UNITED WORLD/CDWG NEWS AND VIEWS is an independent journal of Uni-
tist thought sponsored by the Coalition for Democratic World
Government. Sub-
scriptions are $12.00 (U.S.) per year or 12 ounces worth of
International Reply
Coupons (IRC). Submissions are welcome. All articles copyright of the
authors
unless otherwise specified. Send to:
Few people like being told what to think. Or perhaps it would be
more accurate to say that few people like to think they are being told
what to think. When peoples’ ideas and deeply rooted
convictions are chal-
lenged, their natural reaction is to dig in, become defensive, and
attempt
to doggedly refute any assault. In cases like this, arguing can
actually be
counter-productive, and the better one’s debating points, the
less likely they
are to persuade the person one is trying to convince.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates understood this, and thus he
developed what has come to be known as the Socratic Method. Instead of
telling his students what they should think, Socrates would ask them a
series
of questions, designed so that in the process of answering these
questions,
they would be forced to re-examine their ideas and assumptions. Thus,
with
this subtle and gentle form of persuasion, Socrates could guide them
into
arriving at the correct conclusions by themselves. If practiced
correctly, this
method can not only teach someone something new, but also can leave the
person convinced that the new ideas they have discovered are entirely
their
own creation.
It would be beneficial for those of us in the world unity movement
to learn this two thousand year old lesson. After all, we are
challenging as-
sumptions that have been in place for centuries, that are so deeply
imbedded
in our culture that most people are not even aware that they are making
them. No matter how logical our arguments, not matter how accurate our
facts may be, we are not going to convince anyone if our method is
simply
to rhetorically bludgeon our opponents into admitting defeat.
Instead of answering claims and declarations of belief with counter-
claims and declarations, we need to be asking questions. The questions
need to be carefully crafted, and we need to be prepared to actually
listen
to peoples’ answers, not only so that we can ask them more
and better
questions, but also so that we can truly understand where these people
are
coming from.
What I would like to propose, is a guide book of questions to ask when
someone makes a statement or declaration with which we disagree. It
would
be something like an episode of the television game show, Jeopardy, in
which
the contestants are given the answers, and must come up with the
questions.
Unlike Jeopardy, however, there would not be just one single
‘right’ question
for each answer. Instead, there would be a series of questions, leading
to
an epiphany that would come, not from the outside, but from within the
person’s own soul and mind.
I will give one example of the kind of thing I have in mind:
Answer: Democratic World Government is simply impossible. I’m
not
going to waste my time and energy working for something that can never
be
achieved.
Questions: What is it about Democratic World Government that
makes it impossible? Haven’t many things that were once
considered impos-
sible, like airplanes or women’s suffrage, later come about?
Isn’t everything
impossible until somebody succeeds in doing it for the first time? If
we live
in a world of infinite possibilities, how can we say that anything is
truly
impossible? If enough people come to believe that DWG is possible, then
will it become possible? What will that take? What would have to happen
for it to demonstrate it is possible?
I’m sure you get the idea. We invite our readers to submit
their own
lists of answers and questions, based on their own experience talking
with
people of different opinions. Hopefully we will get enough responses. to
compile them into a guidebook for members of the movement to use when
they run into opposition to their ideas. . .which they almost certainly
will. If
we hope to succeed in creating the most revolutionary change the world
has
ever seen, we need to train ourselves to be powerful advocates of our
beliefs.
Any questions?
Letters to the Editor
Dear Mr. Shepherd
Please excuse me that I have forgotten to send the next fee for the
“United World” since March 11. Thanks for sending
me the newsletter
despite the fact that I didn’t pay! Enclosed are $24 ill
March 13. Meantime,
I am 88 years old and I hope to stay healthy for some more years, in
order
to be able to help in my thoughts for world peace and a United World.
Delighted to see the email forwarded by a World Federalist colleague.
Ten years ago we were exchanging newsletters. The Purple Dawn has been
phased out, but [I’m] still circulating global citizens
proposals.
Best wishes.
Duncan Graham
1404-1650 Haro St.
Vancouver BC V6G 2X9
Canada
Editor’s Note: Has it
really been ten years? We remember
Purple
Dawn very fondly. Thanks for sending us one of your proposals
– printed
later on in this issue – and for the many world unity related
quotations.
Decline And Decision
by
Hank Stone
So many issues face our country and our world that normal people
shrug them off, and concentrate on doing their jobs, raising their
children,
and keeping their households together. But there is something simple to
understand, and something simple to do: the Decline and the Decision.
