Despite the paring down of the Republican National Convention due to Hurricane Gustav, there will, at the very least, be a full slate of discussions at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, and I'll be here to cover it. Stay tuned.

Via UN News Center:

Three more young girls have been kidnapped in Haiti over the past week, the United Nations peacekeeping mission to the impoverished Caribbean country reports, amid mounting UN concern about the continuing spate of child abductions.

An eight-year-old girl was kidnapped in the capital, Port-au-Prince, last Thursday, and the following day a seven-year-old girl was abducted in the town of Arcahaie, according to the UN mission (known as MINUSTAH).

On Saturday, a three-year-old girl who had been kidnapped two days earlier was found in Arcahaie and brought to hospital after being injured with a razor blade.

While both boys and girls have been kidnapped, it seems that females are a large target, and often raped and sexually abused. The criminal gangs who are kidnapping the children (while on their way to and from school) also frequently end up killing them, despite the family paying their requested ransom. Massimo Toschi, a child protection adviser with MINUSTAH, says that while successfully decreasing the prevalence of adult kidnappings may have led the gangs to move on to target children in response.

MINUSTAH, the Haitian police and the military have been working diligently to curb this devastating trend, and now have a new victim to protect.

UN Photo/Sophia Paris

I just want to highlight the fact that Obama said this last night:

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

The desire to truly repeat Kennedy's call to reach the Moon within a decade has long been a dream of politicians, actual and fictional.

The end goal, in this case, is undeniably admirable (and politically savvy). It is somewhat broader than Gore's call for clean electricity within the decade and more clearly beneficial to our economy and foreign policy than Bush's call to reach Mars. As Obama says, it is securely at the nexus of economic, foreign policy, and environmental concerns. (I would also add humanitarian.) I'm sure I don't need to rehash to this audience why such an action helps us reach major goals in each of these areas.

Only time will tell whether Obama will be able to do so. It is a major challenge. As Governor Schweitzer so entertainingly laid out on Tuesday, we currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil output and only 3 percent of the reserves.

His strategy?

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

The $150 billion is a good start. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll see more details.

I'll leave deeper analysis of the speech to those more partisan, but, as a piece of rhetoric, it was one of the most complete convention performances I've seen. It's worth a watch regardless of your politics (or nationality).

The foreign policy section begins about 28:55 in (ful text of this section after the jump). He makes the big call for energy independence in 10 years (which echoes Al Gore's call for clean power in a decade) and talks about finding Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, international terrorism, Afghanistan, Russia, and Georgia.

He didn't delved deep into specifics here, but, near the end, we see what I hope will be the glue that holds together his foreign policy agenda:

But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.

Let's hope we hear something similar out of Senator McCain next week.

Full text of the foreign policy section:

And just as we keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

The Convention marches on...

• Colorado is the key: Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe says internal polling shows that Swing voters favor Obama, and that, if Obama wins Colorado, McCain has a "5% chance of winning the election."
  
  
• Don't Go it Alone: New polling from the Better World Campaign shows that 66% of the public supports the U.S. "doing its fair share in the world."
  
  
• Already thinking about 2012? The RNC has changed their primary calendar to allow at least one month of campaigning between the first round of states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) and the rest.
  
  
• Richard Haass: this is a sobering moment for international relations. The next president will face one of the most difficult tests of the past 200+ years.
  
  
• Great political theater: Hillary has her name put on the Convention ballot...and then she yields New York's delegates to Obama to put him over the top.
  
  
• From the Pepsi Center:
  • Bill backs Barack.
    
  • Floor so croweded people are fainting left and right.
  • John Kerry's best speech ever? Too bad the networks didn't cover it.
  • Mama Biden steals the show.
    
  • Obama makes a surprise appearance and declares that "Hillary rocked the house last night."
    

Starring Bill Clinton and John Kerry

I would think that these two went a long way last night toward erasing any bad taste left in the mouths of Democrats after their recent campaign performances. Both speeches were rhetorically masterful.

More importantly, they sold the foreign policy responsibilities of the next president.

Clinton, who is gearing up for CGI (we'll be live-blogging), left these highlights:

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global non-proliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Clearly, the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore America's standing in the world.

...

