Make your own free website on



Pirates have been much in the news of late. These are not the swashbuckling stereotypes of yore, with their parrots, peg legs and eye patches. Modern pirates are a very different breed indeed. They are, as one victim described them, "street thugs in motor boats."

These are very well armed street thugs, equipped with machine guns, missiles and grenade launchers. They lurk off the shores of failed states, like Somalia, or states in which the government tolerates their activities, waiting for targets of opportunity. When a ship comes close by, they try to board it and hold it, its crew and its cargo for ransom. Sometimes they get lucky and receive millions of dollars in payments. Sometimes they are not so lucky, as the pirates who tried to hijack an American flagged ship found out.

An international flotilla has been sent to cruise off the coast of Somalia, in hopes of catching some of these pirates in the act. This flotilla includes ships from navies of countries that do not often cooperate, like the United States and the Peoples Republic of China, because every maritime nation has an interest in preventing these expensive attacks. This flotilla has had achieved some success, but no one is predicting that it will eliminate all threat of piracy. It is simply too lucrative a trade for people to abandon it, even if the risk of getting caught were higher than it is.

The pirate catchers operate under some severe limitations. One of these is that these are navy ships, armed and equipped to fight wars, not chase pirates. They so far out-gun their enemy that they are handicapped by their weapons -- a cruise missile is not much use against a pirate speed-boat. And the pirates' bases are usually located on the territory of sovereign nations, and if the pirate chasers were to attack these bases, it would cause international repercussions. There are even cases when naval units have captured pirates in the act, then had to turn them lose because they had no jurisdiction to hold them, nor was there any court of law to try or punish them.

This is another very clear case in which a global government, which operated its own police, courts and legal apparatus, would be able to solve a problem that the current system of independent nation-states can not. A global government would have jurisdiction to arrest, try and imprison pirates, regardless of where they operate. It would have the resources to maintain patrols anywhere in the world, because its "navy" (actually a form of sea-patrol similar to a coast guard) would not have a primary mission like national navies do (i.e., fighting wars against other navies) that draw them away from pirate catching.

However, there is another way in which a global government can mitigate against pirate attacks by attacking its root causes. Many of the pirates are young men who have no other way of making a living. Many are fishermen, driven to crime because the fish stocks have been depleted by over-fishing by industrial trawlers from first world nations, often against international regulations, or because of pollution dumped into the oceans, also against international law. Universally observed and enforced global laws would alleviate poverty, stop over-fishing, and protect the marine environment.

Of course, pirates are not the only criminals who take advantage of the world's crazy-quilt patchwork of jurisdictions. Arms smugglers, tax cheats, drug traffickers and traders in human slaves are among those who can duck from place to place to avoid dealing with the law. Or they can bribe the officials of poor nations to look the other way, because those nations often have so little income in the current skewed economic system that the money criminals bring into their countries actually improves their balance of trade.

Divide and conquer is an old truism. Criminal groups use that as a strategy to defeat the efforts of those who would preserve and protect public safety and order. So do powerful multinational corporations. Only when the common people of the world unite together to enforce their rights and protect their property will they have a chance against those who wish them ill.


Dear Mr. Shepherd,

Enclosed see $24 for the next two years (2009 and 2010) for my advancement of United World/CDWG News & Views. I hope that this letter will not get lost.

Best Wishes and greetings,
Diemut Kuebart
Abornstrade 2
Krailling D82152

Dear Gary,

Sorry I sent this to the old address on the prior United World. I trust you got my phone message on the last great edition and my request for a half dozen copies I can use to sell world federation to some key friends. (And my question as to what I will owe you for them which you can send in an invoice with them.)

Keep up the good work,

Robert Stuart
233 SW 43rd Terr.
Cape Coral, FL 33914


By John Bunzl

As the shock of the global credit crunch subsides, the next phase inevitably kicks-in: steeply rising unemployment and growing domestic political pressure for a return to protectionism. As the global economic hangover hits home, the world's nations, like a bunch of recalcitrant teenagers, sink into their morose, self-centered protectionist sulks.

