Background: Ending "Oil Aid" Abroad

• World Bank Group lending for oil projects increased more than 75 percent over the past year
• Each year, billions and billions of dollars that should be spent on ending poverty around the world and improving the environment are being used to subsidize oil and gas projects in developing countries that lead to debt traps for those countries and an increase in greenhouse gas production
• Instead of alleviating poverty, most oil and gas projects have exacerbated corruption, worsened economic inequality, increased local conflict, and intensified global climate change.
• An oil-based infrastructure in developing countries producing harmful greenhouse gases will certainly continue to have a negative impact on our global environment. Establishing a renewable energy infrastructure that will help make these countries clean energy leaders. It is absolutely critical that we choose the latter and create a renewable energy infrastructure in these developing countries so that we can shift the world away from oil consumption and towards alternative, clean energy solutions.

Ending Oil Aid on the Hill (H.Res.1886):

Oil Aid flows through a number of channels, including both bilateral assistance and multilateral institutions. Now there is a bill that seeks to end bilateral oil aid, and to use the voice, vote and influence of the United States to stem oil aid flowing from multilateral institutions. On April 17, 2007, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY), introduced the End Oil Aid Act (House Resolution 1886), which would end subsidies to oil companies as part of U.S. foreign assistance initiatives.

Hinchey's bill would specifically direct the U.S. Treasury Secretary to instruct the U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank to use the United States' voice and vote to prohibit additional spending on international oil development.

+ DOWNLOAD: Oil Aid Lobby Packet Materials [PDF]

+ FURTHER READING: Read the H.Res.1886 Factsheet
+ FURTHER READING: Read about our overall Energy Initiative

Why is paying our share of United Nations peacekeeping important?: Today, the UN oversees a record 18 peacekeeping missions around the world, including in some of the world's most dangerous places, such as Sudan, Lebanon, Congo, and Haiti, all of which are critical to our national and international security, and the U.S. votes to approve.

The UN's lifesaving peace missions are in jeopardy because donor countries are not living up to their commitments to support UN peacekeeping, particularly the U.S. Growing shortfalls in U.S. contributions, policy restrictions, and long-standing unpaid bills threaten to put the United States more than $1 billion behind in peacekeeping obligations. Shortchanging UN peacekeeping has real impacts, forcing the UN to cobble together the necessary means for deployment and discouraging other countries from contributing their fair share of resources.

Our leaders must fulfill U.S. commitments to UN peacekeeping by increasing funding to the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account by $500 million in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation process. The U.S. should also take steps to pay off prior U.S. arrears. Investing in peace serves our country better than paying for the soaring costs of war.
[excerpts from the Better World Campaign’s new project entitled ‘The Price of Peace’, www.priceofpeace.org]

Biden Introduces Bill (S.392) to Remove Peacekeeping Cap:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Chair Joe Biden (D- DE) introduced S. 392 to “ensure payment of assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period.” The legislation authorizes Congress to pay up to 27.1% of the U.N.’s peacekeeping bill. It is a significant step towards permanently lifting a 25% “cap” imposed on U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping in 1994. The cap currently produces over $100 million per year in new U.S. arrears to the U.N. Recently, Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on SFRC as well as Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) has cosponsored the legislation. Committee action is expected later this month.

In a statement introducing the legislation Biden noted that at “a time when our government continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time push the U.N. to get its financial house in order?”

History of the “Cap”:
In 1994, Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) introduced legislation that prohibited the U.S. from contributing more than 25% of the total funds for any U.N. peacekeeping operation. This legislation was incorporated in the State Department authorization bill (P.L. 103-236), signed later that year by President Clinton. Since the U.S. was assessed at almost 31% for U.N. peacekeeping missions through December 2000, the cap contributed significantly to the amount of U.S. debt to the UN. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S. , pay a premium for the peacekeeping budget because of their special role in creating peacekeeping missions and their ability to veto any mission.

On December 23, 2000, the U.N. General Assembly approved new scales of assessment for both the regular and peacekeeping budgets, reducing the U.S. share for both. The U.S. assessment for the U.N. regular budget went from 25% to 22%, and from nearly 31% to 27% for the U.N. peacekeeping budget. Dues assessments are periodically renegotiated at the United Nations. The current U.S. assessment is 26.1% and is expect to drop below 26% later this year.

UPDATE: On June 27, 2007 S. 392 passed the Foreign Relations Committee. While this success is praise-worthy, it only removes the peacekeeping funding cap from 2007 retroactively to 2005. We still need your help to ensure the Peacekeeping Cap is removed in future years!

+ DOWNLOAD: Peacekeeping Lobby Packet Materials [PDF]

+ FURTHER READING: Learn more from the "Action Call Script" for S.392
+ FURTHER READING: Read the "Beltway" blurb written for S.392
+ FURTHER READING: Read a May 23 blog post, entitled, "Biden: UN Arrears Resolution Progressing"
+ FURTHER READING: Read our Peace & Security pages

Background: Establishing an "Emergency Peacekeeping Service" at the UN

In order to address ever-increasing needs for the international community to respond rapidly and effectively to emerging crises, the United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) was proposed as a permanent emergency response service designed to complement, not replace existing peace operations. UNEPS would have first in – first out capabilities, designed to supplement the U.N.’s capacity to provide stability, peace, and relief in deadly emergencies.

United Nations Emergency Peace Service Bill (H.Res.213) Introduced:

On March 5th Representative Albert Wynn of Maryland introduced H.Res.213 in the House of Representatives. This bill, which Citizens for Global Solutions helped to draft, expresses the sense of the House that “a United Nations Emergency Peace Service [UNEPS] capable of intervening in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis could save millions of lives, billions of dollars, and is in the interests of the United States.” Citizens for Global Solutions has been a strong supporter of such a bill from the beginning.

