8 Former Secretaries of State Urge More Diplomats

Today, eight former Secretaries of State from both parties urged Congress to fully fund President Obama's request for increased U.S. diplomatic and development personnel in his fiscal year 2010 budget.

The coalition of former chief diplomats connected the dots between increased funding for diplomacy and development to improved efforts to prevent deadly conflicts:

"Some will say that we cannot afford to support the [funding] increase, and we recognize the economic crisis facing our country. But the reality is that we cannot afford to fail at this challenge... Avoiding one war or defusing one major crisis would save many times the increase. And providing resources for civilians to carry their share of the load will decrease the strains on our already badly overstretched military, which has been asked repeatedly to divert personnel to deal with issues from nation building to agricultural development."

Appropriations staffers, please take note.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Key Committee Approves State Department Funding Bill

Yesterday, the House appropriations committee approved the Fiscal Year 2010 State Department funding bill, providing funds for key diplomatic and foreign assistance programs, including U.S. annual contributions to international organizations, such as the United Nations.

FCNL's Bridget Moix testified before the State and Foreign Operations subcommittee in March. FCNL also submitted a more detailed request to the committee in May, and organized a letter among colleague organizations in support of key programs which help prevent deadly conflict.

Overall, the House appropriations committee approved bill would provide most of the funding requested by the President to increase U.S. diplomatic and development personnel. However, the funding bill fell short on many of the conflict resolution focused initiatives FCNL had supported, including the civilian response corps, crisis prevention initiatives and UN funding.

Specifically, the House appropriations committee approved funds for 1,030 new positions at the State Department. Of these positions, 757 would support core U.S. diplomacy, while the remaining 273 would provide security for these personnel. This is slight decrease in President Obama's requested for funds to support a total of 1,142 new hires.

The House committee also approved funds for 300 new positions at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to oversee and manage U.S. foreign aid, slightly below the President's request of 350 new positions for the development agency.

The civilian stabilization initiative, a critical new effort to create a cadre of civilian experts with skills to help stabilize war-torn states, was provided just $155 million, a significant cut from the President's request of $323 million in funds for the corps. However, this level of funding will still be an increase of $15 million from last year's funding level for this nascent program.

The committee approved $100 million for the Office of Transitions Initiatives at USAID, which provides aid focused on helping countries transition from deadly conflict to sustainable peace. While a $50 million increase from last year, this committee recommendation was $26 million less than the President's request.

On peacekeeping, the committee approved $2.125 billion to pay U.S. annual dues for life-saving United Nations peacekeeping operations, a $135 million decrease from the President's request. However, funds were provided in another bilateral peacekeeping aid account to make up for the cut.

Lastly, the committee approved $1.697 billion for annual contributions to the United Nations budget as well as 44 other critical international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Health Organization. However, this level of funding is $100 million below the President's request, and would not fully meet U.S. financial obligations to international organizations this year.

The entire House is expected to consider this spending bill in early July.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

What A Difference a Year Makes

This time last year, the U.S. was nearly $2 billion in debt to the United Nations (UN), making the U.S. the largest debtor to the UN in the world.

In a visit to Washington this past March, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the U.S. "the biggest deadbeat" donor in the UN system, and was slapped on the wrist by Republican lawmakers.

Now the U.S. is poised to completely pay down all U.S. debt accrued to the world body since 1999.

Slowly, Congress has been slipping in extra funds over the last year to meet past dues. The irony is that these funds have largely been included in massive war funding bills like the one President Obama is expected to sign this week.

Along with more than $80 billion in funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latest supplemental passed by Congress last week includes $906 million for UN peacekeeping to completely cover past debt to the world body and support ongoing peacekeeping operations.

The U.S. stills owes nearly three - quarters of a billion dollars for debt accrued before 1999. However, this debt is contested by the U.S., and will not likely ever be paid off.

BOTTOM LINE: While we at FCNL are not happy that Congress passed another war funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, we are happy to see increased attention towards diplomacy, development and international cooperation in this bill.

Completely paying off U.S. debt to the UN accrued under the last administration is a major victory that FCNL and dozens of other organizations have long supported.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Reuniting Families Act- Now I Feel It.