He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries. He will rebuild our frayed alliances and revitalize the international institutions which help to share the costs of the world's problems and to leverage our power and influence. He will put us back in the forefront of the world's fight to reduce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to stop global warming. He will continue and enhance our nation's global leadership in an area in which I am deeply involved, the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, including a renewal of the battle against HIV/AIDS here at home. He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort. But in a world troubled by terror; by trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; by human rights abuses; by other threats to our security, our interests and our values, when he cannot convert adversaries into partners, he will stand up to them.

...

Barack Obama also will not allow the world's problems to obscure its opportunities. Everywhere, in rich and poor countries alike, hardworking people need good jobs; secure, affordable healthcare, food and energy; quality education for their children; and economically beneficial ways to fight global warming. These challenges cry out for American ideas and American innovation. When Barack Obama unleashes them, America will save lives, win new allies, open new markets and create new jobs for our people.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

That was the question--with respect to the global problems we currently face--that Tom Brokaw posed to the spectacular panel at "Enhancing the U.S.'s Role in the World," sponsored by the National Democratic Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and the Better World Campaign. Some of the participants biggest nightmares?

• Richard Holbrooke: Indonesia's assertion of viral sovereignty. Though the dangers of Indonesia's embrace of such a concept are scary enough, the Non-Aligned Movement is looking to take up the issue later this year. The consequences of other nations following suit could be disastrous should a global pandemic breakout within their borders.
  
  
• Jessica Matthews: Our worsening climate. I don't think this country is anywhere near confronting its energy use. The choice being presented is one of oil vs. renewables. That's not the choice. We must confront demand, and energy use, and we are frighteningly close to serious consequences with our climate already.
  
  
• Vin Weber: That Israel might strike Iran. There is no such thing as a quick and precise air war against Iran. Any action against Iran would lead to a protracted war. Whether the United States would be supportive of Israel in this action, Iran has the capability to reach U.S. soil with its missiles.
  
  
• Richard Haass: We've all been asked the question--what's the most important thing to do?--but the issues that are going to bite us are all ones that are going to take some time to work out. There are a stunning number of problems of significant scale and complexity, for which we are not prepared economically or militarily, and for which we don't have the international credibility to take on alone. This is a sobering moment in International Relations. The next president will face one of the most trying moments of the past 200 years-plus.
  
  

A new report from the World Bank has caused the financial institution to revise its estimate of the number of people living in poverty from 1 billion to 1.4 billion. From the UN News Center:

"The new data confirm that the world will likely reach the first Millennium Development Goal [MDG] of halving the 1990 level of poverty by 2015 and that poverty has fallen by about one percentage point a year since 1981," said Justin Lin, the World Bank's Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of Development Economics.

"However, the sobering news that poverty is more pervasive than we thought means we must redouble our efforts, especially in sub-Saharan Africa," he warned.

The revised figures are based on 2005 measures of purchasing power parity, but due to lags, do not reflect the impacts of recent surge in food and fuel prices.

The agency also raised its poverty benchmark from $1 a day to $1.25 a day - the average poverty line for the world's 10 to 20 poorest countries - based on the new data, reflecting a more accurate picture of the cost of living in developing nations.

"The new estimates are a major advance in poverty measurement because they are based on far better price data for assuring that the poverty lines are comparable across countries," said Martin Ravallion, Director of the Development Research Group at the agency.

Here's the powerpoint of the aforementioned UN Foundation poll on public concern about international issues.

Yes, Hillary's was well done too, but I'm talking about Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. That guy knows how to work a crowd.

It's worth the watch if for only that reason, but he also delivered what has, to this point, been the Convention's most robust prime-time argument for a new direction in energy policy.

"America consumes 25 percent of the oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don't need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn't enough oil in America -- on land or offshore -- to meet America's full energy needs. Barack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one you don't use."

Kudos to Schweitzer for clearly recognizing the importance of efficiency and energy independence.

His support for "clean coal" is misguided, but, all in all, Schweitzer delivered a message that must be heard in prime time.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Can the Next President Make the Middle East Irrelevant? Starting NOW and running to 2pm, John Kerry, Greg Craig, Joschka Fischer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Mel Levine, Walter Isaacson, Steve Coll, Rob Malley, Daniel Levy, James Zogby, and Janice O'Connell discuss at a Washington-Note-hosted DNC forum.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

The last year in which the public trusted the Democratic party more than the Repulican Party on the issue of national security was 1967.

