[Editor’s Note: There are 95 registered members in UN21. There are many more people on our communications listserv. Would you please contact ASIL to determine whether you are a dues paying member? One way to know that is whether you are/have been paying the modest $10.00 per year annual section dues. Confirming your status as a dues paying member will help our group, and keep you honest!]

From: Charlotte Ku <CKu@asil.org>

Subject: Interest Group Membership Lists

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 124040 -0500

Dear IG OfficersBefore the end of this year, the ASIL Service Center will be sending each of you a list of your members as recorded in our database for 2003. Since these records will be produced off our new membership database, do please take a moment to check the list to see if there are any discrepancies with your own records. If so, we will work to correct them. Contact the ASIL Service Center with any discrepancies at services@asil.org.

Commencing January 15, 2004, you will routinely receive a membership list for your group on a quarterly basis on or around January 15, March 15, July 15, and September 15. However, if you need a list at any time in between regular reports, please contact services@asil.org and they will produce a list for you. Please allow 48 hours to process a list request.

I know that regularizing membership reports to the interest groups has been an elusive goal of ours for some time. Happily, a recent overhaul of the ASIL database and Service Center is finally making this goal attainable. I am working to regularize financial reports next.

With thanks for your patience,

Charlotte

[Editor’s Note: John Dale, GPUU Envoy to the UU United Nations Office, forwarded this helpful notice of a recent conference/debate in Arizona. It is redistributed here, because of its utility regarding US foreign policy reform.]

On Sunday, October 26 and Sunday, November 9** at 9:00 a.m., the Granite Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation will sponsor two debates as part of The People Speak: America Debates its Role in the World, a nationwide event. GPUUC is one of hundreds of student and community groups across the country holding debates focusing on U.S. foreign policy.

American foreign policy is being hotly debated at home and abroad. Are we heading on the right course? Please join us to hear Professor Paul Hriljac of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and John Dale, Envoy of GPUUC to the UU United Nations Office, debate the topics:

· Should the US use preemptive military force to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction? (Oct. 26)
· Under what conditions should the US take part in military interventions? (Oct. 26)
· Should America focus more on international issues like the environment, poverty and health? (Nov. 9)
· Is America better off by working through international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations? (Nov. 9)

1- Preemptive Use of Force
RESOLVED, that the United States should use military force preemptively to meet the threats posed by hostile nations and groups seeking to acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

2- Criteria for Military Intervention
RESOLVED, that the United States should participate in military operations overseas only where vital American interests are at stake, not for democracy promotion or primarily humanitarian causes.

SET B: Global Challenges and International Cooperation

1- Nonmilitary Issues
RESOLVED, that the United States should devote more resources to confront such non-military problems as poverty and illiteracy, the spread of infectious disease, and environmental degradation.

2- International Law and Institutions
RESOLVED, that the United States should demonstrate a stronger commitment to international institutions and international law, [including the International Criminal Court, and in 2005 should help convene a global review conference on the United Nations Charter.]

SET A: The Use of Force
(Choose at least one resolution from this set)

1- Preemptive Use of Force
RESOLVED, that the United States should use military force preemptively to meet the threats posed by hostile nations and groups seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

· The threats posed by terrorist groups with global reach and rogue states armed with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are so immediate and potentially destructive that we cannot wait to absorb a first strike before reacting with armed force. A strategy of preemption responds to emerging threats posed to America and American interests by terrorist networks and hostile states and minimizes the likelihood of an attack.

· A preemptive strategy takes advantage of America’s unrivaled military power and allows us to protect our national security in a manner and at a time of our own choosing. We should not have to absorb a devastating punch before we strike back.

· The American people have invested heavily in a military capability second to none so that America’s service men and women have all the means necessary to defend us against our enemies. We should not hesitate to use this force to strike first if we feel we are threatened.

· This proactive policy will be welcomed by allied nations, even if some may complain publicly about U.S. unilateralism, because the world relies on American power to deal with these threats, whether from terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda or tyrants such as Saddam Hussein who threaten entire regions.