Rep. Wynn introduced a similar bill during the last Congress, but it never left committee. As of March 28th the new bill has seven cosponsors. Original cosponsors include Rep. Earl Blumenauer [OR-3], Rep. John Conyers Jr. [MI-14], Rep. Barney Frank [MA-4], Rep. Donald Payne [NJ-10], and Rep. James Walsh [NY-25]. Since the initial introduction in the House, both Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson [TX-30] and Rep. Michael McNulty [NY-21] have also become cosponsors. In late February Rep. Wynn and Rep. Walsh sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to members of the House stressing the importance of a United Nations Emergency Peace Service and asking other members to join them as cosponsors of this bill. In the “Dear Colleague” letter, Reps. Wynn and Walsh said, “As humanitarian crises erupt in Darfur, Somalia, and around the world, a rapid deployment force has become critical to global stability and security….The U.N. must have a permanent Emergency Peace Service that is capable of providing stability, peace, and relief in emergencies.” The UNEPS bill has now been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Citizens for Global Solutions believes that UNEPS is vitally important right now because of the ongoing crises in Darfur, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other countries. These nations need an immediate response from international institutions in order to save lives and prevent full-scale wars. By deploying up to 15,000 civilian, police, judicial, military, and relief professionals within 48 hours, UNEPS would complement- not replace- existing peace operations and bridge the security gap until a coordinated international response takes place. In addition, it would enhance the security of the United States by ensuring that fragile states do not become failed states. UNEPS is a timely and important step in providing the world community with the international emergency service it desperately needs in order to fulfill its “responsibility to protect.”

Why the Time Has Come for UNEPS:
UNEPS would individually recruit, train and employ 10,000 - 18,000 personnel with a wide range of skills, including civilian police, military, judicial experts and relief professionals. This ensures that missions would not fail due to a lack of skills, equipment, cohesiveness, experience in resolving conflicts, or gender, national or religious imbalance. The Service would have special expertise in conflict resolution, environmental crisis response and emergency medical relief. Its military component would have two complete mission headquarters with military, police and civilian staff, technical reconnaissance units, light armored reconnaissance squadrons, motorized light infantry, armored infantry, a helicopter squadron, an engineer battalion and a logistics battalion.

In Darfur, the Sudanese government has effectively prevented the U.N. from deploying peacekeeping forces, which has contributed to the unraveling of the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement. If the international community had UNEPS in its arsenal during negotiation of the peace accord, the deployment of a UNEPS mission to Darfur could have been included in the Darfur Peace Agreement. By the time national peacekeepers were ready to replace UNEPS, the situation on the ground would have stabilized or, at minimum, become more manageable.

UNEPS would help prevent early stage crises (caused by violent conflict or natural phenomenon) from escalating into national or regional disasters. It is a timely and important step in providing the world community with the international emergency service it desperately needs in order to fulfill its “responsibility to protect.”

UPDATE: H. Res. 213 has a high likelyhood of coming out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in late July. In order to do so, we need the support of seven more members on the Foreign Affairs committee. If you reside within the following states and districts, we urge you to contact your representative ASAP to ask them to co-sponsor the bill. AZ-8; CA-6,12,20,27,28,33,39; FL-14,18,19,22; GA-13; MA-10; NE-1; NJ-13; NY-5,6,7,17; NC-13; OR-1; TN-8; TX-29; WA-9.

+ DOWNLOAD: UN Emergency Peacekeeping Lobby Packet Materials [PDF]

+ FURTHER READING: Learn more from the "Action Call Script" for H.Res.213
+ FURTHER READING: Read a published article on UNEPS by our Government Relations Director Don Kraus
+ FURTHER READING: Read more on UNEPS from our Issues pages
+ FURTHER READING: Go to Global Action's UNEPS page

International agreements can be hugely beneficial to local economies. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), for example, would allow American businesses in coastal communities to explore ocean resources that do not belong to any country. Unfortunately, these businesses will not explore or extract gas, oil and minerals from the deep sea because, with UNCLOS un-ratified, they have no common way to regulate their claims to sites. If UNCLOS were to become U.S. law it would not only help safe-guard our economic interests at sea, it would also set a high global standard for protecting the marine environment.

Happenings on the Hill:
Stay tuned on the Partners for Global Change Teleconference call this week for a full update from Don Kraus, who is expecting a presidential statement regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty to be issued this week, most likely clearing the way for congressional approval.

History of Law of the Sea:
The LOS treaty is needed due to the weakness of the older 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually three (3) nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius Bynkershoek. All water beyond national boundaries was considered international waters - free to all nations, but belonging to none of them.

Into the 20th century many nations expressed a need to extend national claims, in order to include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to have the means to enforce pollution controls. This was recognized by the League of Nations, and a conference was held in 1930 at the Hague, but did not result in any agreements. One nation that reflected the customary international law principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources was the United States, when in 1945 President Truman extended U.S. control, to cover all the natural resources of the continental shelf. Other nations were quick to emulate the U.S. Between 1946 and 1950, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador all extended their sovereign rights to a 200 nautical miles distance—so as to cover their fishing grounds. Other nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.

By 1967 only 25 nations still used the old three nautical miles limit, 66 nations had set a 12 nautical miles territorial limit, and eight had set a 200 nautical miles limit. As of June 30, 2006, only a handful of countries use the old 3 miles limit (Jordan, Palau, and Singapore). It is also used in certain Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few UK dependencies, such as Anguilla. [‘History’ excerpted from Wikipedia]

+ DOWNLOAD: Law of the Sea Lobby Packet Materials [PDF]

+ FURTHER READING: Learn more from our "Beltway" article on the Law of the Sea Treaty
+ FURTHER READING: Read some talking points found on our UNCLOS donation page