legislative elections in the United States and to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. If this system was adopted, each country would be divided up into constituency districts, each of which would elect a single candidate, the winner being whichever candidate gets the most votes. While simply, it is also profoundly undemocratic. If there are more than two candidates, the winner can be a person who did not have an actual majority of the vote, and all the constituents who voted for a different candidate are denied meaningful representation.
There are other problems with FPTP. Voters may decide against voting for the candidate or party they truly support, in order to "tactically" vote in a way calculated to defeat a particularly distasteful candidate. Furthermore, the presence of "spoiler" candidates who represent a tiny portion of the electorate can deny victory to the candidate who actually represents the genuine interest of the constituency.
While simple, FPTP is simply too undemocratic and has too many problems. It should be firmly rejected for UNPA elections.
2. Alternative Voting. This system (known in the United States as Instant-Runoff-Voting) is considerably better than FPTP. In AV elections, voters rank the candidates by preference rather than casting a single voter for a single individual. Over a series of ballots, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated each round, with the secondary votes for that candidate going to the other candidates, until a candidate obtains a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.
This system, which is already being used successfully in Australia, largely eliminates the problems of tactical voting and spoiler candidates. However, it still leaves the constituency with the conundrum of a single candidate being selected, against whom many of the people will have voted. So, while superior to FPTP, it is still imperfect. Nevertheless, for those nations which will be sending a single delegate to the UNPA, it is probably the best option available.
3. Single Transferable Vote. This system is similar to AV in that voters rank their candidates by preference rather than casting a single vote for a single individual, but it differs in that constituency districts elect more than one delegate, thus adding an element of proportional representation into the picture. Rather than a single candidate winning after receiving a majority vote on a ballot, multiple candidates are elected after receiving a sufficient number of votes (i.e. if a district elects four people, a candidate is elected upon receiving 25% of the votes).
This has all the advantages of AV, with the added benefit of electing a slate of representatives who better represent the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of the district. It should be strongly considered for elections to the UNPA. Nations with ten or fewer delegates might consider treating the entire nation as a single STV district, while larger countries that will be sending dozens of delegates could divide the nation up into multiple STV districts.
Obtaining a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is going to be a tremendously difficult struggle. Should Global Citizens achieve this objctive, they must ensure that elections to the UNPA are as democratic and representative as possible, and the choice of what form of electoral system to use will be crucial.
Clearly, FPTP systems should be rejected because they are undemocratic. Thse nations which will send only one delegate should use an AV system, which is the most democratic system possible for elections choosing a single person. Nations sending between two and ten delegates should use STV systems that treat the entire country as a single constituency, while nations sending more than ten should divide their nation up into different constituencies that select delegates by STV.
If this is done, we not only will have a UNPA, but we can make sure that it represents the human family in the most genuine and democratic manner possible.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Can Scottish and Welsh Nationalists Also Be Global Citizens?
On May 5, voters in Scotland and Wales will be going to the polls to vote for representatives to the devolved assembles, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. These elections are distinct from the general elections to the House of Commons, and usually represent the biggest electoral opportunities for the nationalist parties in both countries: the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales.
The SNP and Plaid have a lot in common. They both favor the independence of their respective nations from the United Kingdom, while also working within the present British political system to further their generally left-leaning policies. Both are heavily represented in their devolved assemblies (indeed, the SNP is currently the largest party in the Scottish Parliament) and also have representatives in the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
An interesting question is whether or not these Scottish and Welsh nationalists can simultaneously be Global Citizens, who generally see themselves as citizens of the world first and citizens of individual nations second. Since they want to break up the United Kingdom and reassert the independence of Scotland and Wales, is it possible for members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to also be Global Citizens?
The answer is not only yes, but it is a resounding yes. In fact, members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru often are Global Citizens par excellence. Internationalism is at the center of the policy platforms of both parties, which desire for their nations to be full participants in the United Nations and European Union. And their strong advocacy of environmentalism, their belief in nuclear disarmament, their opposition to war, and their general promotion of egalitarianism and democracy around the world place them firmly in the Global Citizen camp.
While Global Citizens indeed seek a world which sees itself as a single entity, they also believe firmly in the need to protect local and national cultural identities. This means protecting and promoting revitalizing traditional languages like Gaelic and Welsh, as well as working to preserve the unique cultural traditions of the various peoples of the world. The existence of political groups like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are a priceless asset in this struggle.