· The United States should not be expected to relinquish to another body or nation our sovereign right to use military power to protect our national security interests. As was shown in the late stages of the Iraq debate, we cannot count on the U.N. Security Council to address imminent threats effectively. Too many different interests are at work in the Security Council for it to mobilize rapid response in crises or reliably in advance of them.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Council on Foreign Relations, "A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Three Options" (2003).
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5999

John Lewis Gaddis, "A Grand Strategy of Transformation," Foreign Policy, (November/December 2002)
http://www.jointhedebate.org/docs/gaddis.pdf

Barry R. Posen, "The Struggle Against Terrorism: Grand Strategy, Strategy, and Tactics," International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Winter 2001/02), especially pp. 51-55

· The preemptive doctrine invites international chaos. America’s peace and security have been well served by the U.N. Charter’s provision limiting use of force against other nations to self-defense against an armed attack. If we revive the dangerous doctrine of preemptive war that was discredited at Pearl Harbor, we start down a slippery slope; any nation could then invoke invented threats to justify aggressive wars, making the world far more unstable and unsafe.

· America's leaders wisely rejected calls for preemptive attacks against major powers like Russia and China in the 1950s and ‘60s, relying successfully instead on deterrence and containment. Deterrence and containment, rather than preemptive war, should be more effective against today’s ‘threats’ from small, weak countries.

· Strategies of preemption can backfire, actually encouraging arms proliferation, by creating incentives for nations at odds with us to seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in order to deter a potential American attack. The resulting ripple of proliferation could heighten world instability.

· Preemptive strategies, based on intelligence estimates that inevitably have some measure of uncertainty, can push America toward taking all the risks, bearing all of the costs, and potentially being left alone when things go wrong. If the international community disagrees with a U.S. decision to use force preemptively, other nations will likely be reluctant to provide support—military, diplomatic, peacekeeping, financial, intelligence—when we need it.

· The U.N. Security Council successfully marshals sanctions and other pressures to contain potential threats at low cost. When the use of military force becomes necessary, Security Council support for military action confers international legitimacy and legality on such action, bringing us allies on the ground and spreading the costs among partners worldwide.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Council on Foreign Relations, "A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Three Options" (2003).
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5999  

Ivo H. Daalder, James Lindsay and James Steinberg, "The Bush National Security Strategy: An Evaluation" (October 2002).
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb109.htm

Michael Hirsh, "Bush and the World," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002
http://www.foreignaffairs.org

Joseph Nye, "American Power and Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003
http://www.foreignaffairs.org

· America’s most priceless treasure—her superbly trained fighting men and women—must not be squandered on humanitarian interventions for such well-meaning but secondary causes as democracy promotion or protecting human rights and lives. Such missions only degrade our military’s combat capability, leaving it less prepared to face clear and present dangers.

· We want to ensure respect for human rights, and we certainly can do that by vigorously condemning abusers and channeling our foreign aid to more democratic partners. But we must not endanger American lives and interests by letting abstract concerns about democracy divert us from close cooperation against terrorism, just because some allies are not model democracies.

· Ethnic conflicts will continue to rage, and we certainly don’t want to get caught in the cross-fire. Intervening militarily in the affairs of a sovereign state is costly and usually ineffective; if other countries want to play a role, let them—but they shouldn’t expect Americans to join them or even to help pay for the U.N. to do it. We were right to resist a misguided U.N. operation in Rwanda, and wrong to force one in Haiti.

· Exerting political and economic pressures, including sanctions, can be effective alternatives to the use of force for affirming our values. Our military forces should be reserved for protecting our security interests.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Elliott Abrams, "Humanitarian Intervention: What Lies Ahead?" Freedom House (October 2000)http://freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2000/essay2.htm   

Simon Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, Oxford University Press (January 2003).

Charles Krauthammer, "The Short, Unhappy Life of Humanitarian War," The National Interest, (Fall 1999).

· America’s most priceless treasure is her commitment to democracy and human rights. We should be prepared to join other countries in support of interventions that defend these commitments – even if the United States does not have immediate economic or strategic interests at stake. Their advancement is in fact a vital American security interest, because democracies do not start wars with each other and are less likely to lapse into insurgent civil war.

· In many cases, even a small investment of troops can avert a major tragedy. More than half a million Rwandans were butchered because Washington wouldn’t allow a small, armed U.N. force to halt the genocide there. It took just 800 British troops to stabilize the situation in Sierra Leone. Such a small-scale humanitarian intervention would not degrade America’s formidable combat capabilities.

· There occasionally are situations, like Haiti, where a military effort can remove obstacles to democratic will and smooth the way toward regional and U.N. efforts; we should not automatically rule out that option in such circumstances.