The Decline: World population is 7 billion, after doubling twice in
the last one hundred years. Meanwhile world production of cheap oil has
peaked. A growing population faces decline of the resource base that has
brought prosperity to the developed world.
Peak oil calls world food production into question because tractor fuel,
fertilizer, insecticides, transport and processing all depend on vast
amounts
of fossil fuels. Fresh water for irrigation and arable land are also
peaking.
As long as technology could serve up faster and faster resource use to
match
our growing numbers, we didn’t have to face the truth. Now we
do.
Our success at procreation and our endless appetite for resources have
denuded the landscape. Now, like a global game of musical chairs, we can
no longer take for granted that children born today will have the food
they
need to live.
For our whole lifetimes, advancing technology gave us increasing effi-
cient ways to use natural resources. Some believe that technology can be
substituted for oil, or fresh water; it cannot. The U.S. uses 21
million barrels
of oil EVERY DAY. No substitute energy source is available in real time.
Wind and especially solar energy can potentially replace fossil fuel
energy,
but not without decades and probably generations to build new
infrastruc-
ture.
World population growth will inevitably end. It’s simple:
anything
unsustainable cannot be sustained. It will stop. World populations,
which
have been growing since the Black Plague, will peak and decline.
The Decision: Rampant population growth will end. But it can end
in two basic ways. We human beings face a decision.
If we continue on the present path, the rich and powerful will do what
they must to preserve their possessions and privilege. They will
acknowledge
neither the decline nor the decision and claim the right to be
surrounded by
plenty. After all, God helps those who help themselves.
This would be a reasonable choice for the rich, except that it forces
people whose families are literally starving into desperate acts,
including
theft, terrorism, revolution, and genocide. In the age of nuclear
weapons,
no one is safe until everyone is safe. Furthermore, if we expect to
confront
climate change, the world will have to act together.
What alternative response could there be, to dramatically reduced
resources per capita? Suppose we wanted to live sustainably, so that no
crisis like this one would happen for the foreseeable future. Suppose we
wanted an arbitrarily high standard for living for everyone, with
wilderness
preserved, and enough resources of all kinds? Suppose we wanted to work
toward a future world in which everyone had enough?
We would have to make FOUR DECISIONS.
One human family: First, all
human beings are in this together.
Civilization will not be sustainable with outsiders so desperate they
have
nothing to lose. Climate change requires joint action. Utopian or not,
we
need ”the brotherhood of man”.
Cooperation: Second, we retool
societies worldwide for efficiency,
renewable energy, and climate change recovery. We share best practices
for farming, manufacturing and operating an economy. We do this cooper-
atively, as an alternative to war as a jobs program. Where there are
dis-
agreements, we set up discussion, mediation, arbitration, and laws to
resolve
them. If individuals break the law, they are individually subject to
arrest,
but justice requires an end to the war system.
Population: Third, we agree to
intentionally limit fertility to bring
population, in every region of the world, back into balance with
sustainable
carrying capacity. This should be done with non-coercive incentives and
disincentives. Animal populations that overshoot their carrying
capacity die
off. That would be a tragedy for the human family.
Share: Fourth, we prepare for
energy and population decline. We
plan for sharing during hard times. What basic necessities does life
with
dignity require? Everyone needs potable water, clothing, shelter, basic
edu-
cation, basic healthcare, and a sustainable food supply. The grain now
fed to
livestock, if consumed by human beings directly, could end hunger.
Eating
meat is unsustainable while people are starving.
These are radical decisions, but not unreasonable, unwise or unkind.
They are likely to be welcomed by most of the world’s
inhabitants as deserv-
ing support.
Do not underestimate the importance of personally making these de-
cisions. Society has a lot of inertia, but will go where the people
lead.
Life on Earth has existed for at least three billion years. Modern
humans have existed for perhaps two million years. Recorded human
history
is just thousands of years old. And we have known the basic layout of
the
Universe for less than 100 years. We humans are just starting out.
With luck and care, humankind can prosper on Earth for billions more
years. That’s a long adventure story. That’s a lot
of time to have fun, to
make mistakes and learn from them. That’s a lot of
opportunity to figure
out how to live and thrive.
But it depends upon recognizing the decline and deciding on civiliza-
tion.