But is greater protectionism – each nation for itself - the answer, or should free trade and open markets be maintained? That's the question facing governments, trade unions and citizens alike - or so they think. But answers to the financial crisis, as well as to global warming, poverty and many other global problems do not lie in changing the mode of trade. That's because protectionism and free trade are equally flawed and equally contradictory. Neither offers the answer.

The problem with free trade is that the free movement of capital forces nations to compete destructively to attract footloose global investors, resulting in a race to the bottom as each nation competitively de-regulates and dismantles environmental and social safety nets. And it is that competitive de-regulation, we now realize, that fueled the financial recklessness and risk-taking which led to the global financial crisis in the first place. Little wonder that over the last twenty years of de-regulation the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and climate change was left to run rampant.

It's been clear for some time that free trade has reached its limit. Years of failure to reach agreement in the Doha round of WTO trade liberalization talks have shown that already. But reverting to protectionism is not the answer. For that simply unleashes a competitive, beggar-thy-neighbor raising of retaliatory tariff barriers, anti-dumping suits or other more subtle forms of trade or employment discrimination. Protectionism only raises international tensions and, as many astute commentators have noted: where goods are prevented from crossing borders, armies soon will. Moreover, when it comes to protectionist policies, almost no government is beyond reproach, so any government complaining or litigating against others only risks looking hypocritical.

The problem with both free trade and protectionism, then, is that they're both predicated on the same unsustainable premise: on an underlying state of destructive competition between nations; on a vicious circle no nation can escape. The answer lies not in competitive free-trade nor in competitive protectionism but in something quite different: in co-operation. It lies not in the mode of international trade but in changing the mode of international politics.

The hangover the world's teenager-nations suffer is, for the first time ever, global. That's why fiscal stimulus policies carried out on a nation-by-nation basis won't be effective, as Gordon Brown repeatedly points out. Even China, once thought to be the undisputed winner in the global economy, suddenly finds growth faltering and thousands out of work as global demand for its exports chokes off. Unlike the 1930s, no nation is immune and we are all in this together. We live in a global world and only global solutions will do. So, like it or not, nothing short of global governance can cure simultaneous national hangovers. All the while the global economy remains riddled with conflicting interests, undermined by tax havens and dogged by the ability of corporations and the rich to avoid paying taxes, traditional national governance cannot hope to solve our problems.

We should remember that the emergence of national market economies in the 17/18th century produced similar national hangovers: periodic recessions, bank runs and adverse social and environmental fall-out. None of that is new. So how were those problems overcome? By crisis! That fall-out eventually drove each national society to demand its government to regulate its growing domestic market. When they did, the problems were largely solved. The fall-out we see globally today is no different – and neither is the solution. Global problems will soon become so dire that governments will eventually be forced to regulate trans-nationally. So Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are absolutely right to call for international policy co-ordination. But given the current framework of competitive international relations and the fact that governments, economists, business-people and trade unionists are all still asking themselves the wrong "free-trade vs. protectionism" question, politicians haven't the slightest clue how to achieve it.

Some of you may fear that global governance means yet another level of distant, burdensome government bureaucracy, or that our national identities will be lost, or that national governments will lose their freedom to act. But it is the very lack of cooperation between nations - the lack of a seamless global regulatory regime – that caused this crisis in the first place and is now preventing nations from acting adequately to halt it. Far from limiting national freedom of action, coordinated policy across national borders would actually enhance everyone's freedom of action. While individual governments today fear taking any action that might displease the rich or the markets, coordinated action would at last allow them to reign them in decisively without fear of them moving elsewhere. Coordinated international action across a multitude of issues would allow the world's nations to deal decisively with today's global problems. But would we be wise to wait patiently in the hope that politicians will make that a reality? Would we be wise to think politicians can achieve this on their own?