· Sometimes the prudent use of military force to stem humanitarian disasters and avert anarchy can promote international security. These problems can easily cross national borders, creating waves of instability throughout regions, as happened when crises in Rwanda and Liberia left unchecked spread through many neighboring countries in central and western Africa.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Roberta Cohen and James Kunder, "Humanitarian and Human Rights Emergencies: Policy Brief #83," The Brookings Institution (June 2001).
http://www.brookings.edu

Brian D. Lepard, Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: A Fresh Legal Approach Based on Fundamental Ethical Principles in International Law and World Religions, Pennsylvania State University Press (Spring 2002).

Michael E. O’Hanlon, "Doing It Right: The Future of Humanitarian Intervention," Brookings Review (Fall 2000).
http://www.brookings.edu 

· In a world without walls, the long-term health, well-being and security of Americans is increasingly bound up with that of close and distant neighbors. For instance, improving basic health in poor nations—by eliminating diseases like polio or smallpox and quickly blocking the spread of deadly new diseases like SARS—also protects health in our own country. To ensure a safe and rewarding future for all of us, we need to invest more today in addressing such important long-term challenges.

· Gaping economic disparities, real and perceived social and ethnic injustices, and unresolved political grievances can be a recurring source of extremism, conflict, and terrorism. We must address these underlying conditions in order to create a stable and peaceful world; military power is not enough to achieve these goals. Dealing with the root causes of conflict, in concert with other wealthy countries, helps drain the swamp of terrorism and makes the soundest long-term contribution to national and global security.

· Investing more in issues that other citizens around the world care about—including basic health, economic opportunity, environmental sustainability and democratic governance–will demonstrate that Americans are concerned about improving other people’s lives and not just our own. Helping others also gains us greater voluntary cooperation when we ask developing countries to help out on American priorities, like the struggle against terrorism, and reduces the resentments that now generate frictions with allies.

· America has an unparalleled opportunity—working with others—to save millions of lives now taken by disease, to put tens of millions of illiterate children into school, to save the earth from irreversible environmental damage and more. Bringing our power to bear on such challenges is in the American tradition, and it is the right thing to do.

· We have the resources and the know-how to contribute effectively to global progress on many fronts while maintaining a strong military and domestic economy. In fact, we can’t afford not to. Smart US investments—particularly in cooperative efforts with other nations—can make the difference between losing ground against health and environmental threats or grappling with them successfully.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

"By the People: Americans’ Role in the World": A Discussion Guide for Community Forums http://www.nifi.org/ARW-document.pdf

Jeffrey Sachs, "Weapons of Mass Salvation," The Economist, October 2002
http://www.economist.com

P.J. Simmons, "Global Challenges: Beating the Odds," Carnegie Endowment, August 2002
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Policybrief17.pdf

Center for Global Development/FP Magazine "Commitment to Development Index". Ranking the Rich: Which Country Really Helps the Poor?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13656

· At a time of ever-increasing threats, we cannot afford to do more on these issues; doing so would mean diverting resources from strengthening U.S. military forces and fortifying homeland security. If anything, we should be increasing the size and sophistication of the over-stretched military in order to win the war against terrorism and beef up homeland security.

· We don’t need to give more assistance to developing countries; they need to make better use of what we are already giving them. Health and development programs in poor countries have been riddled with corruption and waste, and for all the billions we have poured in we have bought ourselves little sympathy from poor countries around the world. Aid should be market-based and only targeted to countries that are making legitimate progress toward democracy and market economies. Most assistance should be delivered bilaterally, not jointly with other countries through United Nations agencies, where time and money are lost in global bureaucracies and assistance sometimes goes to countries opposed to the United States.

· There is no connection between confronting challenges like disease control, illiteracy abroad and environmental degradation and direct risks to U.S. national security. The 9/11 hijackers did not come from the poorest classes of their societies, and they were well-educated individuals. The primary goal of U.S. national security is to protect our citizens and homeland, not to act as "social worker" to the rest of the world.

· While there are clear humanitarian and compassionate reasons to help where we can, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that social progress can be achieved in a strategic vacuum. Our national interests and our values require that we temper compassion with other, more strategic considerations—especially connected to the fundamental needs and safety of the American people.

· America’s comparative advantage in maintaining world stability is in our superb military, while European nations, Canada, Japan and others are better at foreign aid, peacekeeping, and social programs. The international division of labor should reflect our respective specialties: Let other nations take financial responsibility for "soft" social investments, and America will guard the peace. With our deficits, we can't do it all.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Michael Maren, The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group (July 2002).