A Global Civilization for the People Of The Planet
by
Duncan Graham
We are in a white-water of global chaos in the present state of inter-
national finances, climate change, rogue-failed states, wealth
disparity, en-
vironmental and ecological degradation, and more. Basic issues of
security,
economic and social justice are planetary in nature, and though we have
a
human mosaic of cultures, languages and spiritual aspirations, we are
also
a brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind: the Global Village. However,
there is no self-government for this Nation of Humanity. There is a
polit-
ical vacuum at the planetary level. A civilized world promised in so
many
declarations and treaties is largely unfulfilled. (Pact of Paris, 1929;
UDHR,
1948; Complete and General Disarmament in the McCloy-Zorin Accord,
1963; Summit for Children, 1992; and the Millennium Project, 2000.)
The present Westphalian model of world society based on sovereign
nation states is dysfunctional in the present reality. Since the Hague
Con-
ference of 1899, we have had 111 years of blood, sweat and tears in the
struggle to create a world of peace and justice – but it was
a start. The
League of Nations after WWI was an effort (First Parliament of Mankind,
The Globe, Toronto, 15 Feb. 1919). World War II saw the creation of the
pre-nuclear United Nations, perhaps the best possible in 1945, but
there was
no UN Charter Review in 1955. The same five Permanent Members of the
UN Security Council of 1945 are still entrenched, and “saving
succeeding
generations from the scourge of war” is a lost cause in the
arms bazaar of
$1,600 billion annual
expenditures. The United Nation has played a posi-
tive role in many areas. The UN specialized agencies have a mixed
record.
Our legacy to our children and their children, however, is being
debased,
curtailed and stolen.
History is being telescoped. We are in the childhood of our species,
and our right of passage to the beauty of humankind is glowing at the
horizon
of human consciousness. The status quo is not an option.
Progression for the next quantum leap to a human civilization is al-
ready in the minds of those in the foremost files of time. To explore,
discuss
and debate the political, moral and spiritual dimensions of planetary
gover-
nance should be the provenance of an in-gathering of representatives
from
sub-national political constituencies – provinces, states in
federal systems,
mega-cities, and the 100 smaller nations of the U.N. These political
entities
have a mindset and an outlook that appreciates the reality of being
part of a
greater whole. They have an understanding of the planetary ecumene. (The
whole is greater than the sum of the parts.) They more directly
represent
the world’s people than the 193 member states of the United
Nations.
Electronic population-weighted voting would democratize the process
and guide the agenda. A dynamic could develop to envision a planetary
political base as legitimate as the nation-state system. A confluence
of con-
cerns could play the catalytic role in creating the centripetal
political will
and energy that could fuse the disparate threads into a coherent
pattern.
Evolving an effective planetary federal government for our seven
billion peo-
ple and the inter-connected web of all life would be a political
Copernican
Revolution – a metanoia in how we see the evolution of our
human society.
The rationale for this approach first surfaced at a meeting of the Sec-
ond Parliamentary Conference on the Americas, Puerto Rico, 2000, where
the topic was a Free Trade Area of the Americas and the themes were ac-
countability to people, transparency and the need for equity and
solidarity
for the most vulnerable. The participants were legislators from regional
and sub-national constituencies in the Americas. At one point the chair,
Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, president of the Quebec National Assembly, cau-
tioned the meeting that they were discussing resolutions to be forwarded
to national governments, not
setting up a Parliament of the Americas. A
coalescing equation had been generated.
“There is no question there will be a global government this
century.
The questions are will it be totalitarian, benign, or participatory
democratic,
and whether it will come by cataclysm, incremental steps, or rational
design;
the probabilities being in that order.” Saul Mendlovitz,
Prof. of World
Order Studies, Rutgers University, and 1991 recipient of the UNESCO
Peace
Education Award.
The
Uniting of Nations: Essay On Global Governance
A Book
Review by Ronald J. Glossop
Editor’s Note: This
review originally appeared in the Winter,
2012,
issue of Global Solutions News.
The Uniting of Nations (P.I.E.
Peter Lang, 3rd ed., 2010) argues for
the need for a governed world community and uses the European Union as
a model for how that could be accomplished. One must start with small
steps and proceed gradually in such a way that national governments will
want to join to gain something specific for themselves. The European
Union
would be the nucleus and other countries could join this global
political union
separately, but they would then be required to work together to form
their
own regional organizations. Thus eventually there would a world
federation
made up of regional federations, one of which would be the European
Union
which initiated the new global organization.
McClintock begins the book with a summary for those “who do
not
have time to read the whole essay” (p. 17). The world faces
many problems,
problems which no country by itself can solve and which can only get
worse.