There are separatist organizations all over the world. Many, such as Bloc Québécois in Canada, are similar to the SNP and Plaid Cymru in that are legal political parties, operating within existing democratic systems and accepting the concept of popular sovereignty. Unfortunately there are other separatist groups, such as the Basque terrorist group known as the ETA, turn to extremism in misguided efforts to advance their aims through undemocratic and violent means. The former can be Global Citizens, while the latter cannot.
Global Citizens do not want to abolish nations, and not just because the World Cup would be much less interesting without them. Instead, we seek a global framework in which all the nations of the world pool their resources and work together to address common problems. After all, global problems can only have global solutions. Global Citizens can be strong national patriots, as the members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru clearly are, but they also hold to the developing global perspective which recognizes that we are all members of the same human family and we shall rise or fall together.
The SNP and Plaid have a lot in common. They both favor the independence of their respective nations from the United Kingdom, while also working within the present British political system to further their generally left-leaning policies. Both are heavily represented in their devolved assemblies (indeed, the SNP is currently the largest party in the Scottish Parliament) and also have representatives in the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
An interesting question is whether or not these Scottish and Welsh nationalists can simultaneously be Global Citizens, who generally see themselves as citizens of the world first and citizens of individual nations second. Since they want to break up the United Kingdom and reassert the independence of Scotland and Wales, is it possible for members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to also be Global Citizens?
The answer is not only yes, but it is a resounding yes. In fact, members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru often are Global Citizens par excellence. Internationalism is at the center of the policy platforms of both parties, which desire for their nations to be full participants in the United Nations and European Union. And their strong advocacy of environmentalism, their belief in nuclear disarmament, their opposition to war, and their general promotion of egalitarianism and democracy around the world place them firmly in the Global Citizen camp.
While Global Citizens indeed seek a world which sees itself as a single entity, they also believe firmly in the need to protect local and national cultural identities. This means protecting and promoting revitalizing traditional languages like Gaelic and Welsh, as well as working to preserve the unique cultural traditions of the various peoples of the world. The existence of political groups like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are a priceless asset in this struggle.
There are separatist organizations all over the world. Many, such as Bloc Québécois in Canada, are similar to the SNP and Plaid Cymru in that are legal political parties, operating within existing democratic systems and accepting the concept of popular sovereignty. Unfortunately there are other separatist groups, such as the Basque terrorist group known as the ETA, turn to extremism in misguided efforts to advance their aims through undemocratic and violent means. The former can be Global Citizens, while the latter cannot.
Global Citizens do not want to abolish nations, and not just because the World Cup would be much less interesting without them. Instead, we seek a global framework in which all the nations of the world pool their resources and work together to address common problems. After all, global problems can only have global solutions. Global Citizens can be strong national patriots, as the members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru clearly are, but they also hold to the developing global perspective which recognizes that we are all members of the same human family and we shall rise or fall together.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Violence Has No Place In Political Discourse
Two high-profile shootings on opposite sides of the planet have captured the news cycles of the world over the last week. On January 4, Salmaan Taseer, a Pakistani politician who served as the Governor of Punjab (the largest province in Pakistan) was ruthlessly gunned down by one of his own security guards. And on January 8, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head at point blank range at a constituency outreach event. Taseer was killed, while Giffords is still fighting for her life.
These two shootings may have taken place in very different countries, but both Governor Taseer and Congresswoman Giffords had one thing in common: they were voices for common sense and moderation in political landscapes that had become increasingly vitrolic and extreme. The death of Governor Taseer and the serious wounding of Congresswoman Giffords are both outrageous atrocities and strike at the heart of all peace-loving, rational human beings.
Governor Taseer was an outspoken opponent of the religious fundamentalists who have become increasingly powerful in Pakistan over the last several years. In particular, he publicly opposed the nation's cruel and absurd blasphemy law, by which Pakistani citizens might be fined, imprisoned, or even executed if they spoke out against Islam. By all accounts, it was Taseer's opposition to the blasphemy law that motivated his assassin to kill him.
The motives of the man who attempted to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords are not entirely clear at this point. He apparently left social network messages indicated a belief in conspiracy theories and expressing a general hatred of government, but it seems entirely possible that he was mentally unbalanced. Nevertheless, only a willfully deluded person would deny that the increasingly harsh and borderline violent rhetoric being spread by certain elements of the American conservative movement probably played a role in the man's actions.