Happily, citizens who support the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign aren't waiting around to find out. Simpol is a unique global campaign which allows citizens to use their votes in a completely new way to drive the world's politicians towards implementing the right global solutions - simultaneously.

The basis of Simpol is that all or sufficient nations are to implement the needed stringent measures simultaneously, so avoiding the fear that first-mover nations would lose investment and jobs to other countries. By posing no-risk to any nation's economy or its international competitiveness, simultaneous action removes the excuses for inaction and delay and opens the way to far more robust policies being adopted than relatively weak agreements we see governments trying to implement today, such as the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming. Not only could simultaneous international action open the way to solving the global recession, it would allow global warming and a host of other global problems to be solved too.

Announcing his support for Simpol, Lembit Opik, one of a growing number of MPs who support the campaign summed it up when he said, "We live together at once, on the same small planet. There are some things we should do together, at once, on this same small planet. The compelling logic of Simultaneous Policy is really collective common sense – it's a campaign to find out how common sense really is!"

But what about nations that refuse to cooperate internationally? To secure sufficient international political will for the implementation of the Simpol, citizens around the world who support it, known as Adopters, not only decide the global policies to be implemented, they tell all the politicians in their constituency area that they will be voting in future national elections for any candidate, within reason, who has signed the pledge to implement the policy alongside other governments. Or, if they have a preferred party, they encourage that party to support Simpol. In this way, citizens are seizing the political initiative, firstly, by taking the task of global policy-making out of the hands of politicians and, secondly, by intensifying the competition between candidates to a point where politicians who fail to support Simpol risk losing their seats to those who do.

This new way of voting even though adopted by only a relatively small number of people has already resulted in 27 UK MPs and countless candidates pledging to implement Simpol alongside other governments. With more and more parliamentary seats and even entire national elections being won or lost on fine margins, it needn't take many of us to make it in the vital political interests of the main politicians and parties to support Simpol, thus offering Adopters the opportunity of driving even uncooperative governments to sign on.

Ambitious, no doubt. But do we really think politicians are going to save the world for us? Do we really think they can achieve international cooperation on their own? It's not just politicians who need to grow up and take responsibility: it's us, too. What Simpol offers is a powerful way for us to do that; a powerful way for citizens to show our politicians that "when the people lead, the leaders will follow."

Joining Simpol is free and takes just a moment: Please go now to


By John R. Ewbank

(Excerpted from the book, World Constitutionalism,
Edited by Anthony D'Souza and Cramo D'Souza, 2007)

A Supra-National Federation cannot be launched unless there is widespread trust that the individuals and their successors would comply with the requirements of a Proposal for a Constitution and not seek the type of "creeping expansion of power" that has characterized early decades of many national constitutions. Servant Leadership is the individual character aspect that hopefully can distinguish from excessively fearing what has sometimes occurred upon launching a national constitution. Servant leadership can hopefully provide the marginal trustworthiness needed to assure ratification of such a drastic transformation of the global matrix of institutions. By fair competition between campaigns opposing and supporting each explicit Proposal, and by fair competition among the alternative Proposals, adequate education about federalism is attainable through the Competitive Ratification Contest.

Such cabinet members must have had problem solving experience as Servant Leaders, but must not be the politicians ambitious for political power. Recruiting such servant leaders is a task that is needed everywhere so that there can be an adequate number of Campaigning Cabinets participating in Competitive Ratification. The ambitious politicians are sure to be seeking positions as consultants to such servant leaders. Some blunders are inevitable in such a complicated organization. Proficiency of management cannot be guaranteed, but the probabilities of success can be enhanced by wise discernment of the abundance of hazards in such a complex reorganization as the world now needs.