Although we're mired in both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even though only 21% of the American public believes that we're winning the War on Terrorism, national security remains the Democrats', and Obama's, Achilles heel.

Witness the following from a Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosener Research poll from earlier this year:

* 45% of independent voters rated Senator Obama as "not tough enough" on national security, compared to Senator McCain.
* Who would do a better job of "ensuring a strong military" (Republicans--57%; Democrats--28%)
* Who "respects the military" (Republicans--54%; Democrats--26%)

So how can progressives make inroads on the national security debate?

Enter the Truman National Security Project. It bills itself as "the nation's only organization that recruits, trains and positions a new generation of progressives across America to lead on National Security." At an event titled, "The National Security and Defense Policy of the next president," former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig broached how Obama hopes to make inroads on McCain's bread and butter issue.

Danzig and Perry suggested several dimensions to Obama's strategy to win the National Security debate:

1. Continue to connect the energy crisis (and, relatedly, global warming) to the national security debate (including the war on terrorism).
2. Shift the "war" focus from the gains in Iraq to the failures in Afghanistan.
3. Talk about "character," and specifically, the temperment of John McCain

Whether their strategy will succeed remains to be seen, but history seems to suggest that for each of these items, Democrats have their work cut out for them.

With respect to energy, Democrats have failed to find solid ground, and have gotten slammed on domestic oil drilling. They can't seem to decide what their policy on drilling should be, let alone common talking points or party message.

Shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan would seem like a strong idea, but anyone who can think back to 2004 will remember that this was one of the principal arguments of John Kerry--that we "took our eye off the ball" in Tora Bora--but it never really stuck with the public.

On the character issue, much will depend on how negative the Obama campaign is willing to go, and whether this message will resonate with the public-- neither of which I dare try to predict. Only time will tell, I suppose.

From the UN Foundation and Better World Campaign:

The United Nations Foundation and its sister organization, the Better World Campaign, released today the results of a six-month public opinion research project indicating shifts in the issues Americans are concerned about internationally and the approach they want the United States to take. The research shows a sharp swing in public concern about international economic issues (dependence on foreign oil and trade) a dramatic decline in the landscape of foreign policy and national security concerns and a new national security agenda and outlook that is significantly different from the one in the period after 9/11. (emphasis mine).

"An underlying shift is occurring in American attitudes regarding the international role and priorities of the United States. Voters across the party spectrum understand that America's reputation has faltered, and believe this is a problem for the nation that needs attention and repair," said Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation. "Both dependence on foreign oil and strengthening the global economy have skyrocketed, displacing terrorism at the top of voters' international concerns."

Concern is also growing over America's dependence upon foreign oil across the political spectrum. Of those asked, 67% feel America's dependence on foreign oil is the number one international concern. Global economic and trade issues ranks below that, pushing terrorism down the list of concerns, as compared to similar polling conducted by the UN Foundation and Better World Campaign last fall.

"To advance these and other issues, our research shows that Americans overwhelmingly support policies that promote a balance of military strength and diplomacy, and to prioritize international cooperation, instead of going it alone to advance our interests," said Wirth.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans and Democrats and 70% of swing voters selected "a balance of toughness and diplomacy" as one of the top three attributes of the next president. Both Republicans (86%) and swing voters (74%) also chose keeping "America safe and secure" as a top attribute. Working with organizations such as the United Nations and with other countries to tackle global terrorism was a priority attribute for Democrats (73%).

Key highlights of the research include:

* The overwhelming majority of American voters believe that America's reputation has suffered in the world. 78% of all voters believe the United States is less respected by other countries than it has been in the past.

* 80% of voters believe that working with major allies, and through international organizations, is a wiser strategy for achieving U.S. international affairs goals.