Stephen Moore, "Foreign Aid: End It Don’t Mend It," The Cato Institute (1997).
http://www.cato.org

David Rieff, A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, Simon & Schuster (October 2002).

Ian Vasquez, "56. Foreign Aid and Current Lending Fads," Cato Handbook for Congress
http://www.cato.org

· Americans were chief architects of the United Nations system and major international rules, and we have been major beneficiaries. The systems we helped build have kept trade, foreign investments and communications flowing. And they have been essential to advancing stability, security and a world based on common values.

· Many concerns that Americans share with others around the world—peace, economic progress, proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, narcotics trafficking, contagious disease, poverty reduction, and environmental degradation—cross boundaries and require international cooperation for their solutions. Through U.N. bodies and international institutions, we can obtain agreement on what all countries need to do to address those issues.

· When the United States works with our allies through international institutions, we get results. Together we have eradicated diseases like smallpox; reduced the spread of nuclear weapons; increased literacy rates; prosecuted war criminals; fed starving peoples around the world; and reversed the destruction of the earth’s ozone layer.

· Reliance on international institutions expands our options and multiplies our strength. The U.S. cannot send its own inspectors to search for nuclear weapons or track diseases in every other country; U.N. officials can go places where U.S. officials can't, like Iran and North Korea. Moreover, by winning agreement through U.N. and other multilateral bodies, the U.S. can share the cost and risks of actions and initiatives with other nations.

· Our respect for international institutions and laws increases the credibility and acceptance of U.S. actions across the globe. When others perceive the U.S. as a reliable partner that is willing to follow the same rules that it expects others to obey, America’s ability to attract and persuade others to adopt its proposals are enhanced, with much less friction than relying on force or coercion.

· Being disdainful of international agreements and treaties—or always insisting "it’s our way or the highway" when we’re involved—sets a dangerous example. It could easily lead other countries to flout rules and treaties that we benefit from– like those designed to keep trade flowing, cut off terrorist financing, block the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or protect our products from copyright or patent infringement.

For other arguments along these lines, we recommend
(many available electronically at www.jointhedebate.org):

Two Charts on U.S. Policy on Global Issues:

"The US Wages Conventional Warfare at the United Nations: A WEDO FACTSHEET"
August 2002
http://www.wedo.org/wssd/usunfactsheet.pdf

P.J. Simmons, chart on "US Behavior on Global Issues: Patterns that Draw Criticism," http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Policybrief17.pdf

Joseph Nye, "American Power and Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003
http://www.foreignaffairs.org

Shashi Tharoor, Why America Still Needs the United Nations, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003
http://www.foreignaffairs.org 

Shepard Forman, The United States in a Global Age: The Case for Multilateral Engagement Princeton Lyman Stewart Patrick (May 2002)
http://www.cic.nyu.edu/publications/pay4essnt/publ_pay4essnt3.html

For information on the International Criminal Court, see http://www.usaforicc.org or find links at the United Nations homepage: http://www.un.org  

· The United States has unique interests around the globe and a unique historical mission to stand up for democracy, liberty and freedom where they are threatened. Subordinating our power – military, economic and moral – to the dictates of the United Nations (or the "international community") makes us excessively vulnerable to the opponents of liberty and freedom, whose powers are greatly and unnecessarily enhanced by international institutions.

· Working with international organizations obligates us to participate in missions that do not fit our priorities and prevents us from pursuing those that do. Playing by the rules of international institutions subordinates America’s own national interest to the assumed "collective will" of other nations, which compromises our values and objectives.

· Where we can agree with international institutions, we should cooperate; but when our interests diverge, our President must ensure—as our Constitution requires—that our country’s interests come first.

· There is no such thing as "international law"; without enforcement, countries break it with impunity. The United States should not feel obligated to follow rules that other countries do not. Since there is almost no international agreement on the principles which should underlie "international law" it is applied inconsistently, if at all.

· Committing resources to international institutions pours good money after bad, these institutions are often dominated by nations that do not share our values and work every day to undermine the U.S. The more responsible approach is to help create ad hoc coalitions of the willing with like-minded countries who want to get something done.

· Working too closely with international institutions conveys a potential image of complacency and weakness to foes who equate multilateral diplomacy with doubt and indecision. It sends the signal that the U.S. will only act in concert with others and increases the risk that they will engage in provocative behavior.

Other recommended readings:

Michael J. Glennon, "Why the Security Council Failed," Foreign Affairs (May/June 2003).

Henry R. Nau, At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy, Cornell University Press (April 2002).

Courts & Arbitration