Individuals who have clearly demonstrated their commitment to servant leadership by adhering to servant leadership patterns for more than ten years an self-certify their qualifications, knowing that procedures for de-certification are adequate for ousting insincere scoundrels. Those interested in achieving world federalism need to emulate the servant leadership movement led by Larry Spears. Humanity needs to invent ways for world federalism to be launched with less emphasis on big-budget bureaucracies and more reliance upon relatively small entities that do not excessively frighten those skeptical about world federalism.

Hopefully, a supra-national federation will be launched by applying some of the teamwork coordination voluntarism concepts to global structure. Jurisprudence, as a realm of hierarchy, focuses upon rules winning widespread compliance because of rule-enforcement. Jurisprudence, as a realm of voluntarism, is concerned with resolution of disputes as a perennial need. Although "win-win" terminations are desirable, society benefits from a termination of a dispute, with or without widely recognized justice. Some disputes can be ended on a "case by case" basis without creating the precedents glorified by those seeking the clout to coercively enforce rules.

Coercive government generally achieved "legalized theft" but is pragmatically accepted because dispute terminations are expedited. The wealthy are more likely than paupers to exploit statutes of limitation permitting squatters to gain title to land. This is one of the many examples of "legalized theft" attributable to coercive governments. Ethical culture congregations can stimulate individual honesty, gentleness, etc. Governments can propagandize for such aspirations, but their criminal justice systems, as isolated components, often fail to stimulate individual honesty, gentleness, etc. A human's willingness to assume individual responsibilities is the significant criteria concerning how much freedom should be permitted, whether talking about a toddler or a mature adult's choices. As long as there are individuals susceptible to bribery, a wealthy terrorist can potentially locate a collaborator willing to comply with the instructions of the terrorist.

Minimizing international military hostilities is a trivial problem compared to the task of minimizing terrorism in a world as complex as prevails in the 21st century. The term generalist can be used to describe a mature adult making some efforts toward ongoing self-liberation.

Specialists tend to stress their interpretations of causation during recent centuries. Generalists acknowledge that the conflicts of opinion prevailing within all specialties jeopardize the evaluations by any of the conflicting factions of specialists. Generalists seek wise discernment about what can enhance the per capita happiness for all humanity. This is quite different from those aspiring merely to enrich a particular family, corporation, province, nation, or clique. All varieties of ambitions for groups can be grouped with specialization and/or denominations of fascism.

In earlier centuries, the limited opportunities for generalists led to an abundance of evaluations that (with hindsight) were conspicuously pertinent only for that particular time and culture, but which enslaved important segments of remote centuries. Theories about governments arising from the consent of the governed, as distinguished from governments being necessary for deterring undesired invasions, continue to be worshiped notwithstanding Internet technology.

Generalists acknowledge that every century predominantly adheres to traditions derived from previous centuries, shedding only selected traditions, but clinging to appropriate traditions. When generalists encourage each century to seek self-liberation, traditions is not being scrapped but more carefully re-evaluated for its contemporary usefulness. Possibly a proposal for federation would provide that during the last decade of the century, all constituencies would seek to choose by competitive ratification contests suitable constitutions for the next century.

Millions can recognize that there is small likelihood of survival of civilization even into the 31st century unless some current trends are modified. Generalists stress the importance of wise discernment concerning sustainability for civilization. For example, millions of dollars are now being futilely wasted on excessively complicated taxation that cannot be reformed because of the clout of the factions benefiting from such complexities. This is the issue that led me to start advocating a supra-national federation in 1936. I suspected that there might be segments of establishments sufficiently annoyed by tax complexity to collaborate in the difficult problem of persuading an adequate number of sovereign nations voluntarily to ratify a Proposal for a Constitution for a supra-national federation.

One fringe benefit from a world federation might be minimizing of military hostilities. Unfortunately some world federalist groups have stressed the fear of military hostilities as almost the sole incentive for federalization. My hopes have been of "minimizing" military hostilities, as distinguished from "abolishing" them.