The research, undertaken by a bipartisan polling team led by Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies and Geoff Garin of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, is the second round of an extensive two-year effort involving polling and focus group work. In 2008, Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research conducted two surveys on behalf of the United Nations Foundation. A national telephone survey conducted July 16-20, 2008 among 800 registered voters (MOE = +3.46%). A national internet survey conducted July 16-21, 2008 among 1,600 registered voters (with four national replicate subsets of 400 registered voters). (MOE on 1,600 = +2.45%, MOE N=400 = +4.9%).

The Los Angeles Times today offers a great story on some of the more unorthodox ways that peacekeepers can help instill a culture of peace. In addition to kung fu, it seems that tae kwon do, tai chi, yoga, and even pizza-making lessons are also effective peacebuilding tactics. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, LAT's Borzou Daragahi reports, are using these activities to bring a level of normality -- and even a little fun -- to people scarred by years of war. These kind of tasks are not all that the 13,000 blue helmets are doing in Lebanon, though.

The U.N. peacekeepers also offer medical and dental clinics and computer classes, and they have plans to supply more artificial limbs for the people wounded by old land mines and ordnance.

The efforts are all meant to endear the troops to a local population that has violently resisted incursions by Israeli, French, American and Syrian forces over the decades.

"When we do such things, it brings us closer to the people," said Maj. Rishi Raj Singh of the 800-plus Indian contingent. "The return is immeasurable. We don't spend a lot of money, and it's immensely popular."

These kind of initiatives seem like wise investments, with little risk and huge upside as a "soft power" strategy. Read the whole article here.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

Some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Day One at the DNC:

• Breakfast with Global Leadership for Climate Action--a UN Foundation/Club of Madrid Partnership. Participants, including former heads of state, foreign ministers, business leaders and U.S. Ambassadors, express optimism about a post-Kyoto agreement with an Obama Administration.
  
  
• Tim Wirth and John Podesta declare that Democrats' Energy Plan doesn't go far enough.
  
  
• "Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and advertise"--Ted Turner's "words to live by" at the Philanthropy Forum.
  
  
• Touche, Joe Lieberman? Jim Leach, former Republican representative from Iowa, begins the Convention with an Obama endorsement that doesn't quite bring the house down.
  
  
• Reports of a planned Obama assassination attempt abound.
  
  
• A tribute to Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama praises Hillary, and James Carville thinks the first day was a failure.

 

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

Democratic Party leaders--including Howard Dean, Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi--opened up the DNC last night at a reception hosted by the National Democratic Institute by calling, virtually in unison, for Obama to restore American leadership in the world. They pledged to the audience, which included a delegation of Georgian government officials, that an Obama Administration would return the United States to its position as a "strong partner with the rest of the world."

Although Dean told me he couldn't "talk foreign policy" (or give me an On Day One idea), he did then proceed to run down a litany of actions that an Obama Administration--and the Democratic Party--would take to work more constructively with the world. He touched on all the usual, albeit critical, steps that an Obama Administration could begin with, including bringing the Iraq war to a close, working with and treating our allies with respect, and (perhaps directed towards the Georgian delegation) opposing authoritarianism while defending democracy and human rights. Pelosi followed suit, committing that an Obama Adminstration and a Democratic Congress would "work together for the freedom of mankind."

While the rhetoric certainly wasn't anything new, it underscored both major parties' continued commitment to greater international cooperation should Obama win in November. Indeed, as noted here earlier, the selection of Joe Biden brings a committed internationalist on to the ticket. Given the public's concern about America's standing in the world, this is certainly smart politics.

Russ Carnahan, one of the Party's up-and-comers, finished off the night by offering his ideas for Day One, which reaffirm many of Dean's and Pelosi's statements.

In June, al Qaeda released a video seeking to undermine a UN-brokered peace deal that had recently been reached between the Somali transitional government and some opposition factions. Moderates rejected the call to violence, but more radical and militant groups, such as the notorious Shabab, stepped up their attacks, including toward UN personnel. They had not affirmed the connection with al Qaeda, however -- until now at least. On the heels of another peace deal -- the timing likely is not coincidental -- Shabab is proclaiming its allegiance to bin Laden.

"We are negotiating how we can unite into one," said Muktar Robow, a top military commander of Shabab, which the U.S. State Department designated a terrorist organization this year. "We will take our orders from Sheik Osama bin Laden because we are his students."