The only way forward is for countries to work together. Europe is a
region
of the world demonstrating how nations can share sovereignty in order to
improve both their national welfare and the welfare of the whole group.
“What Europe has done, the world needs to do. This essay
explains how.”
(p. 18).
The many current global problems not being handled shows that
“the
present system of global governance is dysfunctional” (p.
18). The basic
problem is the lack of a sovereign governing body for the whole global
com-
munity which can make and enforce laws as sovereign national governments
do within countries. Just as citizens share sovereignty in order to
establish a
governing body within their nations, so national governments need to
share
sovereignty in order to establish a governing body at the global level.
The
European Union is a good example of a governing body over nations which
has both sovereign powers and political legitimacy. On the other hand,
the
U.N.’s Security Council has impressive powers on paper, but
not in the real
world. The U.N. Security Council also lacks political legitimacy,
because
five countries are permanent members with a veto power, while at any one
time only seven percent of the 193 countries are represented at all.
The global community must do two things: assist the failing nation-
states and “bring into being a governing body which can act
effectively at
the global level” (p. 23). But the first task itself requires
“a system of global
governance that works” (p. 24) and the rules set up by the
U.N. Charter
are such that the Security Council can never be reformed.
“Something new
needs to be created” (p. 25). This new global organization
could be initiated
by “the European Union and around half-a-dozen or so pioneer
states” (p.
26)
As was done in Europe the new global governance community could
start with a few countries focused on a single problem like food
security
(p. 27) and then “a community for climate, energy and
prosperity” (p. 28).
As the European Community was furthered by the Zeitgeist of a united
Europe, so the current Zeitgeist of globalism can support the creation
of a
Global Union. Perhaps future historians will see the European Union as
an
experiment in sharing sovereignty by states that could be followed by
the
whole world.
Having given the overall thesis, McClintock turns to the details. The
global threats not being handled by the current global governance system
are “War and Conflict,” ”Acts of
Terrorism,” Nuclear Weapons,” Depletion
of Natural Resources,” Instability in the Domain of
International Finance,”
The Outsourcing of Jobs,” “Migration,”
“Indebted Countries,” “The Viola-
tion of Human Rights,” “Climate Change,”
“The Concentration of Corpo-
rate Power,” and “Pandemics”. McClintock
documents each of these prob-
lems and how the existing global system is not dealing with them. Inter-
national organizations exist but they “are not in a position
to make and
enforce law” (p. 74). They do not possess sovereign powers
(which is what
Hobbes noted a government must have) and they don’t have
political legiti-
macy (which Rousseau and Locke noted that a government must have).
In chapter three, McClintock focuses on the problem of failing states
and asks what is necessary for a state to succeed as a state. The two
pre-
conditions for success are a sense of national unity and a benign
international
environment (pp. 84–85). He gives a detailed history of
Sierra Leone and a
brief reference to India to substantiate his view. Chapter four gives a
history
of the European Union emphasizing its successes while chapter five
gives a
history of the U.N. recognizing its successes but emphasizing its
shortcom-
ings. Chapter six argues that the European Union is a better and more
legitimate governing body than the U.N. Security Council. Chapter seven,
titled “A World of Chaotic Anarchy” marks the
culmination of McClintock’s
thesis that the basic cause of our global mess is “the fact
that the behavior
of states is unregulated” (p. 159).
Part II, “What Are The Options?” has only one
chapter, chapter
eight. The options he considers and rejects are: (1) reforming the
Security
Council; (2) Expanding the European Union; (3) merging existing regional
organizations; (4) expanding the G-8 or NATO or the Commonwealth of
Nations or the Non-Aligned Movement or the Conference of Democracies to
include all nations; (5) getting the United States to become an
enlightened
global hegemon; and (6) strengthening the roles of international law
(p. 172).
McClintock concludes “that if the world is going to avail
itself of a governing
body that can be effective, it has no choice but to create such a
body” (p.
186). His specific proposals on how to do that, following the example
of the
European Union, are set forth in Part III (chapters 9–14).
Chapter nine is a general discussion of the new global organization that
would put forward technical solutions that would be
“politically acceptable
to all the parties concerned” (p. 189). The principles to be
followed are grad-
ualism, voluntary membership, membership availability to all nations
which
could share sovereignty in the relevant area, do no harm to states
outside
the community, and all states would be required to gather into regions
so
that the global community would have “at most 15 to 15
members – one
member for every region of the world”. (p. 193) Nations could
originally
join with other nations in the same region to form a single regional
organi-
zation. The global community as a whole would have three institutions (a
legislature, a judiciary and an executive) plus other organs. It would
seek
good relations with all countries which aren’t yet members,
but could as a
last resort take tough measures such as suspending trade and
cooperation.