Mutually Assured Deterrence has had amazing effectiveness in decreasing military hostilities among European nations and in other areas. Hopefully a network of tiny Rebellion Deterrence Corps could minimize military hostilities through the centuries or millennia. Ongoing research and updating of technology and fair competition among an adequate number of non-governmental entities seems critically necessary if humanity is to be protected from the risk that some terrorist might recognize the military application, or fringe benefit, or some civilian invention.

China's contemporary competition with the USA is significantly more in the monetary realm than concerning weapons. The Pentagon defeated the Kremlin predominantly by monetary manipulation for bankrupting the USSR through larger military disbursements than the economy could afford. If military hostilities are to be minimized, a parallel independent network of an adequate number of non-governmental entities providing monetary services also seems essential.

Any concept of long-term manageability of a world successfully seeking the twin aspirations of a) enhancing per capita happiness for all humanity; and b) minimizing military hostilities is useful. Such twin aspirations help to decrease the cynicism explosion, the most hazardous problem in the early 21st century. When millions experience realistic hope that civilization can be prolonged into the 31st century, most of the hurdles have been overcome.

Many mature adults are aware of their "individual sovereignty" in both its internal and external aspects. Seeking individual integrity is spontaneous to an amazingly universal extent, thus enhancing internal sovereignty. External sovereignty of an individual is illustrated by how others tend to interpret one's behavior. It can either inspire or repulse others. Some cultures stress such external sovereignty. Some individuals are almost unaware of what is their impression on others. The future seems likely to resemble the past in this regard. Hence federalization must cope with wide ranges of potentialities of individual attitudes instead of making assumptions of utopianism. The Cole Porter slogan about "anything goes" seems appropriate when evaluating what kind of problems might trouble a future federation. It seems likely that a federation must cope with problems more complex than humanity has previously faced.

All efforts of an individual to influence what happens outside his/her immediate neighborhood can be properly labeled as a form of colonialism. Having ownership in voting securities in enterprises in zones outside one's own neighborhood can be properly labeled as a form of "personal colonialism." However, those who are passive investors not seeking to dominate enterprises in remote areas can be excluded from the colonialist label. Decentralist-federalists seek a world in which the many varieties of colonialism are of predominantly historical interest with ongoing explorations for the twin aspirations of enhancing per capita happiness for all humanity and minimizing military hostilities.

Ratification of a Constitution for a durable decentralist-federation of the world can desirably emulate the patterns by which Greenleaf's Servant Leadership is taught to business executives on all continents.

Politicians and diplomats generally seek larger and larger budgets for remote bureaucracies. A supplemental Federation prolonging the treaty system for whatever has worked effectively, but utilizing federation for minimizing terrorism, etc. might flourish (after the Initial Administration) on an annual budget that was constitutionally restricted to half of what the treaty system spent on global governance ten years ago. The important need is for stimulating adequate confidence in the trustworthiness of the administration of the federation. After the world has been adequately reorganized for making each member nation less dangerous because of the transfer of all military and monetary power to the independent networks, then subsequent administrations of the federation would have relatively simpler responsibilities. Launching a federation requires adequate trustworthiness in both the phraseology of the constitution and more importantly the trustworthiness for its Initial Administration. This is among the many difference from the ratification any previous constitution and bolsters the need for some competitive ratification system.

Few would want the awesome responsibilities for reorganizing the world. Unless within a matrix adequately stressing servant leadership, the mere ambition for such tremendous political power should be sufficient proof that he/she should not be trusted with such tremendous power. Name recognition alone would not with the necessary trustworthiness. Only individuals who have been significantly committed to Servant Leadership for at least ten years seem likely to win the global trustworthiness needed for launching a world federation.