A senior U.S. official tempered Shabab's enthusiastic affirmation, which could be as much a tactic of provocative rhetoric as it is an indication of a stronger relationship between the two terrorist organizations.

U.S. Ambassador Michael E. Ranneberger acknowledged growing links between Shabab and Al Qaeda, but said ties remained in the early stages.

"There are indications of a fairly close Shabab-Al Qaeda connection, though it's not clear to what extent they've been operationalized," he said. "Is Shabab taking orders from Al Qaeda? I would say no. They are still running their own show."

Even Shabab "running their own show," of course, still poses a threat to Somalia's fragile hopes for stability.

The United Nations Foundation and the Better World Campaign (the sponsors of this blog) are hosting a panel discussion tomorrow afternoon at the "Big Tent" in Denver. The pollster Geoff Garin will present findings on foreign policy and national security "messaging" from his new report: Language for a New American Consensus on International Cooperation. The Washington Note's Steve Clemons will respond. Be there or be square.

by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Ten years ago, I stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce a bill, which eventually became known as the "Helms-Biden law", to authorize the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. Securing its passage was a hard-fought, but worthwhile, initiative.

Unfortunately, we are again in arrears to the UN. For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution for its peacekeeping operations -- missions in places like Lebanon, Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo -- that advance our national interests while sharing the human, political and financial costs of peacekeeping with other nations.

The Peacekeeping arrears -- $117 million to date -- are due to an outdated cap which prohibits the U.S. from paying more than 25 per cent of the United Nations' peacekeeping budget. However, the UN is billing us at just under 27 percent (a reduction from 31 percent, negotiated by U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke in 2000, under the terms of my legislation). If we continue to let the arrears stand, these critical missions could suffer, the nations who have been contributing their troops as peacekeepers might begin to balk at future requests, and our standing to press for further UN reform will be diminished. This is why I introduced a bill to correct the cap problem and pay our arrears, S. 392, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved on June 27.

Ironically, while our arrears are rising, the importance of UN peacekeeping is rising too. If the UN didn't conduct these missions, we might have to -- at a much higher financial cost and burden on our over-stretched military. Our yearly dues to UN peacekeeping, which support missions in 18 conflict zones, are just over $1 billion -- less than the cost of a week in Iraq, and less than 0.5 percent of our entire Defense budget.

The UN 'blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. We vote time and again in the UN Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions -- and our financial support should be in harmony with our policy. We can not, in good conscience, continue to shortchange these operations.

The New York Times receives a leaked email from State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher to US-UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in which Boucher excoriates Khalilzad for meeting with Pakistani Political leader Asif Ali Zardiri.

Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing "advice and help."

"Can I ask what sort of 'advice and help' you are providing?" Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. "What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?" Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan's already chaotic internal politics.

Around the UN there have been persistent stories about Khalilzad's alleged foreign policy "freelancing" and his supposed ambition (as noted in the Times article) to replace Hamid Kharzai as president of Afghanistan.

In an old UN Plaza Clip from February, Matthew Lee and I discuss some of these stories surrounding Khalilzad. As I say below, I really don't like to get into rumor mongering about Khalilzad's ambitions to be a foreign head of state.

By Katherine Miller, executive director of communications, UN Foundation

Yesterday's convention headlines were dominated (and rightly so) by Sen. Ted Kennedy's moving display of personal strength and party loyalty, as well as Michelle Obama's touching portrait of her loving family. But behind the scenes there important discussions about climate change and global philanthropy taking place.

The National Democratic Institute is hosting the International Leaders Forum, a series of events for the more than 1,200 foreign dignitaries who are here to witness Barak Obama officially taking control of the Democratic party and begin the final push towards Election Day. C-Span is featuring some of the video on its DNC hub.

The diplomats are especially excited about Wednesday's day long program featuring Madeline Albright, former Sen. Tom Daschle, Richard Holbrooke, former Sen. Tim Wirth (president of the UN foundation) and rumored guest Joe Biden. But until then they are spending their time listening to members of Congress, policy advisers, and others discuss the role of international cooperation and ideas for the next Administration's foreign policy approaches.