In chapter 12, McClintock lays out a food security plan which might be
the
first practical project for the global community. In chapter 13 he
describes a
second project, “a community for climate, energy and
prosperity” (p. 189).
Despite the great contribution this book makes to thinking about
global governance, it is not without deficiencies. No mention is made of
the role of NGOs or of the International Criminal Court or the language
problem facing Europe and the global community. Even though McClin-
tock is arguing for the need for a world federation, he says nothing
about
the arguments of other well-known advocates of world federalism such as
Alexander Hamilton. From a world federalist point of view, it is
surpris-
ing that there is nothing about the difference between a confederation
and
a federation, although that distinction is at the very core of
McClintock’s
main thesis about the need for a more effective global organization. But
McClintock does successfully address what has been a huge issue for
world
federalists, namely, how do we begin to move forward from where we are
now?
Autonomy Or National Sovereignty
by
Harold S. Bidmead
President Wilson’s doctrine of self-determination appears to
have been
widely misinterpreted – even by him (witness the League of
Nations) as an
argument for the survival of national sovereignty, a myth as outdated
as the
divine right of kings. None can dispute the right of every nation to
settle
its own private affairs in its own fashion, but it is equally
indisputable that
no nation ought to claim the right to act as judge and jury in its own
case
if it involves the rights and interests of other nationals. In other
words,
autonomy is good, national sovereignty is evil.
That is what national sovereignty means. It is consequently the prime
cause of war, to which all other causes are secondary, such as poverty,
greed, totalitarianism, armament kings, social injustice and the like,
Na-
tional sovereignty is the reason for the pathetic failure of the League
of
Nations and its mirror image the U.N., of the basic disunity of the
Euro-
pean “Union” and of all other international
instruments based on the fallacy
that “the state is all”.
Struggles, even wars, are taking place at this very moment all over
the world to establish self-determination for peoples who feel
themselves
oppressed by others – ethnic Albanians, Kurds, Tamils,
Basques, Palestini-
ans. . . the list seems endless. All are demanding independence, by
which
they mean autonomy, since those who attain independence no sooner obtain
it than they realize that for many purposes they are seriously dependent
on many – if not all – of their neighbors. The fact
is that the old Soviet
Union, the old Yugoslavia, and other similar coagulations are breaking
up
into what could become constituencies of future wider federations,
since a
federal constitution is the only instrument known to modern political
science
that guarantees true unity whilst ensuring non-interference by the
union gov-
ernment in the legitimate private affairs of the constituent member
states.
World War Two was waged against three enemies whose motto was
“the state is all”. The victors then created the
U.N. based on the same
fallacy: “National Sovereignty is the divine right of
states” (Art. 2.1). They
should have realized that by returning to the year 1919 (League of
Nations
– also based on national sovereignty – which failed
as miserably as the U.N.)
they were creating not a peacekeeping authority but a mere debating
society.
News and Notes from All Over
Errol E. Harris 1908–2009
It is with great sadness that we at UNITED
WORLD just recently
learned about the death of one of its long-time subscribers and
contributors,
Prof. Errol E. Harris, who passed away more than two years ago. Prof
Harris
was born in 1908 in South Africa, and was educated there and in Great
Britain. He served in the South African army in World War II (during
which
he met his wife Sylvia). He returned to South Africa to teach, but in
the
1950s left the country permanently because of his opposition to its
apartheid
policy. He taught philosophy in a number of universities in the United
States and Britain, including Yale, Edinburgh University and
Northwestern
University, and was considered a world expert on the work of Hegel and
Spinoza. He officially retired in 1976, but continued to lecture and
write for
many more years, publishing his last book when he was 99.
Harris was the author of more than thirty books, including Earth Fed- eration Now!, One World or None: Prescription for Peace,
and Atheism and Theism. He served for many
years as vice-president of the World Consti-
tution and Parliament Association and traveled and lectured extensively
on
the subject of World Federalism. He was a tireless advocate of the Con-
stitution for the Federation of Earth, and was honored for his work by
the
Provisional World Parliament meeting at Bangkok in 2003. He died on June
21, 2009 at the age of 101.
