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
Germany
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
GLOBALISATION
IN REVERSE?
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
http://www.simpol.org
NEIGHBORHOOD
DISCUSSIONS (PART II)
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 21
st
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.
NEWS
AND NOTES FROM ALL
OVER
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
Amazon.com,
BookSurge.com
and
additional wholesale
and retail channels worldwide.
From
[worldlaw at globalnetisp dot net]