Alongside of the NDI program is the 2008 Rocky Mountain Roundtable hosted by the city of Denver and Mayor Hickenlooper. Yesterday's panel on global philanthropy was held before an audience of more than 900 people and featured Ted Turner, Larry Brilliant, Mary Robinson, Andrew Young, and many others. It was moderated by Walter Isaacson. It was inspiring and feisty, and there was a general consensus that, among the issues facing us, Climate Change is the most important. As Brilliant said, "if we don't do something now, we'll have malaria in Los Angeles and we won't have to worry about the design for the 9/11 memorial because New York will be underwater." Dramatic statements, yes. But not untrue according to the world's scientists.

Listening to these amazing men and women was totally inspiring and (unknowingly) prepared me for a discussion I had later that evening in the Convention Hall. After listening to Kennedy's speech, I ran into former Ohio Representative John Kasich. Now a commentator on Fox, Kasich took the opportunity to tell me how screwed up the UN is, how we all need to fix it and that its letting people die.

It was clear (and disappointing) after much discussion that Kasich, probably doesn't understand the role the UN plays in humanitarian situations. Or at least things of them along parallel lines. He has just returned from a trip to Rwanda and commented on all the amazing things happening there but refused to acknowledge the role of UNICEF, WHO, or others on the ground there and throughout the rest of Africa. Instead he is fixated on trying to make the UN into something it is not, a governing body instead of a diplomatic one.

We closed out our conversation agreeing to disagree but, I did invite him to NDI's session on Wednesday. Maybe hearing about the good work of the UN, the American public's desire for international cooperation, and meeting some of the 2,200 people expected to attend will open his eyes a little more.

Seriously. From the UN News Center:

The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has received a coveted Emmy Award for its part in coming up with a means to allow high-quality video to reach devices ranging from mobile phones to High Definition Televisions.

The honour recognized the Joint Video Team - comprising the ITU, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) - for its highly efficient video compression method to significantly reduce both the bandwidth needed to deliver high-quality video and the space to store it.

The technology "is a jewel in the crown of international standards collaboration," Malcolm Johnson, Director of ITU's standardization bureau, said in his acceptance speech at a ceremony in Hollywood on Saturday.

"Its widespread adoption is testament to the flexibility and efficiency that has been engineered by a group of people that have dedicated themselves to achieving this goal," he added.

Called H.264 | MPEG-4 AVC, the technology is used in products for companies such as Adobe, Apple, BBC, France Telecom, Motorola, Sony and Toshiba to send high-definition video images over broadcast television, cable television, satellite television services, Blu-Ray, mobile phones and Internet Protocol television.

Over at On Day One, our man in Denver Travis Moore is catching politicians, media celebrities, and activists with the On Day One cam. So far, we have On Day One ideas (that is, "what do you think the next president should do, on day one") from Vice President Walter Mondale, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan and, below, from the MSNBC Morning Joe duo Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinsky.

Let me throw my support behind Ezra Klein's analysis that "Elevating Biden suggests that the Obama campaign has decided to have an argument...an argument about which set of ideas is better for the future of the country. And in Biden, they've engaged at the point of greatest vulnerability and opportunity for Democrats: National security."

So what would a Biden national security argument look like? I think it's fair to call Biden a committed multilateralist; his actions and words over his long Senate career shows strong (but not uncritical) support for the United Nations, international law and diplomacy. I also think it's fair to say that his commitment to working with our allies and through international institutions is not born from ideology, but pragmatism. His words and deeds suggest that he supports the United Nations not only for its own sake, but because it is in American self-interest to do so.

Consider the lines of the following argument, published on UN Dispatch last year, in support of legislation he sponsored on the somewhat arcane subject of American arrears to the United Nations.

Ten years ago, I stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce a bill, which eventually became known as the "Helms-Biden law", to authorize the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. Securing its passage was a hard-fought, but worthwhile, initiative.

Unfortunately, we are again in arrears to the UN. For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution for its peacekeeping operations -- missions in places like Lebanon, Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo -- that advance our national interests while sharing the human, political and financial costs of peacekeeping with other nations.

