“Strong Cities” or Global Police Force?

by

High Commissioner for Human Rights

“The Strong Cities Network will launch on 29 September in New York on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Welcoming remarks will be offered by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who will also introduce a Keynote address by U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.”

At the United Nations last Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced our nation’s commitment to a new, global initiative for the purported reason of combating “violent extremism”. You may not heard of it yet, it’s called the Strong Cities Network. The participating U.S. cities include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis. In other parts of the world, Paris, London, Oslo, and Dakar have joined the group of a total of 25 international cities. Their work has begun, but what is that work, exactly?

Attorney General Lynch explains that the Strong Cities Network (SCN) was created—on an international level–to foster an effective hub of communication between beleaguered cities, in the hope that a global collective effort of information sharing will reduce violent extremism at the local level. This is an interesting approach to the problem of the day, although “thinking globally and acting locally” is a mantra the left has been in love with since Ira Einhorn marched in the first Earth Day parade.

Checking around a bit more about the SCN, their website is slick and beautifully obscure: “The Strong Cities Network aims to connect cities and other local authorities on an international basis, to enhance local level approaches to prevent violent extremism; including facilitating information sharing, mutual learning and creation of new and innovative local practices. Find out more about the Strong Cities Network strategic objectives…” At the presser on Wednesday, no details were given as to what information is collected, how it is collected, who is reviewing it, and what they are doing with it, but what is clear is that the stated actions of the SCN are not unlike those of a local a police force dealing with crime…information is gathered, information is stored/analyzed/shared, actions are taken, etc.

A local police department works within the confines of the United States Constitution.  What would constrain the SCN?  Details are lacking.

The Department of Justice’s official press release states: “The SCN will include an International Steering Committee of approximately 25 cities and other sub-national entities from different regions that will provide the SCN with its strategic direction. The SCN will also convene an International Advisory Board, which includes representatives from relevant city-focused networks, to help ensure SCN builds upon their work. It will be run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a leading international “think-and-do” tank with a long-standing track record of working to prevent violent extremism.”

Looks like the SCN will be governed by the the ISC, which takes direction from the ISD.  Sounds legit: a faceless, nameless, international bureaucracy will dictate how, at the local level, we combat violent extremism.

Okay.  At this point, should we just gloss over the “creation of new and innovative local practices” part? Or how about the “sub-national entities from different regions” clause? Should we be concerned that the tab labeled “Empower” is the raised, clenched fist? (Should we be concerned that there even IS a tab labeled “Empower”?)

Should we just allow a 25-member, international think-and-do tank to information-share, mutually-learn, and “create innovative local practices” irrespective of our own law of the land?

How is this *not* a global police force?

Author

Share to...