A federation might provide a "Dispute Termination Tribunal" having a panel of hundreds of generalists nominated by reason of their reputation for fairness and general knowledge. A tribunal administrator might offer litigants a short list from which the litigants would choose the judges after the litigation has started, thus discouraging any "forum-searching." Random assignment of a panel of five could result if the litigants failed to agree. If four of the five could agree upon a decision, then the parties would be bound by it. Otherwise, a replacement panel would be selected at random until an 80 percent agreement was achieved or until the parties acknowledged that their dispute was irresolvable. Such a system could stress the "case by case" perspective analogous to early jury decisions as lacking any precedent value. Some experts focus on the value of precedents and rules and the coercive enforcement of rules. Federalization needs to stress the termination of disputes with or without justice, and a minimized waste of time, energy, funds etc., in achieving resolution.

Polyanarchy contemplates an egalitarian fellowship of governance entities having minimized hierarchy. Federalization featuring appropriate polyanarchy might be ratifiable more readily and stimulate more trustworthiness and arouse less fear than some of the proposals for merging of colonialism that have heretofore been promoted.

Any person who has ever read any world federalist literature such as the "Ismilda" website or the Earth Constitution is more of an expert concerning world federal constitutions than any typical professor of international law. Expertness always injects prejudices concerning alternatives among conflicting opinions. Hence laymen and generalists can be more inventive and creative than arrogant experts. Each neighborhood needs egalitarian discussion about world federalization. The components needed for a package that can be globally ratified seem more likely to come from grassroots discussions than from any international conference. If individuals are adequately acquainted with each other by hours of eye-balling conversations, then the Internet permits collaborative editorial revision of a document at less expense than an international conference.

Although the constitution must be ratified by nations, there is no need for nations to be involved in its formulation. Weighting within a world parliament might not be attainable if based purely on allocation of delegates to nations. There is no need, except for ceremonial purposes, of having any representation by nations in the world parliament. Different vocations might each provide delegates, each representing all humanity, for a ratifiable Proposal.

Although some minimum clout is needed for an effective federalization, not all nations need to be members at first. Establishing procedures for the plausible secession of a nation from the federation can probably enhance both ratifiability and long-term viability. Any doctrine of "indissoluble union" concerns science fiction and utopia more than political reality.

During the past decade, few person-hours have been devoted to inventing gimmicks that might accelerate attainment of a ratifiable Proposal. Hopefully, thousands of neighborhood discussions will generate the gimmicks that can be packaged into a ratifiable proposal. Some national constitutions have been proposed and ratified by a well-defined constituency. Launching a supra-national federation requires ratification by a suitable aggregation of sovereign nations. Some type of Competitive Ratification might expedite federalization by permitting each nation to ratify or reject each of a plurality of proposals until one gained the needed aggregate. Continuing to recognize the ongoing sovereignty of nations until the launching is of critical importance.

Federalization is a truly drastic transformation of the entire institutional matrix. Humanity will be making an unprecedented leap upon federalization. Maximizing the probability of such leap being successful is of importance. If the Proposal is sufficiently attractive, complications concerning its ratification procedures are not likely to defeat it. Stimulating interest in the process is likely after some nations have ratified some Proposals. Nothing succeeds like success. World federalism suffers today primarily because of the failure of its advocates to obtain donations in recent years.

The opponents of world federalism have generally acknowledged the desirability of world federalism eventually. Opponents have glorified the "culture of peace" that theoretically would stimulate the diplomats to terminate most of their clout by federalization. Luring federalist s to imagine any significant relationship to international law or diplomats proved an effective weakening of the movement.


Garry Davis' Latest Book:

Author Garry Davis continues to promote his cause in Views from My Space a compilation of his personal blogs which continues his 60-years personal crusade for one world under one government. Davis asserts that a new language is required to break through the rigid religious and political thought patterns accepted today. He encourages readers to think outside the box. "Being outside the usual political framework allows the freedom to expose the hypocrisy, chicanery and outright insanity of the nuclear age." He said. "There is one world and the human race are citizens thereof, like it or not." Views from My Space is available through, and additional wholesale and retail channels worldwide.

From [worldlaw at globalnetisp dot net]