The Peacekeeping arrears -- $117 million to date -- are due to an outdated cap which prohibits the U.S. from paying more than 25 per cent of the United Nations' peacekeeping budget. However, the UN is billing us at just under 27 percent (a reduction from 31 percent, negotiated by U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke in 2000, under the terms of my legislation). If we continue to let the arrears stand, these critical missions could suffer, the nations who have been contributing their troops as peacekeepers might begin to balk at future requests, and our standing to press for further UN reform will be diminished. This is why I introduced a bill to correct the cap problem and pay our arrears, S. 392, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved on June 27.

Ironically, while our arrears are rising, the importance of UN peacekeeping is rising too. If the UN didn't conduct these missions, we might have to -- at a much higher financial cost and burden on our over-stretched military. Our yearly dues to UN peacekeeping, which support missions in 18 conflict zones, are just over $1 billion -- less than the cost of a week in Iraq, and less than 0.5 percent of our entire Defense budget.

The UN 'blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. We vote time and again in the UN Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions -- and our financial support should be in harmony with our policy. We can not, in good conscience, continue to shortchange these operations.

Supporting increased funding for United Nations peacekeeping is a pretty thankless task. It tends to be a subject about which the political right can get pretty riled, while the middle and the left generally do not take notice. But Biden is not passive about his support of the United Nations. He embraces it. The photo above, for example, is one of only five photos in the Senator's press kit.

I, for one, am greatly looking forward to the rest of this campaign. With Joe Biden on one of the tickets, we can expect a passionate and articulate defense of engagement and international cooperation before a very large audience. Here's hoping that the GOP will take a similar leap toward international engagement.

Center for American Progress President John Podesta and UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth write a joint op-ed in the Denver Post today on the promise and challenge of remaking the energy economy through smart public policy.

The technologies we need to begin this economic transformation already exist today, and the dollars will flow if we just change the rules of the energy game, rules that have favored the old ways of doing business with tax breaks, regulatory incentives, and lip service to alternatives, and stop using the atmosphere as a garbage dump for our emissions. As a first step, we must cap our emissions and put a price on carbon. The investments that will result from this decision will be a powerful stimulus for economic growth, competitive advantage, and new jobs -- good jobs in manufacturing, installation, and research, entry-level jobs and high-wage jobs alike.

[snip]

The Democratic Party platform recognizes the energy opportunity in its section on "Investing in American Competitiveness" -- but it does not go far enough. The size and urgency of this task require a president willing to make it the top domestic priority in the White House -- not pigeonholed as an energy initiative or environmental initiative or even as a security initiative, but made the centerpiece of his economic agenda. Indeed, it will demand that the president refocus the mission and responsibility of all relevant government agencies and convene them in a new National Energy Council in the White House.

The success of this year's candidates and next year's elected leaders will rise and fall on how they address the energy issue. Those who convey the scale and scope -- and opportunity -- of transforming our energy economy will succeed.

The two mention Colorado's good track record and leadership on renewable energy. I would be remiss if I did not use this as an opportunity to link to the excellent work of Fort Collins, Colorado based blogger Timothy B. Hurst, who chronicles Colorado's energy transformation at EcoPolitology and Red Green and Blue.

Blake gives a succinct breakdown of the parliamentary aftermath of Nawaz Sharif's withdrawal from Pakistan's ruling coalition.

Matthew Lee of Inner City Press walks us through the dueling Security Council resolutions on Georgia

The Beijing Olympics have ended. The U.S. won the most medals. China won the most gold.

The Democratic National Convention begins tonight. Stay tuned. Travis, our man on the ground, will be sending updates.

>>Georgia - President Mikheil Saakashvili announced on Sunday that he intends to rebuild Georgia's army and remains committed to keeping Abkhazia and South Ossetia under Georgia's flag. Today both houses of Russia's parliament voted today to request that President Medvedev recognize the independence of the two separatist enclaves.

>>Pakistan - The party led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has quit the governing coalition amid arguments over the reinstatement of judges dismissed by former President Musharraf and also who would be nominated as a replacement for the former President. Sharif claims that an earlier agreement had been reached to nominate a non-partisan candidate. The Pakistan People's Party has nominated Benazir Bhutto's widow, Asif Ali Zardari. Analysts believe it's unlikely that the government will fall.

• UN Plaza: Georgia Still on Our Minds