As a white male, I haven't had the experience of dealing with prejudice, racism or sexism that many people face every day. While I certainly try to understand how they feel, I have not been able to really know the struggles of women or people of color because I haven't experienced it myself.

I have also not truly felt the effects of laws that have been changed or created in order to create more justice for oppressed people. For example, I celebrated the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but not from the perspective of someone who's life would be affected personally because of the law. While I know that all laws that promote justice have an impact on the world (and thus impact my life), I have not had the experience of feeling that my life would be made different if a law were passed.

The Reuniting Families Act, recently introduced by Rep. Honda, is changing this for me. This law would allow gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their immigrant "permanent partners" for legal U.S. residency. As a gay American with an Indian partner, this bill would make a tremendous difference in my life. This has an impact on many more things than I would have previously imagined, all the way from the big question of where my partner and I live down to the mundane details. For example, today my partner is spending the day at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles getting his license renewed because as a foreign national he has to get his license renewed more frequently than citizens or legal residents. He also has to go to the BMV in DC for foreign nationals which normally has a much longer wait than other BMVs. One of the most important differences this would make would be that my partner and I would not have to worry about him getting a work visa in order to stay here. It is extremely unnerving to think that if he lost his job and couldn't find another employer to sponsor his visa he would be deported to India.

Most importantly, the Reuniting Families Act would be a tremendous step toward the equal rights that gay couples deserve. There is no reason why my partner and I or any other gay couples should be discriminated against because of our sexual orientation. We should all be accorded the same fundamental right to choose our own relationships.

FCNL has taken the lead among faith-based organizations in lobbying for the Reuniting Families Act. I am so thankful to work for an organization that is working for my rights. As a matter of fact, FCNL hosted the press conference with Rep. Honda for the release of the bill. To find out more about the work of FCNL on this issue, check out our immigration blog--"Immigration: It's Our Community."

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Live blogging on Iran

Just want to recommend two sites to keep up with the quickly changing events in Iran.

The National Iranian American Council is live blogging, with many powerful stories submitted by their members, many of whom have family in Iran.

The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney

Given the U.S. history of overthrowing Iran's first democratically government, backing a dictator who ruled Iran (along with his torture police) for decades, supporting Iraq's invasion of Iran which killed half a million Iranians, and subsequent decades of threats of military attack and regime change, U.S. condemnations of the Iranian government aren't--to put it mildly--likely to help anyone and very well could hurt many.

But concerned independent U.S. citizens can do much to help--first and foremost by educating themselves and get these reports from Iran circulating far and wide throughout the world....

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

The Day I Met Paul Wolfowitz—and Why I Wish He Would Take up the “No Comment” Approach to Iran

Yes friends, substitute Bush for me and substitute the background to that of AEI--that was me

Paul Wolfowitz wrote an op-edentitled "No Comment is Not an Option" protesting the Obama administration’s “no comment” response to the election unrest in Iran. As Christopher Preble from the CATO Institute points out in his brilliant commentary here, Obama did condemn the brutal crackdown of Iran’s government. I think the Obama administration response to Iran has been very astute and shows consideration of the fact that statements from policymakers in the U.S. could endanger the lives of protesters in Iran. I only hope that Paul Wolfowitz would one day take such considerations in mind and opt for the “no comment” approach—the LAST thing Iranian protesters risking their lives on the street need is the endorsement of one of the champion cheerleaders for invading Iran.

Last year I attended a discussion at the American Enterprise Institute to hear Doug Feith wax eloquently about the tremendous success of the war in Iraq. He admitted there had been “some mistakes” in the planning, and I had to wonder whether he was still bitter that the U.S. didn’t invade South America instead of Iraq after 9/11, an idea that Feith recommended would be “a surprise to the terrorists” since everyone was expecting that invade Afghanistan and possibly other places in the Middle East. (A kind of logic that makes you wonder whether his next step would be bombing the polar ice caps--which would be an even greater surprise to Al Qaeda if they happen to be climate change deniers.)