Representative democracy combined with free and fair elections are at the heart of what it means to be a Global Citizen. Violence must never be allowed to replace rational political discourse. Rebellion against unlawful tyranny might be permissable under natural law if there is no other recourse, but not in times and places where one can vote freely for one's representatives in government.
If a revolution can be initiated at the ballot box, there is never any justification for taking up arms. None whatsoever. We must decisively reject all those who would turn to violence to further their own political or religious ideologies in a free society.
These two shootings may have taken place in very different countries, but both Governor Taseer and Congresswoman Giffords had one thing in common: they were voices for common sense and moderation in political landscapes that had become increasingly vitrolic and extreme. The death of Governor Taseer and the serious wounding of Congresswoman Giffords are both outrageous atrocities and strike at the heart of all peace-loving, rational human beings.
Governor Taseer was an outspoken opponent of the religious fundamentalists who have become increasingly powerful in Pakistan over the last several years. In particular, he publicly opposed the nation's cruel and absurd blasphemy law, by which Pakistani citizens might be fined, imprisoned, or even executed if they spoke out against Islam. By all accounts, it was Taseer's opposition to the blasphemy law that motivated his assassin to kill him.
The motives of the man who attempted to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords are not entirely clear at this point. He apparently left social network messages indicated a belief in conspiracy theories and expressing a general hatred of government, but it seems entirely possible that he was mentally unbalanced. Nevertheless, only a willfully deluded person would deny that the increasingly harsh and borderline violent rhetoric being spread by certain elements of the American conservative movement probably played a role in the man's actions.
Representative democracy combined with free and fair elections are at the heart of what it means to be a Global Citizen. Violence must never be allowed to replace rational political discourse. Rebellion against unlawful tyranny might be permissable under natural law if there is no other recourse, but not in times and places where one can vote freely for one's representatives in government.
If a revolution can be initiated at the ballot box, there is never any justification for taking up arms. None whatsoever. We must decisively reject all those who would turn to violence to further their own political or religious ideologies in a free society.
Monday, January 3, 2011
School of the Americas Must Be Closed Immediately
What would Thomas Jefferson have thought if he had been told that the United States would eventually establish a military academy to train agents of oppressive foreign governments in the most effective techniques of murder and torture, to be used against politically-active citizens who were only campaigning for their natural rights? The School of the Americas (renamed in 2001 as the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation", but still better known by its original name) is precisely such an institution. Its very existence is a national disgrace, and it should be closed down immediately.
Established in 1946, the School of the Americas has trained an estimated 60,000 members of the military and police forces of Latin American nations. In addition to basic military training, the academy provides instruction in specialized counter-insurgency tactics, interrogation techniques, and other such subjects. Whether intentionally or not, the School of the Americas has equipped the worst villains in Latin America with the knowledge to wage war on their own people, and it continues to do so.
A quick glance at some of the graduates of the School of the Americas should chill the blood of every decent American citizen. There is Efrain Montt, the military dictator who ruled Guatemala with an iron fist and conducted a campaign of genocide against the Mayan population of his country. There is Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran army officer and politician who tortured and killed thousands of his political opponents during the 1980s. There is Hugo Banzer, who was dictator of Bolivia in the 1970s; during his rule thousands of political enemies were tortured, killed, or simply vanished. In addition, many of the underlings of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet were trained at the School of the Americas.
Perhaps the clearest example of the evil that has come out of the School for the Americas is the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army, which was organized by men trained at the academy. This unit was primarily responsible for the El Mozote Massacre of 1981, in which nearly a thousand civilians were brutally killed. They also were involved in the infamous murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989, an event which sparked widespread public condemnation of the School of the Americas.
This facility trains brutal agents of undemocratic regimes in the tactics of murder and torture, yet it is run by the American military and is funded by the American taxpayer. Its very existence is an outrage and violates the Enlightenment values on which America was founded. The School of the Americas must be eradicated root and branch.
During the last session of Congress, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) introduced House Resolution 2567, which would abolish the School of the Americas and establish a commission to investigate human rights abuses committed at the institution. Over a hundred other House members signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. It is imperative that the pressure be kept up in order to ensure that this legislation is reintroduced in the new congressional session.
To answer the question asked by the opening paragraph, Jefferson would lament for his country had he seen the School of the Americas. In our time, however, action should take the place of lamentation. Global Citizens in the United States should not tolerate the existence of the School of the Americas, and should use every means at their disposal to ensure that this stain on the honor of the American republic is removed forever.
Established in 1946, the School of the Americas has trained an estimated 60,000 members of the military and police forces of Latin American nations. In addition to basic military training, the academy provides instruction in specialized counter-insurgency tactics, interrogation techniques, and other such subjects. Whether intentionally or not, the School of the Americas has equipped the worst villains in Latin America with the knowledge to wage war on their own people, and it continues to do so.
A quick glance at some of the graduates of the School of the Americas should chill the blood of every decent American citizen. There is Efrain Montt, the military dictator who ruled Guatemala with an iron fist and conducted a campaign of genocide against the Mayan population of his country. There is Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran army officer and politician who tortured and killed thousands of his political opponents during the 1980s. There is Hugo Banzer, who was dictator of Bolivia in the 1970s; during his rule thousands of political enemies were tortured, killed, or simply vanished. In addition, many of the underlings of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet were trained at the School of the Americas.
Perhaps the clearest example of the evil that has come out of the School for the Americas is the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army, which was organized by men trained at the academy. This unit was primarily responsible for the El Mozote Massacre of 1981, in which nearly a thousand civilians were brutally killed. They also were involved in the infamous murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989, an event which sparked widespread public condemnation of the School of the Americas.
This facility trains brutal agents of undemocratic regimes in the tactics of murder and torture, yet it is run by the American military and is funded by the American taxpayer. Its very existence is an outrage and violates the Enlightenment values on which America was founded. The School of the Americas must be eradicated root and branch.
During the last session of Congress, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) introduced House Resolution 2567, which would abolish the School of the Americas and establish a commission to investigate human rights abuses committed at the institution. Over a hundred other House members signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. It is imperative that the pressure be kept up in order to ensure that this legislation is reintroduced in the new congressional session.
To answer the question asked by the opening paragraph, Jefferson would lament for his country had he seen the School of the Americas. In our time, however, action should take the place of lamentation. Global Citizens in the United States should not tolerate the existence of the School of the Americas, and should use every means at their disposal to ensure that this stain on the honor of the American republic is removed forever.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 27, 2010
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:
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:
- Creating a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, in which representatives are directly elected by the people rather than appointed by the governments.
- Bringing the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank under the control of the General Assembly.
- Reforming the membership of the United Nations Security Council.
- Expand the mandate of the United Nations Environmental Program so that it has a supervisory role regarding global environmental treaties.
Monday, December 20, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, December 17, 2010
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.
You can follow the debate, and the vote, on C-SPAN.
Monday, December 13, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 6, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
United Nations Needs a Rapid Reaction Force
On innumerable occasions since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has found itself burdened with the responsibility of preventing or ending military conflicts between nation-states, as well as attempting to rescue vulnerable populations from genocide and other crimes against humanity. It has had to monitor cease-fire lines and ensure that conflicts which have ended do not flare up again. On many occasions, it has also had to intervene many times to bring emergency relief and restore law and order in the wake of natural disasters such hurricanes and earthquakes.
All of this requires troops, and ever since the first authorized U.N. peacekeeping mission was launched in 1948 (to monitor the cease-fire between Egypt and Israel), the blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers driving their white-painted vehicles have become a common sight in conflict zones throughout the world. Over six decades of service, nearly 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers have been killed in the line of duty. In 1988, they were collectively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The U.N. peacekeepers have often achieved great success in the face of heavy odds. On numerous occasions, they have interposed themselves between warring Israeli and Arab armies to stop bloodshed. They have monitored cease-fires in the Middle East, the Balkans, Cyprus, and throughout Africa and Central America. They have supervised transitions to democracy in places like Cambodia and East Timor. They have been on the ground to help provide disaster relief in areas throughout the world. But there have also been several high-profile disasters, and what the U.N. peacekeepers have achieved pales before what they might be able to achieve if certain systematic restraints were removed.
It should be pointed out that U.N. peacekeeping operations cost about $5 billion a year. For comparison, this is less than 4% of the annual pork-ridden budget of the United States Department of Agriculture. Indeed, it is only slightly more than the cost of two United States B-2 bombers.
Amazingly, the U.N. technically has no military units of its own. All U.N. peacekeeping operations are carried out by troops voluntarily contributed by U.N. member states. While this may sound like a good idea, it actually is the key weakness of many U.N. peacekeeping operations, and has been the main cause of many disastrous failures.
Consider Rwanda, perhaps the darkest chapter in the history of U.N. peacekeeping operations. When the Rwandan Genocide began in 1994, there were already U.N. Peacekeepers on the ground in the country, but intervening to stop the killings would doubtless have endangered the lives of many of these men. Consequently, many nervous governments declined to support an expanded mission for the U.N. force in the country and refused to contribute troops. Many of the troops that did remain were poorly-trained Bangladeshi and Pakistani troops, who had little understanding of or enthusiasm for the mission to which they were assigned. 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the subsequent genocide.
So long as the troops for U.N. peacekeeping missions are delegated from the armies of member states, there were always be a reluctance on the part of governments to commit their troops to potentially dangerous situations. Even when there is the necessary political will, it inevitably takes time to organize a multinational force that will undoubtedly consist of battalions from many different nations. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan once likened it to being the chief of a fire department who had to recruit volunteers, raise money, and buy a fire truck every time there was a fire in town.
More fundamentally, the units delegated to U.N. peacekeeping duties often have no training whatsoever for the tasks to which they are assigned. Indeed, the bulk of troops that make up U.N. peacekeeping forces are usually contributed by developing nations with poorly-equipped an poorly-trained militaries. This has not only resulted in an inability to achieve the objectives of the mission, but has also contributed to a disturbing rise in child prostitution in African and Balkan nations where U.N. peacekeepers have been deployed.
There is a potential answer to all these problems: the United Nations needs it own military Rapid Reaction Force. Having such a force at its command would allow the U.N. to undertake emergency operations within hours of a crisis erupting anywhere in the world. There would be no need to go begging to member states for a battalion or two, and there would be no concern about the level of training or professionalism of the troops being sent into harm's way.
Imagine how the Rwanda crisis might have unfolded had the U.N. had a Rapid Reaction Force at its disposal. Without the reluctance of member states to send their own young men into danger, the U.N. force could have been ordered to intervene immediately. And in contrast to the poorly-trained and poorly-motivated contingents making up the U.N. force in Rwanda, we would have seen well-trained professional troops with experienced officers at their head. The 800,000 Rwandans who died in the genocide might have been saved.
We can envision of force of perhaps 20,000 troops organized perhaps into ten regiments, stationed around the world at bases allowing them to rapidly deploy to trouble spots wherever conflicts might conceivably break out. The bulk of the force would obviously be light infantry, but would also have to include transport and logistics units, light artillery and armor for protection, and air elements for reconnaissance.
The potential locations for the bases of such a force would clearly need to be carefully thought out. Just as a thought experiment, I might suggest French Guyana (to cover the Western Hemisphere), Ghana or Cote D'Ivoire (to cover West Africa), Malta (to cover Europe and the Mediterranean), Djibouti (to cover East Africa and the Middle East), and Brunei (to cover Asia).
How would such a force be recruited? One military unit that stands out as a potential example is the French Foreign Legion. This legendary unit of the French Army accepts only the most fit and motivated recruits, and doesn't much care where they come from or what their past history has been. Consequently, the French Foreign Legion is made up of men who either want to start their life over again or are simply seeking adventure. With the right training, these men have proven themselves time and again to be among the best soldiers who ever walked the Earth, fiercely loyal to their unit.
Another potential example is the Brigade of Gurkhas. The British, having fought a brief but bitter war with the men from Nepal in the early 19th Century, decided that it was much better to co-opt them than fight them. Subsequently, battalions of Gurkhas have served in the British Army (as well as the Indian Army and with the Singapore police) ever since. They are universally considered to be among the finest infantry in the world. Perhaps the United Nations could recruit a battalion or two?
However the recruiting is done and wherever these troops will be based, the urgent need for a U.N. Rapid Reaction Force is clear. Long term peacekeeping operations, obviously, would still require units volunteered by member states, but immediate emergencies would be much more effectively dealt with if the U.N. had an easily deployed military force of its own. The Security Council would be more likely to act quickly if they kne they would have need to deal with the complicated politics of persuading member states to contribute troops to peacekeeping operations.
The Security Council should immediately begin laying the groundwork for a permanent agreement on a U.N. Rapid Reaction Force, perhaps beginning with a single battalion and building up from there. In the long run, a respectable U.N. force, with its own proud unit identity and elan, is essential.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)