I actually shook hands with the guy—yes one of the perks for all you prospective FCNL program assistants. I also stood within inches of Richard Perle, the man who, merely weeks after invading Iraq, proposed that we threaten destruction of Iran and Syria as countries that harbor terrorism. (Making the analysis that all the U.S. has to do is threaten them with wholesale destruction, after which of course Iran and Syria and other countries that “harbor terrorists” will submit peacefully to the demands of the U.S.

I even had a brief conversation with Paul Wolfowitz about Iran. I asked him what he thought about the memorandum from Iran in May 2003 proposing comprehensive negotiations with the U.S.—which would include laying out on the negotiating table a deal where Iran promises full transparency and safeguards on its nuclear program and cooperate in a myriad of ways in regional security issues in exchange for normalized relations with the U.S. He said that he had heard about that—but wasn’t sure if it was authentic. Below is more of what I can remember from the convo:

Kate to Paul Wolfowitz: But if you could be convinced that it was true, that the U.S. could negotiate with Iran and ensure complete transparency on its nuclear program, then there would be no reason to threaten a military attack right? That’s our major problem with Iran, the reason why the U.S. hates them right?

[Note: I very much regret this choice of words—I was not thinking clearly, as this was one of the most surreal moments of my life. It seems I also get extraordinarily nervous in front of people who I believe should be tried as war criminals]

Paul Wolfowitz: No, that’s not why we hate them.

Kate: Well, that’s the major dispute—I mean that’s why we might bomb Iran….

Paul Wolfowitz: No, no, we hate them because they hang homosexuals.

Whoah—so there you have it. The secret Bush agenda was really about instigating a global gay liberation movement. I guess this was one of the issues that like other freedoms the Bush administration supported the strategy was to limit such freedoms domestically and purport to expand them abroad…through various tactics of militant belligerency.

On a more serious note, bombing Iran to bring about equal rights for LGBT people is absolutely absurd.

Protesters in Iran are struggling to convince their government and the wider Iranian public that their movement for change is genuinely Iranian, rather than supported by the U.S. and other countries that are working (as they have before) to overthrow their government.

My message to Paul at the next AEI discussion: You mischaracterized President Obama’s response to the turmoil in Iran, as his response was a strident criticism of the crackdown on protesters in the street.

"No comment" is an option--an especially smart option if you happen to have taken the lead in pressing for an attack on Iran. That doesn't give you a lot of legitimacy, but more importantly, such endorsements run the risk of endangering the lives of these protesters who are working hard to prove they are NOT affiliated with the Paul Wolfowitz's of the world.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

George H.W. Bush says Obama should refrain from making military threats

And he's right (this time)!

Iranians are suffering quite enough amidst their political turmoil--I mentioned before that the last thing they need is for the U.S. to show favorites.

Iranians have suffered quite enough from a previous U.S. "favorite" dictator (the Shah) who ruled their country with an iron fist for a quarter of a century. The U.S. installed him in full control of Iran after the U.S. overthrew Iran's first democratically elected leader in 1953--Prime Minister Mossadegh. For more on that coup--central to understanding Iranian hostility to U.S. foreign policy--see the Mossadegh Project.

I forgot to mention that even worse would be the United States threatening military action--but of course it is important to remember that there are always folks itching for war with Iran and want to take advantage of this crisis.

But as the Washington Times reports:

Mr. Bush, however, urged that the United States exercise prudence in reacting to the events unfolding in Iran. "They ought to get to the bottom of it," he said. "And without emotion go forward and see if there is something that can be done from outside without inflaming tensions, we don't want to inflame tensions with Iran." He added that President Obama should refrain from making any military threats.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

The Winning Party of the Iranian Elections that Might Surprise Congress

ALL WALKS OF LIFE: Tens of thousands of supporters of the opposition candidate in Iran turn out in Tehran's Freedom Square to protest the result of Friday's presidential election.(Washington Times)

Q. Who really won the Iranian elections?

Amidst all the controversy as the heartbreaking events unfold—there is one answer to this question that really merits all of our profound respect….

A. The Iranian people

And just to be clear—I do mean all of the Iranian people from across the political spectrum who participated in the not-so-democratic-yet-not-a-dictatorship process--through voting and through the many other non-violent ways Iranians have struggled for democracy.

I am in absolute awe of their resolve—the fact that untold thousands braved the street protesting what is widely seen as a stolen election. These protesters literally risked—and nine protesters gave—their lives in the state’s brutal crack down.

Nearly 85% of Iranians turned out for this vote—that’s 25% more voters than turned out in the last election. To compare (apples & oranges sort of comparison though it may be), during the last U.S. presidential 63% of eligible voters turned out for the historic election.

*BREAKING: NORM COLEMAN CLAIMS VICTORY IN IRAN*

Before Ahmadinejad declared victory, I saw this humorous tweet—making fun of the episode where Sen. Coleman declared victory when a recount established he wasn’t quite so victorious after all.

But I have some news for the U.S. Congress & the U.S. Media…

* BREAKING: THE U.S. CONGRESS DID NOT WIN IN IRAN*

And regardless of the results of the recount that the Iranian government declared it would do or the results of a re-vote which so many Mousavi supporters are demanding—Congress needs to get it in their heads that they did not win. That’s right—even in an Iranian election with international observers to affirm that they were fully free and fair—say like the 2006 Palestinian elections when Hamas won—Congress did not win.

So it’s absolutely crazy—and excruciatingly dangerous—that some members of Congress are exploiting this political earthquake in Iran to push their own militaristic agendas.

Rep. Rohrabacher (CA) tweets:

“The fraudulent Iranian election has mobilized opposition to the Mullah regime; the U.S. should back them, now’s the time for a regime change”

Rep. Pence (IN) tells CNN that President Obama should openly back Mousavi in the Iranian election turmoil:

“I’m hoping, before the end of the day today, the President of the United States will speak a word of support for Mr. Moussavi and for the dissidents and the reformers within Iran,” said Pence

I guess they didn’t get the memo that:

REP PENCE & REP ROHRABACHER---YOU DIDN’T WIN THE ELECTION!

(Thanks to the National Iranian American Council for picking these quotes up and for their excellent coverage during the entire election crisis.)

The absolute LAST thing that Iranians need right now is for the U.S. to pick their Iranian favorites.

This victory is not for Congress--in fact congressional endorsement of military threats, sanctions, and regime change has only bolstered hardliners in Iran.

The people to celebrate are the Iranian people--and their own indigenous struggle for change that they--and only they--can claim as their own.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Shouldn't there be more than one diplomat in Botswana?

If a bill the house passed last week goes through the Senate, an expanded foreign service presence in neglected parts of the world as well as many other delights might become a reality. Find out more in this chat Maggie and I had with Trevor:

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

(Not so) Secret Direct Line to Every Congressional Office Guaranteed

So let's say you do really care about something and want to be heard by your congressional office on this issue (just theoretically speaking--not like I work for a lobby or anything).

How do you get your voice heard through the hundreds upon hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls processed each week?

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER!

In every congressional office in DC, someone is assigned to track all news articles about that particular member of Congress or senator. I have friends working in congressional offices who set up "google alerts" so that every time a news article mentions Congressman Snappypants, Congressman Snappypants' office will know about it.

The google alerts often track blogs as well.

Letters to the editor is an extremely time efficient way to do advocacy. In one letter to the editor that mention your member of Congress, you have a great chance to reach:

- Your Rep/Senator's office, and there is a good chance your letter will be explicitly mentioned by the aides to the member of Congress directly

- Your local community, as the "letter to the editor" section is often the most popular part of the newspaper

- The global cybersphere, since nowadays most LTE pages are online, and will often come up in search engines.

SHINING EXAMPLE

Today I just got word that my friend from September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows Wright Salisbury got published in the Lexington Minuteman urging Congressman Markey to cosponsor H.R. 2404, which would require the administration to present an exit strategy for Afghanistan. This is one of FCNL's legislative priorities, and a good time to be having this debate since in the next few months Congress is set to pass several colossal war spending and policy bills.

I'm copying below Wright's letter to the editor in full. Wright wrote me this morning, asking to pass on the word to FCNL constituents that "I urge everyone who shares my conviction that this war is a bad idea to say so to his congressman or woman." You can urge your member of Congress to cosponsor H.R. 2404 for an Afghanistan exit strategy here.

Winning the Wars' in the Middle East

Lexington - We in Massachusetts have a right to be proud.

Seven out of 10 of our congressmen are cosponsoring Congressman Jim McGovern’s HR 2404 “To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.”

Anyone who has read history knows that wars of aggression, no matter how justified they may seem at the time, are always doomed to failure. The American Revolution through the Napoleonic War, World Wars I and II, and the Vietnam war ended in disaster for the aggressors. More recently, the war in Iraq, however our government tries to spin it, was and still is a costly and murderous quagmire, and the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan promises to be even worse.

Our wars to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait and the North Vietnamese out of South Vietnam are exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions precisely because we were driving out invaders, not invading.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, people fear the Taliban and most would like to see them defeated, but resent our ham-fisted attempts to drive them out which result in more civilian than Taliban deaths and will not defeat Al Queda, who can simply move to another safe haven, say Somalia.

The strategy for winning this war is shifting in ways that are difficult to comprehend from the press reports.

Secretary of War Bob Gates issues conflicting statements which, if they reflect the thinking of President Obama, reflect only his indecision regarding the best way to win it. Giving money to the Afghan or the Pakistan regimes is of questionable value, since the money will most likely be pilfered or siphoned off for other purposes. Committing our own troops is more effective but drives more men to join the Taliban.

Congressman McGovern sees the futility or our present policies and seeks to extricate our country from what is clearly a lose-lose situation. I’m with him, and I’m glad to see that 70 percent of our Massachusetts congressmen are with him too.

I urge everyone in Lexington who shares my conviction that this war is a bad idea to say so to his congressmen — that’s Congressman Ed Markey, one of the three Massachusetts congressmen who have not cosponsored HR 2404. His Washington office number is 202-225-2836.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

As Promised: FCNL Interns Respond to Cairo Speech

How did the young people working at FCNL respond to president's speech last week? Find out in this podcast:

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Less Money for State Department

As the State Department re-authorization bill, HR 2410, heads to the House floor today, it is worth noting that funding will be tighter at the State Department next year. Yes, that's right, the State Department will receive less money in fiscal year 2010 than received in fiscal year 2009.

This gets a bit dicey, but I will explain. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released it's long-waited 302(b) allocations, or the allocation that each Appropriations Subcommittee will receive for fiscal year 2010 appropriations.

While President Obama requested $53.8 billion for the international affairs budget, the House appropriations committee only allocated $48.8 billion to the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, which receives nearly all funds for the international affairs budget. Not only is this $5 billion less than President Obama requested, but in fact, it means less money will be allocated for diplomacy and development in fiscal year '10.

While just $37 billion was allocated to the State Department in the Fiscal year 2009 regular budget, the two FY 09 Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental funding bills included significant funds for the State Department. In fact, that when these supplemental funds are added to the regular FY 09 budget, total State Department funds for fiscal year 2009 will likely be about $1 billion more than the $48.8 billion doled out for fiscal year 2010 yesterday.

If you didn't understand all the math, here's the take away message. The cash strapped State Department will be more strapped for cash next year.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

The Speech

Did you see it? Maggie and I are going to sit down with Kate and (hopefully) Trevor next week to hash out what the president said, but in the meantime you can read our analysis. Or, if you're in a rush, you can simply chew on Kate's response to my request for her to talk with us:

"THIS IS THE BEST US PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH EVER

I mean it. (I mean sure man on the moon speeches are good too but they don’t have influence over war & peace, people living or dying)"

Get excited for our podcast.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Muslim World: All we've got for you is tanks

Ahead of President Obama's speech tomorrow in Cairo I read this short piece on the United States' messed up relationship with the Muslim world. I think the image below (credit: Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings) says it all -- that the vast majority of what we give to the middle east is military aid. You should read the article for yourself however, and tune in tomorrow to see what our fair leader has to say.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook