|
A governed world
How?
What might one say about the clash between two lines of action on the
single point of the better way of promoting the establishment of a world
political unity that could, for example, outlaw war credibly?
and could, too, for instance, develop justice in world affairs under enforceable
world law ?
Has the difference between paths
often advocated become clear in public expressions of “thanks”
being offered to officers of the American Movement for World Government,
thanks offered for donating or for seeming to be willing to donate much
of AMWG’s small treasury to a starting-up World Democracy Movement
and to other non-governmental advocacies?
Counter to the past AMWG emphasis
on trying to help create a duly ratifiable world government is a new “modern”
emphasis of pending donors and recipients on emphasizing the prior importance
of advocating the joining of smaller advocacies into one large organization
with “clout,” national and global.
And differences widen between
dissenters to clout as a priority and those who would built up the AMWG
on advocating creation of a governed world.
TL
––––
An advocacy
derailed
From: Alfred Kaplan,
AMWG board member
To: AMWG Board members
and to all concerned:
Date: June 1, 2006
Subject: Fait Accompli?
Crashing AMWG?
NOT YET! -- AMWG's treasury
still has enough funds to tempt certain special interests.
This open communication is especially
directed to all the members of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), and
the reinstated World Federalist Association -- New York City (WFA-NYC),
and the newly formed World Democracy Movement (WDM) . who have
been signed into the AMWG board with the aim of taking over control of
the AMWG organization. The idea is to absorb AMWG into the
groups named above. A similar attempt was made to take over
the voice of AMWG, the autonomous World Peace News -- a World Government
Report, worldpeacenews.org.
Consider the following carefully!
Whereas -- most new board members
have participated in the scheme stated above by not supporting the AMWG
mission, by voting during official meetings and by "proxy" votes
when absent from meetings, to support the president, Hal Schaffer and
the former paid "director," Troy Davis.
Whereas -- You have participated
in a series of "Open Exploratory" social gatherings in New Jersey
using seed money funds from AMWG and which belatedly has been characterized
as "AMWG Meetings".
Whereas -- You have asked for
and accepted startup funds for the newly formed WDM [World Demxracy
Movement] from AMWG of ten thousand dollars and have further asked
for an additional five thousand dollars knowing that AMWG is not in a
position to afford philanthropy as part of its mission. The
funds in our treasury are mainly from a legacy that was clearly directed
to the support of the advocacy of the American Movement for World Govrnment
– for WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Whereas -- Hal Schaffer has so mismanaged
the office of the president and has repeatedly ignored calls for him to
step down. This represents a serious failure of leadership
to the AMWG mission: these actions call for his impeachment.
THEREFORE: We, who
are the true world governmentalist call for a return to our original World
Government advocacy; with the first order of business to immediately place
a freeze on all expenditures from our treasury.
THEREFORE: Next
in the order of business is to reestablish the home base of the second
AMWG web site address back to New York City. In a unilateral
move by the president, we currently have West Palm Beach, Florida as the
home base.
THEREFORE: We must
plan to maintain the organization as we build on the rising interests
in World Government dialogue to be able to pass on to a new generation
of Americans for World Government.
NOTE: Many of the
details of the failure of leadership scheme have generated an abundance
of documents that present a "paper trail" on those actions that
you must hold yourself responsible.
If these minimal restructuring actions
are blocked, then consider the negative results of audits and investigations
that may be employed to make the transparency necessary for AMWG to continue
its advocacy ethically, honestly and democratically.
–––
Mr. Hevesi surly, too, on world government concept
Alan Hevesi, the New York State
Comptroller, didn’t say anything as improper and “remarkably
stupid, incredibly moronic and totally offensive” [in his own
words, quoted here from the #4 editorial in the NYT of June 5] and
as applied to something he said ”jokingly” and recently about
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer.
Years ago when Hevesi was on hustings,
he was asked by WPN, World Peace News - a World Government Report,
worldpeacenews.org. for a comment about the world government advocacy.
He aswerered in gutter-snide prose that WPN meant to and probably did
write up.
Hevaei’s recent word burr,
recounted widely and by the NYT in its editorial about the remark made
by the New York State Comptroller during the recent Queens College commencement
ceremony, was that “..in this case, Senator Charles Schumer –
would like to put a bullet between the president’s eyes.”
The title of the editorial is
“Mr Hevesi’s Blunder.”
Blunder? If all
that sort of thing is is a good-natured blundering that can be expected
during hustings and a college commencement ceremony, why did WPN and others
take the time and effort to hoot Hevesi’s good-natured ham-fistedness
with words? After all, mightn’t we Democrats take better
care of words so as not to be pasted again in November, in 2008 and thereon
out and so forth?
––––
From: Bob
B, June 4
Re: Question
about your hope for a world government
Hello Tom,
Thank you for responding.
Peace at the price of having
to bow down toward Mecca 5 times daily, with "Honor Killings",
"Obligatory Wife Beatings", forced everything, then ultimately
being forced to force others into Islam is worse than War. The Benson
& Hedges Logo of 1981 expressed it best: "I'd rather fight than
switch."
Honestly, the only way that
we can avoid war is if we're all of the same mind, heading into the same
direction; the only way for that to ever happen is to have everyone joined
together to fight a common enemy: perhaps extraterrestrial beings, maybe
a comet, or an extremely rapidly moving disease. But, as long
as mankind has freewill, opposing opinions and beliefs, we'll be separated
... and at times, we'll find ourselves at odds with others.
Probably one other major concern,
about a One World Government, is that if it "goes bad" ....
where can one run?!
I'm not saying that a
One World Government would necessarily be bad, but I am saying that if
it is not held together by the rules of Western Civilization, as we know
it to be today, that it will almost necessarily result in becoming a Hell
on Earth, as are the Islamic Theocratic Dictatorships of today.
Sincerely, Bob B
WPN’s mindset here is
to be entirely negative about all dictatorships, including benevolent
ones, because of their potential to morph into tyrannies when pressures
along that line build and clash
Thus, our view of governments’
potentials, be they of small groups of peoples or of the world “commuinity”
of scads of peoples, is that democracy provides a far-superior template
– because, when it functions, it allows for even radical, peaceful
change on specific election timings, under specific conditions, especially
those pertaining to legal, minority initiatives
–––6.6.06
An American blogger’s open plea
of June 5, 2006, to all people concerned with the
dim plight
of all people
I use assumed initials here for this one pitch only because I have no
elected authority (and no authority at all except by my birth certificate
dated 1918), but mainly because, like many, I seek to contribute to the
creation of a reference point for global concern relating to the need
for all people to be self-governed coherently, ratifiably, globally.
I make a flexible, modest plea in
order to hope to be able to join in a world effort to enable all people
to outlaw war and create functional world decision-making ruled by all
people, all with the same constitutional rights and duties to deal justly
with all other people as world citizens, all lively with freedom and diversity.
Let us all, in all our different
ways, do all we can to create debate debate debate in every possible forum
and relationship, governmental and non-governmental.
Let us all drive ourselves by
the solid need, seen honestly, for the world to be self-governed.
L. J. G.
––––
Written permission needed
From Raj Shekhar Chandola,
rajchandola@cmseducation.org, June 3
Dear Otfried
As per the law here in India
(and as I mentioned to you privately), before organizing ANY international
event we have to obtain written permission from the Government of India's
Ministry for Home Afffairs. Depending on the nature of the event, the
Home Ministry seeks advice from concerned Ministry that they have no objection
to this event. For the Chief Justices' Conference this translates
into getting the permission of the Law Ministry and Foreign Affairs Ministry
besides the Home Ministry. On the advice of the Foreign Affairs
Ministry, the home Ministry in its permission letter specifically told
us not to invite Chief Justice of Pakistan and China. We agreed
to that because otherwise they won't allow us to organize the Conference
at all. So what we do instead is we invite some former Chief
Justice of Pakistan instead of the current one.
In China's case, two year's
back they had agreed to send a six-member delegation to our Conference
(at that time the government of India had not objected to us inviting
them), led by one Supreme Court Judge and two judges from High Court
and three from District Courts, but at the last moment they noticed that
in the invitation brochure we had printed the message from the President
of Taiwan (supporting our demand for World Parliament) and
they cancelled their visit in protest !!!
Last year there was a big mix
up when we received a message from the Chief Justice of Turkish Cyprus
expressing a desire to come. Accordingly we sent an invitation
letter. The Indian Ambassador in Turkey gave us a scolding
saying that India didn't recognize Turkish Cyprus and now we had created
a problem for them because the Chief Justice had applied for a visa and
granting that visa would in effect mean India recognizing Turkish Cyprus!!!
We were asked to withdraw our invitation and so we apologized
to the Chief Justice etc etc
Such is life, what to do. The
last thing we want is an end to this initiative because of diplomatic/bureacratic
hurdles. Raj
––––
----- Original Message -----
From: OtfriedSchrot@aol.com
To: worldcit@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday,
June 02, 2006
Subject:
Re: Emergence and Breakthrough and World Judiciary Summit 2006
Dear Raj,
I am deeply impressed by the
appeal of Mr. Jagdish Gandi to attend the Judges Conference in December.
You told me that according to
a request of the Government of India the City Montessori School has not
invited the Judges of Pakistan and of China.
In these two countries also millions
of children grow up, the rights of whom must be protected.
Wouldn´t it be wise, therefore,
to invite the judges of these countries, too, and, for one week, forget
about India´s controversies with Pakistan and China ?
I appeal to the wisdom of India
and suggest the invitation of the judges of China and of Pakistan.
With kind regards
Otfried
–––6.5.06
Wea culpa!
Wea stiffed One World
“Bring them on!”
We went along.
Worse!
We let anarchy stand
–
In passing, the following came
in Maureen Dowd’s concluding words June 3.
“...‘It’s one
of those things where we have become the enemy,’ John Murtha said
ruefully on CNN.
“American troops are under
spectacular emotional pressure. They go out every day, not
knowing Arabic, not understanding the culture, not knowing who the insurgents
are, not knowing when they can go home or which of their buddies will
be blown up before their eyes by an unseen enemy.
“The troops were not trained
for a counterinsurgency, because Bush hawks ignored the intelligence reports
that predicted an insurgency and civil war. These kids were
turned into sitting ducks because the neocon con to sell the war needed
a gauzy prediction of Iraqi gratitude and a quick exit.
“It is admirable that the
Marine commanders want to morally sensitize the troops while they are
in such a hostile environment, but it also seems a bit absurd, sending
them to summer school in ‘core values.’
“There’s no way to
teach someone not to shoot an unarmed woman or child. If somebody
doesn’t already know why they shouldn’t murder a baby, it’s
not clear that a refresher course will help
“The problem with brushing
up on core values is that if you don’t know them by a certain point
you can’t learn them. You can’t teach remedial decency,
any more than you can teach remedial ethics to White House officials who
vindictively leak information about critics of the war after vowing not
to leak.
“As Norman Schwarzkof said,
in a quote that is part of the military’s slide show on core warrior
values: ‘The truth of the matter is that you always know the right
thing to do. The hard part is doing it’
“From Reverend Dimmesdale
to Bill Bennett to President Bush, people who righteously preach values
and aspire to be moral exemplars often get bitten in the end.
“The world is now looking
askance at American values, even though W. ran on a platform of restoring
values to the Oval Office and was propelled to victory by ‘values
voters.’
“Dick Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld engineered the invasion of Iraq in part to revive what they saw
as lost American values. They wanted to stiffen the squishiness
about using force left over from Vietnam and the moral ambivalence left
over from the do-what-feels-good 60’s.
“In their worry about a
spineless America, they made America all spine - overly vertebrate. They
started thinking with their spine.
“They wanted everyone to
be afraid of us and now nobody’s afraid. Certainly not
the nutty president of Iran, whom the administration is forced to kowtow
to, now that the American military is not a fearsome force in potentia,
but a depleted, demoralized and disparaged force trapped in Iraq trying
to police a civil war.
“The invasion that was
supposed to help terrorism has made it worse. The invasion
that was supposed to make America more feared and beloved has made us
more hated. The invasion that was supposed to banish post-Vietnam
syndrome has revived it.
The virtuecrats of the right
thought they would demonstrate American virtue to the world as they imposed
American democracy. But now, with murder charges expected
against some marines, and a cover-up investigation under way, the values
president is running a war that requires a refresher course on values.
A bitter irony.”
So we didn’t heed the
ancient cry for human political unity, in order to be able to outlaw consequences
such as those endured in Iraq.
And now we must learn survival
facts – or go to term as a species that didn’t learn beans about
how to cope.
––––
From: Bob B
To: Thomas Liggett, worldpeacenews@earthlink.net
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006
Subject: Question about your hope for a world government
Hello,
If the world nations united,
how would governing be accomplished? ... Capitalism, Socialism, Theocracy,
or some other manner?
How would religion be handled?
... the religion of Islam has as it's goal to force the entire world into
their belief system, and consequently into an intolerant world theocracy
where everyone must agree or suffer the consequences of not totally agreeing.
Would ignorant populations be
depopulated, either by direct action or by attrition? Or,
would everyone be declared equal ... and given equal opportunity and held
to equal responsibility?
Would one language be dominant? ...
or would all languages be held to be equal, which would by default limit
the opportunities of the speakers of the lesser used languages.
Would some people be subjected
to Shariat Law? ... all of us? ... any of us?
I think that one world
government may be good, but there are many ways of approaching it, and
I surely would not want to live in an Islamic Society, nor would I want
to embrace a picture-graphic written language, or a tonal spoken language.
I would like to know how you'd suggest that the world should be united.
Thanks.
Sincerely, Bob B
U.S.A.
Good, pertinent question,
but most not answerable now, I’d guess. The answers for
questions about outlawing war through world political unity and a body
of respected and enforceable world law to be created globally starting
now would ride on what political world leaders and PR lords would come
up with in a world constitution rationalizesd over years, decades, endlessly,
we’d say
No one can know how war/peace
events will unfold. But all grown people might develop constructive
opinions about how a warless and a just futuue for all people can come
to be. TL
–––
They sometimes hit jackpots
The Media lords
––––
HAIL HABERMAN
Let’s all hail Clyde
Haberman, an NYT writer, for his column on June 2. It’s
about Leslie Bloom, who worked at the city Administration for Children’s
Services. She had a life, nearly 63 years’ worth. And
then an idiot [with a gun recklessly shot] took it from her.
That was two Saturdays ago, Haberman wrote, page one of the
NYT’s Metro Section.
Commenting on the scene where
“about 75 of Leslie Bloom’s friends and colleagues gathered
... at a funeral home,” Mr. Haberman wrote at the end of his column:
“Nobody said a harsh word
about her killer, who has not been caught. Instead, people
laughed at stories about ordinary things: how Ms. Bloom enjoyed watching
each new Harry Potter movie with her sister and how she sent messages
taking colleagues to task if they filled out agency forms incorrectly.
“But they also wept –
for her, but maybe also for themseves and for the city where crime may
be down but too many idiots rule the day.”
––––
A forum not the goal
From: jllortega, jllortega@gmail.com,
June 1
The main goal of this list and
of the Community of World Citizens where it originated is not to create
an open, democratic world constitutional forum. There are
several of them, and when (if) a world constitution is created and implemented,
political representatives and experts will have to intervene.
It was explicitly to generate goal oriented discussion that would help
define, coordinate and carry out actions for the advancement of democratic
global governance.
It seems to me that the list
has an overdose of long esoteric (i.e. confined to and understandable
by only an enlightened inner circle) discussions that I have difficulty
relating to any concrete course of action.
I can no longer hope of moderating
the discussion content, every time I have tried I have been accused
of abuse and dictatorship. However, those of us who wish to
go for concrete action will have to think of other ways of coordinating.
By the way, before anyone accuses
me of it, I am not against open, democratic world constitutional forums,
and certainly I don't favor closed and undemocratic ones.
But this is not what this list was about. We need theoretical
forums, the 1st Virtual Congress is intended to be one of them.
And we can think of many other options to carry out this sort
of discussion, but I am convinced an open email based discussion is not
one of them. Of course, any action oriented group must have its own open
discussion, this is what this list was about
Also by the way, I have asked
many times that participants in the discussion avoid just replying the
messages without taking first their text, otherwise, every new response
accumulates all previous texts. Please think of it.
Regards, Josep
––––6.4.06
Iran proliferating
President Carter was reported by BBC
radio this June 3 morning as suggesting that “talks” without
pre-conditions be held “with Iran” about its ongoing nuclear
program.
Informed diplomats may be
expected to dismiss this suggestion by the former U.S. President as ill-informed
– and of course it is wishfully-informed if it is based on the premise
that global balance-of-power conditions can work toward international
agreement to block nuclear proliferation by Iran.
But what if the premise is based
on a common human will to outlaw war under enforceable world law made
and ratified by all nations?
Can anyone think of better talk
now than that suggested about creation of a freed-up world, freed up from
the terror of a nuclear war with existing nuclear weapons?
A freedom and law-based solution
to humanity‘s most agonizing and most dangerous dilemma may be within
our collective human grasp.
Let us give President Carter’s
suggestion the thought that logic might urge about the human need to start
knowledgeably on a world path that could lead to war outlawed ratifiably,
credibly.
––––6.3.06
Slavery still global
Why might the cure for certain
big sex-and-job-slavery systems, as nailed by Bob Herbert, June 1, NYT,
continue to exist beyond city, region and national controls?
Of course everyone knows that
crushing that kind of illness in one place only shoves it off to another.
It’s where quick, easy,
hotly contested money is. And the mean, dirty, illegal, sordid,
heartless, bloody business does make our global cognoscenti go discreetly
cluck-cluck for shutting it down.
But, in spite of all our Declarations
of Human Rights, in spite of the great human need for a global government
above our national governments to cope, the menace of war, overpopulation
and slavery, etc., thrives just below the culture-screens of global PR
media lords.
The cure is said to be EXPENSIVE,
but the slavery systems of our globalization era do qualify – shamefully
and destructively – the limited pride we can take in our uncertain
human drive to survive “civilized.”
––––
From: Andreas
Olsson, andreas@phactori.com...
Subject:;
[Worldcitizen1] we need action not words in creating a world government
Although I'm perfectly confident
that Ken can speak for himself let me note that Ken Kostyo is an active
World Democrat that deserves our respect for his efforts. On his free
time, he has traveled the world advocating for better global governance.
Please don't be summarily dismissive of people in this forum.
Let me also note that Ken's connection with the UN is the same as everyone's:
most of us are citizens of at least one of its members.
All in this forum are working
hard towards improving global governance. Some have direct
connections to agents of the UN or national governments and some are just
active enthusiasts in their free time. But all are very serious
in their efforts and deserve some respect. Some have worked
all their life for an effort that dates back more than 100 years.
So again, please use an engaging tone that is open to dialogue and invites
us into your proposals. ...
Respectfully,
Andreas Olsson, Center for War/Peace
Studies, Provisional Peoples’ Assembly, 180 West 80th Street, Suite
211, New York, New York. E-mail, 5.18.05
–––6.2.06
Memorialization
"BOOKS OF THE TIMES
"Trenches Tell Stories To Break The Heart.
“The war to end all wars
turned out to be a beginning, not an end. It imposed horrible
new norms for military conflict that endured throughout the murderous
20th century and beyond. And although the war itself has all
but passed from living memory, it still reverberates in the 21st century,
quite literally. Every day, at noon and 4:30 p.m., sirens
sound over Flanders fields, and after a brief pause, explosions boom once
more., as piles of munitions unearthed from some battlefields are destroyed.
“Millions of the war dead
lie under those fields. In ‘Unknown Soldiers’ Neil
Hanson unearths three of them - one American, one English and one German
- and drawing on their long, detailed letters to family members, creates
an unforgettable picture of life in the hottest sectors of the Western
Front. That takes up half the book. The rest deals with a
more elusive subject, the struggle of the combatant nations to memorialize
the dead, and in tombs dedicated to unknown soldiers, to express the meaning
of a meaningless war in an emotionally satisfying way. There
are lessons here for the artists, architects, planners and politicians
scrambling to create a fitting monument for the victims of the 9/11 attacks.”
Can there be a fitting monument
to soldiers killed in war?
Yes, of course, as is implied
in William Grimes’ review of Neil Hanson’s Unknown
Soldiers The Story of the Missing of the First World
War, Knopf, 474 pages, $28.95. The review starts on page
one of the NYT TheARTS section, May 31.
But many an old veteran, reviewing
thoughts abaut the dead he or she knew killed in war might feel like saying
that the best memorial would be a credible resolve on the part of memorializers
to outlaw war.
A difficulty here will be that
the lives of killed soldiers are not given, they are taken away, most
often under conditions that would have to be called so gross as to shed
shame on all who perpetuate whatever “war system” happens to
exist at that particular time and place.
––––6.1.06
Let’s be realistic
“..Judge C. G. Weeramantry,
former Vice President of International Court of Justice (ICJ) and President
of IALANA (International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms)
has been declared as the recipient of the 2006 UNESCO Prize for Peace
Education. The award will be formally presented to him at
the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. He also gets US$ 40,000.
Judge Weeramantry is also the author of the judgment of 1997 wherein ICJ
declared the use, and even the threat to use, nuclear weapons as illegal.”
That’s from a blog posted
recently.
Illegal? But
illegal according to which body of enforceable law ratified by which of
the 200+ sovereign, decision-making national governments?
The question is asked to suggest
that the world now needs to be governed by, for and in the interests of
all people as citizens of the world.
That implies that all people,
all peoples and all nations move fast forward in order to be able to create
the world enforceable legitimacy that our lilting, slap-happy wishes endorse.
It is asserted here that an
honest and accurate comment in answer to the question above can be as
follows:
“If any one
human political force, national or non-national, becomes capable of and
wishes to initiate a credible threat to create a nuclear WWIII, then as
above our mostly non-governmental rhetoric is a palpable, wishful
attempt at fraud on everyone who reads and thinks seriouosly about
how war can be outlawed and a governed world created ratifiably.”
––––5.31.06
‘New Website fees could change
the nature of the Web’
That’s the textbreaker
and subheadline of an editorial observance May 28.
So?
So where’s the connection
with the sort-of advocacy that the world needs to be governed in order
to be able and mandated to outlaw war, nuclear and other, and pesky stuff
pertaining?
You’re right. To
ask is to sort-of answer the questions of how? by whom? when?
where? and Jeez!
––––5.30.06
DANGER BOOMS A N E W?
“A loss in Iraq would make
his world an incredibly dangerous place.”
President Bush is quoted by
the NYT May 26 as saying the above during his TV talk and Q&A in the
White House East Room, with Prime Minister Blair. They exited
the room as friends with the Preisdent’s right arm over the Prime
Minister’s shoulder.
Let us pass over the fact
that the makers of the atomic bomb in Los Alamos in 1945 warned that they
had made a war weapon that renders the world an increasingly dangerous
place and that the bomb’s use should be outlawed credibly.
––––5.27.06
War now belly-up?
That’s the only way for
war in Iraq and globally to go, war that needs to be outlawed. War
needs to go away now, for good.
So – so far so good,
But it was only briefly implied
Thursday, May 25, at the good TV’d news briefing and Q&A organized
and answered to by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.
Q&A sooth-askers from the
vaguely amused news media, during the event and long after, only fitfully,
rarely alluded to the Iraq and global war/peace item . But
there it was, after three empty years of the absurd War on Terrorism.
War had had it, and everyone
now knows it stinks. So it’s too early to get into the
dark muddy of peace and the gummy creation of a governed world able to
unload on the bombings and shootings and kidnappings and other crimes
of war, unload tons of heavy war debris, broken bricks and all. That
seemed to be the flighty fact quietly buzzing around like a lively insect
looking for a place to set down and do its little thing, whatever mad
mystery that small act may turn out to be.
Not heard was a word going far-future
into a global lilac time.
Creation of a world democracy
was not on any table. The bizarre futility of war had put
speculation about the many squirmng feelers of peace in a deepfreeze.
But only for now during this time of reflection and rest.
As the soft breezes of spring
wafted in, the scourges of war wafted out. Tomorrow would
be time enough to care about what probably is not ordained.
Like always, the seasons and years will come and go. Here’s
now for whatever cheer may be. Let us seize today for what
it is and not for what tomorrow could be.
___
“Misjudgments
Marred U.S. Plans for Iraqi Police By
MICHAEL M0SS and DAVID ROHDE As chaos swept Iraq after the American
invasion in 2003, the Pentagon began its effort to rebuild the Iraqi police
with a mere dozen advisers. Overmatched from the start, one
was sent to train a 4,000-officer unit to guard power plants and other
utilities. A second to advise 500 commanders in Baghdad.
Another to organize a border patrol for the entire country.
“Three years later, the
police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq
to the brink of civil war. ...”
That’s the start of a 3-column,
top of the fold, page-one, May 21 NYT news story. An underline
of a small photo with the headline,
LAW AND DISORDER The Training Gap, reads
“A class of 450 Iraqi police officers graduated last month in Basra.”
––––5.26.06
So whatever else is new however old?
“They Hate Us, They Really Hate
Us”
That’s the headline that the editor or somebody put over reviews
by Robert Wright of two books in the Book Review section of the
NYT of May 14, page 28.
So the editor of this World
Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org,
asks What is the remedy?
But that’s callow and
wrong to ask!
But why don’t the famous
say what all must know to ask: Why isn’t it asked what
is known about what a duly ratified remedy could mean for all people?
But that’s being unacceptably
uppity and smartass!
But why, in a hundred years
from now, won’t it be recorded in textbooks, even, that U.S. President
W did humanity a genuinely credible service, a spectacular leg way up,
by helping to create humble U.S. anxiety about what is known globally
about how moods go among nations now – and thereby promote what almost
everyone knows is needed now, a duly created and honestly observed, ratified
world political unity?
––––
First pop in theWar
”The American Embassy in
Tehran ‘was moored like an enemy battleship just a stone’s throw
from the street, a fact demonstrated repeatedly.’ Mr
Bowden writes that life for an American in Tehran at that time ‘was
like being a geologist camped on the rim of an active volcano.’”
The above is excerpted from
Janet Maslin’s review of Guests of the Ayatolla The
First Battle in America’s War With Militant Islam, by
Mark Bowden, 680 pages, Atlantic Monthly, $26..
The review appeared May 8 in
the NYT, page E6.
The history of war well before
the first pop of the current War Against Terror goes far further back
in human history than the dumb Crusades during the turn of the end of
the first milkenium AD to the early years of the 2nd millenium, of course.
During the interim between the Crusades and now, lest anyone
interested in the well-being of humanity forget, idiot wars went from
clashes of warriors using sharp steel to the potential use of nuclear
bombs, etc., on everyone now alive. And just look at how many
billions of people there are alive now on earth.
As Einstein said, people just
haven’t had time yet to take in consequences of our human scourges,
to say nothing about the shape of an intelligent world political fix.
But that seems to be getting some [almost non-funded]
attention now. That’s a start to creation of a duly ratifiable
world federal government, let us all pray.
––––
Citizen, Russia moves seen as weak
but good opening of issue
–
From Hugh Steadman, hugh@sapiens.org.nz,
May 11
Here is another proposal for
world government - probably not as democratic as we would wish! Hugh
.
"Cold War Talk Prompts
Russian Call for 'World Government'"
According to this news article
from Britain's Arabic-language Elaph newspaper, recent talk of a new Cold
War has prompted Russia's foreign minister to broach the subject of bringing
together a 'chorus' of major nations into a world government.
By Faleh Al Hamrani
Translated By Nicolas Dagher
May 7, 2006
elaph.com/ElaphWeb/Politics/2006/5/146663.htm
Is it Time to Take a Serious
Stab at World Government? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov Told a Russian Magazine that it is.
--
Russian Foreign Secretary Sergueii
Lavrov called for the establishment of a world government, bringing together
the United States and Russia. Lavrov's call comes at a time
of a chilling of relations between Moscow and Washington and amidst signs
of a new Cold War. Moscow is wary of the establishment by
America of a front of "New Democracies" in Eastern Europe, Ukraine
and Georgia to counter "the Russian Bear," which is powerfully
awakening.
In an interview granted to the
magazine "Russia in Global Politics," Lavrov said that bringing
together a "chorus" of major nations into a world government
will eliminate the jockeying for power that creates imbalances. Lavrov
was certain that "most countries will welcome such a grouping of
leadership."
He also said that there is no
place in Russian politics for animosity toward the U.S., and that the
basic goals of American and Russian foreign policy were nearly identical.
He made clear that the policies of both countries are to create
a more secure and predictable world.
From Lavrov's point of view,
the political differences between Moscow and Washington are essentially
philosophical. He explained that the apparent difference in
opinion concerning the emerging international system is due to mutual
misunderstanding. He added that this misunderstanding is far
less significant than that which existed during the previous era, when
there was a "negative stability" between two poles, namely the
United States and the Soviet Union.
Lavrov pointed out that "absolute
security" cannot be achieved through excessive military superiority,
and he pointed out that in special cases, differences in interests are
completely natural.
–––
Beware of Amb. Lavrov’s
world-unity switchover, a world Unitarian may warn. The Russian representative
at the U.N, gave us a fusty back-of-his-hand. His pitch now
seems newer than new to WPN. “All that glisters is not
gold.”
Anyway, WPN ran into a buzzaw
at the U.N., buzzing at WPN’s world- government questions.
Russia’s Lavrov turned a hostile eye as well as his backhand on the
advocacy of World Peace News - a World Government Report. That
couldn’t have been personal because we don’t know each other
and never tried. But he did present himself to WPN as a grisly bete
noir,
Since 1970. in print at the
U.N., etc., WPN pitched World Government. Now Lavrov’s
quoted as a fellow traveler. WPN finds that hard to believe.
We do hope. But we need much more proof.
TL
–––
From Wolfgang Fischer, global@emanzipationhumanum.de,
May 12
Nice try of Lavrov - still we
know better!
Neither USA, nor GUS, nor EU
are heading towards development of a social organisation which honestly
would focus on solidarity and eco-social justice.
All of them disrespect the principle
of transparency.
All of them utilise secret policies
and services for the sake of an only pretended security of their peoples.
The consequences are world wide growing misery. Obviously
this strategy is meant to avoid major resistance from those who originally
should set the rules and be in control, the world citizens.
Instead of jointly celebrating
sociability and conviviality, profit and consumerism are being worshiped.
This is to say: better
create new organisations from the bottom up and horizontally interconnected
than to rely on the existing pyramidal structures,
Wolfgang
–––
WPN thinks that even a flawed
advocacy for world government, even a suspect one, should be taken seriously
because it can help forward a movement of honest all nation-friendly world
patriotism. Nothing stops the time coming for the World Government
Imperative, as WPN always has said at the shamefully, politically disunited
United Nations and environs globally. Too, we think, Lavrov
might be just having fun trying to pull the leg of the world.
–––
From Olek Netzer, olek.netzer@gmail.com,
May 12
On 5/12/06, Hugh Steadman hugh@sapiens.org.nz
wrote:
Here is another proposal for
world government - probably not as democratic as we would wish! Hugh.
An opportunity to recycle
my former -- Olek
Since the U.N. is actually U.G.
(United Governments) most of which have not much more moral authority
to represent nations than kidnappers who took their people hostage and
claim to represent them, I would suggest that all of you who work for
"World Government" would set a more realistic objective of forming
a U.D.N. (United Democratic Nations) in addition to the U.N., a
council of democratic nations (my country Israel should not
have been admitted as long as its policy of annexation of the occupied
Palestinian territories continues) that would act as one government
at least whenever they deem a military intervention anywhere in the world
is necessary (if it were in existence in 2004 the American-British
alone could not invade Iraq). The U.D.N. could admit more
and more nations on the basic of criteria such as the European Union uses
to admit nations, based on freedom and guarantees of equal human rights
for all.
Respectfully,
Olek Netzer.
––––
From Raj Shekhar Chandola, rajchandola@cmseducation.org,
May 12
My dear Brother Fernando
First of all Congratulations
for the Perfil Award. I am happy that you are bringing spot
light on Global Governance with your work. Congrats and keep
it up.
Now to your following quote:
Raj and Wolfgang are right:
Hitler was a Henry Ford's puppet and Sept 11 was organized by Bush.
Why don't we start a good "catch
the American" game all over the world in order to build a more democratic
and peaceful one?
Hey Fernando, Fernando, Fernando
!
No where have I ever said that
I am anti-American (neither has Wolfgang). We (including
you) are World Citizens, dear Fernando and therefore by definition
we have to be beyond all prejudices, be they national, racial of religious.
My point is that it is "Big
Business Corporations/War Industry" that is behind wars like Iraq
I & II, and World Wars I and II.
Personally, I neither like nor
dislike Bush. Actually, I suspect that the poor guy doesn't
even realise that he is a programmed puppet and probably he really believes
that God talks to him and that God ordered him to attack Afghanistan/Iraq
etc. (I wonder whether they audio-feed such thoughts to him
while he is sleeping).
Fernando, what do you think
about Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson, can they be compared
to Bush or Hitler?
Whatever your answer, I invite
you to read the story "The Sinking of the Lusitania"
(given at the end of this message) that led to the entry of US into
World War I. Note the diabolical role Sir Winston Churchill
and Woodrow Wilson played in this story, at the behest of Big Business
(BB). Don't forget to read the second last line ... diabolical
indeed!
And remember, if 3,000 American
lives were lost in 9/11, the sinking of Lusitania claimed 1201 American
lives.
BB cares only for profits, profits
and more profits. To BB, American lives are of as little value
as Afghani or Iraqi lives; Muslim lives no different than
Christian lives (in that sense, BB is quite cosmopolitan).
In the end I would like to recall
Lord Acton's famous dictum: "And remember, where you
have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with
the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven
that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Dear Fernando, I
know you know all this and I am also sure you will agree that if and when
democratic World Government is organised, it must not be allowed to concentrate
too much power in too few hands.
This email is only to emphasize
that we are not anti-American, and like you I also believe that without
the goodwill and support of the good American people, it is almost impossible
to bring about democratic World Government
Congrats again for the Perfil
Award. Raj
––––5.13.06
Immigration reform shows
HOW
to
end the scourge
Understanding founders of the
U.N., doing their work on the pudding of national sovereignty, knew that
the U.N. would never be able do what some of them referred to as, “hopefully,”
ending the scourge of war.
No, ending the scourge of war
was not what went on at Dumbarton Oaks and at world U.N. celebrations
later, annually, in San Francisco, at the U.N. headquarters in New York,
and at other places, with diminishing enthusiasm.
A few of the founders, including
the deputy U.S. Secretary of State, Sumner Wells, thought that “things”
in global political affairs would work out “in time” so that
the scourge of war would be ended. But Wells stood in then
famous debate against Albert Einstein, who spoke of his conviction that
only a world government could be created as able to end war. Their
lines of debate went so far as to appear in the Reader’s Digest
of those confused times soon after WWII.
Perhaps the best reason for
remembering is that the debate then can be seen as not at wide variance
in emphasis from stands taken now, well more than half a century later.
For instance, consider the two
side-by-side op-eds.yesterday, May 11.
NYT staff columnist Bob Herbert’s
appeared in his usual far-left, 1-full column titled “Where’s
the Beef?”
He deplored the absence of “beef”
in Democratic Party criticism of the Bush administration’s manifold
failures. But Herbert’s comments on failures and lack-
of-promise to deal successfully with challenges seemed as pious as Wells’s
post-WWII attitude towards the U.N’s historic. acceptance of balance-of-power
practice as practical, just, intelligent or anything short of something
shattering all world-peace prospects.
In the 3-column-with-drawing
op-ed May 11 by Peter D. Salins placed on the op-ed page cheek-by-jowl
next to Herbert’s 1-column op-ed was a clean-cut endorsement of world
government similar to Albert Einstein’s, almost a half-century earlier,
during Einstein’s famous debate with the State Department’s
Sumner Wells. – except for one thing.
The Salins’ op-ed now,
essentially in disagreement with Herbert, used a textbreaker that advised
the reader: “Don’t forget the real goal of immigration reform.”
According to the op-ed cartoon,
the provost and vice chancellor of the State University of New York, by
extension, might see the goal of immigration reform as going along with
Einstein world-government, the remedy for the war/peace ills that “civilization”
is deeply and [who knows] fatally into now.
Item: The large op-ed
cartoon May 11, illustrating Salins’/Einstein’s main point,
depicts “Assimilation Nation” as the key to opening the world
lock that binds trouble-bound humanity. For both men, things
could be made nice on earth by everyone’s agreement to assimilate
into the same world-unity system of just government and cooperation, with
law, not war or profit or hegemony being “the way out” of the
plight of all nations collectively. All struggle in nuclear-age
throes.
Item: This is the
first Salins’ paragraph:
“ In the debate over the
redesign of this country’s immigration policies, Americans often
lose sight of the project’s overriding objective. Immigration
reform is urgently needed not to fill gaps in our labor force, or to accommodate
pro- or anti-immigrant voters, but to ensure that all immigrants, present
and future, are integated into American civic and social life - or, to
use an unfashionable phrase, assimilated.”
Item: This is the
conclusion:
“Any immigration policy
that focuses on the labor market or national and state budgets can generate
only transitory benefits, if any, while its failure to assure the assimilation
of the millions of immigrants among us will surely cause permanent harm.”
––––5.12.06
KNOCK IT
OFF !
We’d have to do research
to try to think up much good to say about Halliburton but we’d have
to think harder to find the right words to condemn dimwit e-mails such
as the sarcastic one received May 10 from epdu@halliburton-contracts.com
concerning “The SurvivaBall.”
––––
School/politics axis
Why might it seem to some people
unique that education and politics these parlous days have in common the
practice of ignoring the human-survival problem?
Doesn’t it seem to be a
fact of our times that the job of establishing a reliable stay against
nuclear war gets sparce shrift from education and political powers?
Is that because what seems to
be fact isn’t?
Items covered in the topics
emphasized in the Metro Section of May 10 of what has been called
in the newspaper industry the bellwether are: the police protecting children
from criminals in the hood; a subway bomb plot; wind of change in the
breezes of gossip; student “Protesters Object to McCain as New School
Commencement Speaker”; the war in Iraq continues; “...Officers...Faulted
For ‘04 Convention Arrests”; “Murdoch-Clinton Courtship
Offers Gains for Both Sides”; “Former Salon Owner Is Convicted
of Racketeering but Not Murder”; Fear; but then on the back page,
a sprig of hope.
Anyone passionate about fading
hopes for widespread and pertinent debate about the establishment of a
world political unity that could cope with lethal nuclear-war threats
to all people had to take delighted notice brought on by the big words
“Woodrow Wilson School”.
Threats flowing from comprehension
of the valid news items mentioned above could be vetted by applications
of the hard drives of world-governmental U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.
Hope sprang like Superman, exponentially
expanded, shouting the magic words spread in tune with Einstein’s
explicit urging.
“Shout world government
from the rooftops” could be heard here again. Perhaps.
Directly facing the reader of
the glory-rich bellwether message were the strong words Woodow Wilson
School leaping forward from a 3-column photo. That implied at least
that this well-placed news story would pitch global freedom, justice and
survival for all equally under enforceable world law.
Did they?
“EDUCATION,” the word,
appears centered as the title of the page.
The 4-column, top-of-page, story
is headed, “When the Professor Is a Tough Grader, and Your Dad”.
The textbreaker: “Will a student’s baby pictures show up in
PowerPoint?” The photo underline identifies the professor and his
daughter/student: “Prof. Wolfgang Danspeckgruber with his daughter,
Carolina, who took his international diplomacy class.”
So, what’s coming around
in the line of Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy for the world political
unity that could make a ratified global democracy the way to make the
world safe for everyone throws a happy family glow on developments. You
can’t deny that they do push into notice in the news. Salute
to the good people who make peace happen.
––––5.11.06
What 1 big question
might be suggested by the NYT’s page-one headlines
on:
Tuesday, May 9:
[The two lead news-story headlines
are listed here first:]
”CI.A. Pick Named as Bush
Takes on Doubts in Party 3 TOP POSTS BEING VACATED
Independence Is Promised as General Is Called On to Lead
Spy Agency”.
Wiretapping also figures
as a hot issue.
“2 Years Later, Slaying
in Iraq And Lost Cash Are Mysteries”.
The body of Fern Holland,
a 33-year-old human rights worker and lawyer from Oklahoma, was found,
with others. “on a lonely stretch of road, riddled wih bullets, near
one of Iraq’s holy sitesi, in March 2004.” Stll
missing and unaccounted for is a large sum of money issued from the U.S.
“for things like programs to train Iraqis in democratic governance
and women’s rights centers that Ms. Holland was setting up...”
“Optmistic, Democrats
Debate the Party’s Vision”.
“As Cuba Plans Offshore
Wells, Some Want U.S. to Follow Suit”.
Cuban oil collaboration with
China and India on well sites in the sea north of Cuba rings bells in
U.S. oil and other circles.
“Exiles in ‘Tehrangeles’
Are Split On How U.S. Should Sway Iran”.
“Angry Refugees in Darfur,
Bush Presses U.N”
Monday, May 8:
“G.O.P. Lawmakers Fault
a Top Pick to Lead the C.I.A. .. .”
“Dodging Perils On Way
to Top Of Spy Game General Earns
Respect as Master of Briefing”.
“Funds Cut, Gaza Faces
a Plague of Health Woes”.
“Rove Is Using Loss To
Stir G.O.P.”.
“Whipping Up Cookbook
Empire With Meatloaf Instead of Sizzle”.
“Refugees Still in Crisis
Despite Darfur Pact”.
“Iraq Car Bombs Kill 14”
Sunday, May 7:
“Exit of Spy Chief
Viewed as Move to Revamp C.I.A. FOCUS ON CORE MISSION
Goss Seen as Obstacle to National Intelligence Director’s
Vision”.
“Early Intensity Underlines
Races in Ohio TOP ELECTON BATTLFIELD
Democrats Predict Victories Are Still a Question”
The 1 big question suggested here, in view
of evasions such as are found in the topics referred to here, there and
everywhere, should be:
Wouldn’t
all voting-age adults feel much relieved if world leaders could find the
will to go for ratifiable world government planning? [Good
ideas fail in the absence of means to make them realistic.
Let all people make realistic the good idea of ending the global scourges
of war and despair.]
––––
Illegal Immigration
By
Keith Suter
Life is full of irony.
The US has just been celebrating the 170th anniversary of the Texan War
of Independence from Mexico — while the news pages have been full
of stories about attempts to keep out illegal Mexican migrants.
In the 1830s Texas was part
of the Mexican empire. The Texans rebelled. The
most well known battle was in March 1836, at The Alamo, now the most famous
tourist attraction in the state. It is said to contain the
ghost of Davy Crockett, one the heroes who were killed at the doomed defence
of that fort.
“Remember the Alamo”
became a rallying cry of General Sam Houston a few weeks later at the
Battle of San Jacinto on April 211836. General Santa Anna’s
Mexican forces were beaten in less than 20 minutes and the nasty general
was captured. 630 Mexicans were killed and only nine Texans
were killed.
It was one of the most significant
events in American history. Not only was Texas liberated but
Mexico lost territory it would never recapture (though it tried
a few times in the 1840s) and the US went on later to acquire further
Mexican territory in 1848.
For a decade Texas was an independent
country, sending ambassadors abroad. It later joined the United
States, though the streak of independence still runs through the veins
of many Texans.
And now fast forward to 2006:
the Mexicans (if some politicians are to be believed) are
overrunning the US. A million people (many from Mexico)
enter the US illegally each year. About 10 per cent of the
US workforce is now illegal.
Texas — with a 2,000 mile
border with Mexico — is part of the bridge over which they travel.
The border is now a place of danger and opportunity.
Some politicians and the media
have been whipping up a fear campaign against these illegals. They
argue that the illegals take jobs away from Americans. There
is currently an attempt in Congress to make it even tougher for them to
enter and stay.
President Bush is in a dilemma.
On the one hand, he is well aware of the panic that has been
aroused by the campaign. Texan vigilantes in combat gear are
patrolling the border to keep out the illegals. There is support
for building a fence to keep them out (ironically one company that
has been contracted to do some of that work in California has itself been
charged with employing illegal migrants).
On the other hand, many business
interests have been pressuring the president to veto any legislation that
emerges from Congress. The US is a low wage economy for menial
workers. The US does not have the spirit of equality found
in Australia.
The low rate of American unemployment
is partly due to the way that many jobs are low-paying and so people need
to make a living. Also, the more that cheap labour exists,
the more the wages can be kept low as people are forced compete for the
work.
Meanwhile other people
(such as business leaders, lawyers and doctors) do extremely well
at the other end of the US economy and so they can afford to employ low-paid
hard-working housekeepers and child minders (some of whom are illegal).
Cheap labour enables them to live a comfortable life.
They feel very happy about their lifestyle and so they borrow even more,
feeling that they are on an economic boom that will never end (the
US now has a record low level of saving).
It will be interesting to see
how President Bush, who is himself a Texan, sorts this one out.
Keith Suter Consultant for Social
Policy
Broadcast 5th May 2006 on Radio
2GB's "Brian Wilshire Programme"
–––
“World Parliament”
From John Bunzl, jbunzl@simpol.org,
May 5
This discussion is precisely
what I meant when I earlier suggested that, generally, we still seem to
demonstrate a level of consciousness which is the same as the one that
creates the problems we say we want to solve. Since "we will
not solve our problems with the same thinking that created them",
unless we move to a higher level, we are going nowhere.
Surely, to argue about whether
state or individual terrorism is worse/better, or about what the motives
for terrorism may be is entirely to miss the point? Because
the WHOLE POINT OF DEMOCRACY is that it is a system which ITSELF can give
us the answers to those kind of questions. That is why it
is wholly premature - or at least rather dubious - for any self-styled
"world parliament" to pass so-called "laws" or for
high-sounding public declarations to be made which effectively prejudge
the decisions or opinions of what the world's people might say if a system
of global democracy (or some other appropriate form of people-centred
global governance) were available to them.
best wishes
John
–––5.10.06
NEVER AGAIN WAR ?
“Drexel A. Sprecher, a
lawyer who researched, plotted strategy and argued cases at Nuremberg
... died on March 18 in Washington...”
“...Benjamin B. Ferencz,
who was also a Nuremberg prosecutor and roomed with Mr. Sprecher, said
that only about a half dozen of their number [of Nuremberg prosecutors]
were alive now...
“The Nuremberg trials were
the first time an international court had tried government leaders. Their
crime seemed so huge and flagrant that Winston Churchill first advocated
summarily shooting them. But the Allies instead advanced the
notion that international, moral laws superseded national, immoral ones...
.
“The most difficult count
to prove was the first one: conspiracy to wage aggressive
war. The job was given to the United States.
“Robert H. Jackson, the
chief American prosecutor in the larger first trial, thought prewar documents
were the best proof, not least because Germans kept good records....
“Mr. Sprecher, who was
fluent [in German], provided crucial help with a particularly prized trove:
papers of Alfred Rosenberg, a top official responsible for much Nazi theory.
These were found behind a false wall in a Bavarian castle
and discussed hideous crimes like enslaving children.
“But the great need was
to find evidence of conspiracy to start World War II...”
For an outline of many connections
of Nuremberg with WWIII questions, read “Drexel A. Specher,
92, U,S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg [A lawyer who had a crucial
role in case against the Nazis”]. The carefully
ordered, researched and meticulously written obituary, which shows how
voluminous were and are its many surprisinig and difficult aspects, is
by Douglas Martin.
Given among other things the
great limitations placed on the advocacy of the peace-through-enforceable-world-law
[that doesn’t exist yet], World Peace News - a World Government Report,
worldpeacenews.org, wlll concentrate on the one aspect to
which WPN has, over many years, personal experience. That
“Never Again War” aspect relates to Sprecher’s former roommate
at Nuremberg, as noted above.
As a harbinger of the pronounced,
acute need for international reconciliation among all nations now, the
following are the last two paragraphs of the Sprecher obit yesterday,
May 8.
“Mr. Sprecher said in the
interview with The Inquirer that he thought it was ‘psycologically
necessary’ to think of the Nazis as ‘Monsters.’
But he told Court TV that that did not stop him from having a polite exchange
with Hermann Goring, Hitler’s lieutenant, after Goring broke his
pencil and Mr. Sprecher handed him his own.
“‘I’m pleased
to have helped you,’ he told Goring in German.”
Benjamin Ferencz is a longtime
member of the WPN Editorial Advisory Board, a sometimes contributor of
items to WPN columns and he is known as a valued participant in world
peace, world law, ICC [International Criminal Court], academic, university,
social circles.
In U.N. halls during occasional
unplanned and friendly meetings, etc. since the 1970’s, Dr. Ferencz
and WPN expressed to each other notions about remedies for war. We
have agreed fully, in WPN’s opinion, that the central remedy for
war comprises ratifiable, amendable, just-for-all-people law. The
mad reliance on war as a decision-making procedure needs to be replaced
by a credible global acceptance of world political unity. Obviously, as
Ferencz’s membeship on the WPN Editorial Advisory Board implies,
we have emphasized the unexceptionable connection between enforceable
world law and the notion of encouragement for all people of the “Never
Again War” advocacy.
WPN plans to send Prof. Ferencz
a copy of the above and invite a commentary from him.
–––
From Florence Cusson, cussonflo@eircom.net, May 4
I simply wish to share with you a nice quotation I have received;
M. R. Buckminster Fuller wrote it (I have heard of this interesting
man thanks to Kenneth Kostyo -Thanks Ken!-).
"If success or failure
of this planet and of human beings depended on How I am and What I do,
HOW would I be? WHAT would I
do?"
R. Buckminster Fuller
Cheers,
Florence
––––5.9.06
“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign
strand.”
Walter
Scott,
1810, from The Lady of the Lake.
Time gone by tends to warp
focus on “a foreign strand” and suggest a new focus on the bum
idea of destroying the whole wide world in the idiot foolishness of wars
with atomic weapons or even with sharp steel and spiked cudgels.
The strong pull of the home sentiment resonates still, but the narrowness
of its logic shrivels and is gone, gone in celebrations of the wars of
yore.
––––
Don’t beg the question
From jllortega, jllortega@gmail.com, May 4,
Wolfgang,
I am sorry, but the statement
"terror being done by state authorities exceeds by extent and
number any individual terror which might be rooted in the motivation of
desperation" just begs the question of whether democratic state
authorities really act as terrorist "in a general basis", and
whether terrorists have motives rooted in the motivation of desperation.
The fact is not that democracy
is free from any ills including corruption, violence or war, but that
it is just the condition for advancing towards less of these ills, so
I don't think we can or must put democracies at the same level as violent
states or terrorism. And it is not clear that all terrorist
motives are rooted in the motivation of desperation. This
is certainly not the case with the terrorist group ETA that has killed
almost 1000 people in Spain nor with the 9/11 terrorists nor the terrorist
that committed the terrible crimes of Madrid and London. They were all
well fed and paid. It is not even clear that current terrorist
in Iraq are fighting the foreign armies, they seem rather to be aiming
for civil war.
These topics have been discussed
in thousands of pages and not being solved. Let's not simplify
things that are complex. Josep
––
These
provisional parliaments
–From Didier Coeurnelle, didiercoeurnelle@village.uunet.be,
May 7.
For information, there are at least 4 self declared World Parliaments.
All declared themselves somehow provisional.
The Peoples' Congress: more
information on page recim.org (and on a lot of other small siites.
The Global Community Parliament:
more information on telusplanet.net/public/gdufour (and on other
small sites).
The World Parliament experiment:
more information on page tgde.org
The Provisional World Parliament:
more information on page wcpa.biz (and on a lot of other small
sites)
Except for the first one,
as far as I know, there was never a real election. For
the first one, the election concerned only a few thousand people.
In all these organizations
and in a lot of other organizations working for World democracy, you can
find goodwill and interesting ideas. All these organisations
are also open for cooperation. But sadly all these organisations
have leaders with very long or impressive titles but they have very few
members. And, as somebody already wrote, "When they get
together in order to work together, endless energy is spent in establishing
the new pecking order, often resulting in relations growing cold.".
As long as world democrats do
not have common tools, there is a long way to go to make some useful work
for a World Parliament and for a World Democracy.
And by common tools, I mean
at least one common organization or website. And I know that
a lot of you will say "I want this". But please
then, stop to create/reinforce your (new) initiatives/organisations/websites/...all
the time and try first to merge with other initiatives/organisations/websites/.
––
What
is great leadership?
About the affirmations concerning the great leader of Libya and the great
leader of the US, I will write only two things:
You will not find any organisation
really publicly opposed to the great leader of Libya in Libya (a
lot of members of these organisations are dead or gone). For
more information, you can start at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics of Libya.
You will find a lot of organisations
opposed to the great leader of the US in the US. For more
information, you can start at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics of the
United States.
So, I do not think that it was
a good idea to organize a meeting in Libya because it was impossible to
be objective. But OK, now this is done and it is now important
to prove that we are working for World democracy (and not for one or another
great leader). Didier
–––
jllortega@gmail.com,
The discussion caused by the Tripoli
declaration is going on in spite to my invitation to discontinue it. So
far, I think it has included two elements: whether support for Gadaffi
is warranted since he is argued not to be worse than other leaders even
in democratic countries, and the legitimacy of the Provisional World Parliament.
It must be clear now that declaring
support for Gadaffi has provoked wide rejection among us world citizens
and is likely to cause the same result among as many people as become
aware of it. This is an indisputable fact that the representatives
of the Provisional World Parliament should take into account.
I don't believe we can reach further agreement on this.
I would much prefer to move
the discussion about self declared World Parliaments to the Virtual Congress,
but this of course requires any representatives of the parliaments to
submit the corresponding papers. I encourage them to do so.
I must confess I am not enthusiastic about this strategy for advancing
towards democratic global governance, but I try to support it as far as
this doesn't entail something I can't accept. Calling the
any provisional world parliament a "governmental" organizations
comes very close it.
Still, this is an important
discussion that refers to long standing efforts of fellow world citizens
and friends. This is why again, I suggest we move this discussion to the
Congress. Already much of what have been said in the previous
days will be lost in future references.
Just one comment after reading
Diddier's most cogent messages. I agree with him in all points,
including that we need "at least one common organization or website".
It may be presumptuous, but I think the website of the World Unity Days
and Manifesto for World Citizenship and Democratic Global Governance,
and now of the 1st Virtual Congress can be developed to be it and I ask
everyone's support to achieve this. Josep
–––5.8.06
Worldwide economics
and The Pin Factory
“...Warsh tells the tale
of a great contradiction that has lain at the heart of economic theory
ever since 1776, the year in which Adam Smith published ‘The Wealth
of Nations.’ Warsh calls it the struggle between the
Pin Factory and the Invisible Hand. On one side, Smith emphasized
the huge increases in productivity that could be achieved through the
division of labor, as illustrated by his famous example of a pin factory
whose employees, by specializing on narrow tasks, produce far more than
they could if each worked independently. On the other side,
he was the first to recognize how a market economy can harness self-interest
to the common good, leading each individual as though ‘by an invisible
hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.’
“What may not be obvious
is the way those two concepts stand in opposition to each other. The
parable of the pin factory says that there are increasing returns to scale
- the bigger the pin factory, the more specialized its workers can be,
and therefore the more pins the factory can produce per worker.
But increasing returns create a natural tendency toward monopoly, because
a large business can achieve larger scale and hence lower costs than a
small business. So in a world of increasing returns, bigger
firms tend to drive smaller firms out of business, until each industry
is dominated by just a few players.
“But for the invisible
bond to work properly, there must be many competitors in each industry,
so that nobody is in a position to exert monopoly power. Therefore,
the idea that free markets always get it right depends on the assumption
that returns to scale are diminishing, not increasing. ... ”
That’s by Paul Krugman,
under “The Pin Factory Mystery,” in the NYT’s
May7 Book Review section tabloid. The book is Knowledge
and the Wealth of Nations A Story of Economic
Discovery, by David Warsh, a former Boston Globe columnist,
now the author of an online newsletter, Economic Prncipals.
The three paragraphs above are
reproduced here as a modest suggestion to economists who may be thinking
about the composition of a short, pithy, seminal world political Constitution
for the federation of all nations. [Of course such a constitution, in
order to merit ratification globally, would have to be enacted by elected
representatives of all nations. The Constitution could set
amendable rules to the point of creating a world government not run by
nations as at the politically disunited United Nations now, but with all
sentient adult people fairly represented as world citizens, as in a functioning
democracy of, by and for all people, none excepted in ruling principle.]
––––
Avoid Confliction?
The following is an update by Alfred Kaplan of a WPN Web note posted
a few days ago, dealing with the fate of the American Movemewnt for World
Government, being contested now.
AVOID
CONFLICTION?
A new “World Democracy Movement” (WDM) would end the American
Movement for World Government (AMWG), established in the early 60’s .
A publication called World Government News (WGN), published earlier,
had drawn support from the United World Federalists (UWF).
UWF discontinued that support and WGN folded.
With insouciant and conflicted
support from the AMWG treasury, but emphatically not from some New York
AMWG members, the breakaways-from-AMWG are opposed by the AMWG publication,
World Peace News (WPN) - a World Government Report. The
new wanna-be “world-governance” “World Democracy”
founders have held two all-orgs-welcome, party-like, “get-to-know-you”
events in New Jersey. The controversial AMWG president and
vice president, etc., support the new breakaway from AMWG.
The unique AMWG advocacy that
the world needs to be governed under ratified and enforceable world law
should not be abandoned in favor of just another peace, democracy, governance
group. That possible event could be fatal for any movement
for the creation of a peaceable, lawful, outlawing of war.
AMWG bylaws call for an annual
election meeting in May. That call formed a decades-long practice.
AMWG members from New York plan
a small “What-to-do? meeting in Manhattan - a time and place to be
announced. For more information, call: (212) 686 1069 ---
(212) 925 3284.
––––5.7.06
On the Web miracle
Dear whoever may feel concerned,
In no way could WPN, World
Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org,
even begin to answer adequately the few printed copies of the few e-mails
put on our desk this spring morning.This saddens us because we consider
every one valuable, interesting, important, challenging. We’ll
try – and no doubt fail, at least largely, later.
E-mail addesses are [and
thanks go to the posters of the e-mails] : akap70@juno,com;
jll0rtega@gmail. com [to a databased address -*]; global@emanzipationhumanm.de
– [*]; cussonflo@eircom.net - [*]; terry.burner@navy.mil.
That’s not many carefully picked e-mails, you’ll
agree, but we are an over-the-hill, very old and some say cracked and
unsteady pot. So forgive.
The e-mail that touches us the
deepest personally deals not with WPN but with the VMSB-141. The
marine SBD scout-divebomber sqauadron “went over” from North
Island to Pago Pago on the luxury, lightly-stripped liner Lurline. From
there the dozens of air and ground units aboard scattered to assigned
stations, some probably continuing on and landing, as a straggling VMSB-141
did, at Guadalcanal in October 1942.
The last 141 pilot attached
to the squadron in the U.S., I feel that I know that Terry Burner’s
141 information, mentioned in his e-mail, is solid and correct.
His great uncle was 1st Lt. Waterman. First lieutenants in
141 were rare. About the following I am not positive.
But I feel that Waterman, a part of the squadron leadership, died when
a shell from a Japanese cruiser hit the top of a palm tree and exploded
down killlng all of the 141 leadership. Seeing where the CO,
Gordon Bell, had been gathered safely with his top guys, as they no doubt
cheerfully, confidently reasonably thought, shows the connection between
war and its critics who advocate that all nations should get together
now, at last, before a nuclear WWIII gets started. That could
be much, much worse for everyone than what the 141 leadership shared.
Everyone, feeling however safe,
might come to think that everyone’s outlawing war in favor of settlng
disputes by enforceable, duly ratified law, democracy, a genuine federation
of all nations, is the lesson we all should take from the facts of war.
This is not to think, of course, that there are no worse pursuits
than “conventional” war. But here, now, it does
seem that a nuclear WWIII could be the end of everything human.
PS: WPN feels that,
from a meeting of a few surviving 141 pilots able to meet “soon after”
at just one bull session, no one who had been with 141 all the way felt
less than fully approving of the advocacy of a warless world arrived at
through just and enforceable world law.
––––5.6.06
The Big Q
has been answered. Our human species has not sought to
develop and establish a long-past-due response to our quantum-mechanics
scientists having developed now prolferating weapons of our own destruction.
As a consequence of our collective
actions and non-actions, we’re all doomed to likely surprises by
our own and other committed “players”.
What might we all do to play catch-up?
Who knows?
Here’s a text taken in answer
by this World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org,
taken from a new book by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, American
Prometheus the Triiumph and Tragedy of J.
Robert Oppenheimer. Vintage Books, A Divsion of Random House, Inc.
In this we all might recall that,
in Greek mythology, Prometheus was the guy who captured Zeus’s explosive
fire for the use of people. And consider, peripherally, for
exactly what use it is used today.
WPN refers to reported current U.S./U.N.
efforts to create “international control” of atomic bombs.
Quotes here are from pages 348 and 349 of the new paperback edition:
“Oppenheimer’s anguish
was real and deep. He felt a personal responsibility for the
consequences of his work at Los Alamos. Every day the newspaper
headlines gave him evidence that the world might once again be on the
road to war. ‘Every American knows that if there is another
major war,’ he wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
on June 1, 1946, ‘atomic weapons will be used...’
This meant, he argued, that the real task at hand was the elimination
of war itself. ‘We know this because in the last war,
the two nations which we like to think are the most enlightened and humane
in the world – Great Britain and the United States – used atomic
weapons against an enemy which was essentially defeated.’
“He had made this observation
earlier in a speech at Los Alamos, but to publish it in 1946 was an extraordinary
admission. Less than a year after the events of August 1945,
the man who had instructed the bombardiers exactly how to drop their atomic
bombs on the center of two Japanese cities had come to the conclusion
that he had supported the use of atomic weapons againt ‘an enemy
which was essentially defeated.’ This realization weighed heavily
on him.
“A major war was not Oppie’s
only worry; he was concerned too about nuclear terrorism.
Asked in a closed Senate hearing room ‘whether three or four men
couldn’t smuggle units of an [atomic] bomb into New York and blow
up the whole city.’ Oppenheimer responded, ‘Of course
it could be done and people could destroy New York.’ When
a startled senator then followed by asking, ‘What instrument would
you use to detect an atomic bomb hidden somewhere in a city?’
Oppenheimer quipped, ‘A screwdriver [to open each and every crate
or suitcase].’ There was no defense against nuclear terrorism
- and he felt there never would be.
“International control of the
bomb, he later told an audience of Foreign Service and military officers,
is ‘the only way in which this country can have security comparable
to that which it had in the years before the war. It is the only
way in which we will be able to live with bad governments, with new discoveries,
with irresponsible governments such as are likely to arise in the next
hundred years, without living in fairly constant fear of the surprise
use of these weapons.’”
The only way? The
only way to avoid the possibility of a surprise like that? The
only way? That’s what Oppenheimer said to an audience
of Foreign Service and military officers.
That’s probably correct,
WPN thinks now as its editor thought in 1946 and even well before WWII
started – but there’s a hedge. That certainty was
and still is “the only way” except for the remote possibility
that, as long as organized human life exists, leadership will emerge somewhere
willing to and capable of risking the creation of a world political unity
unhindered by the existence of war and any war weapons.
In total agreement with Oppenheimer’s
pessimism, WPN is in major and probably irrelevant disagreement with “The
Father of the Atomic Bomb” on the above as noted.
We happen to hope that “progress”
toward the creation of world peace under enforceable and duly ratifiable
world law will become possible.
But that kind of “miracle”
seems extremely wishful, given that world political and social leaders
seem to show that they are woefully distracted by “more immediate”
challenges.
––––5.5.06
Avoid confliction?
A new “World Democracy
Movement” would end the American Movement for World Government, AMWG
was established in the early 60’s. A publication called
World Government News had drawn support from the United World Federalists.
WF discontinued that support and WGN folded.
With insouciant and conflicted
support from the AMWG treasury but emphatically not from some New York
AMWG members, the breakaway-from-AMWG is opposed by the AMWG publication,
World Peace News - a World Government Report, etc.
The new wanna-be “world-governance”
“World Democracy” founders have held two all-orgs-welcome, party-like,
“get-to-know-you” events in New Jersey. The controversial
AMWG president and vice president, etc., support the new breakaway from
AMWG.
AMWG members from New York plan
a small “What-to-do?” meeting in May in Manhattan at a time
and place to be announced. AMWG bylaws call for an annual
election meeting in May. That call formed a decades-long practice.
For more information, phones
are 212-686-1069 for World Peace News and 212-925-3224.
E-mail addresses are worldpeacenews@earthlink.net and akap70@juno.com.
The unique AMWG advocacy
that the world needs to be governed under ratified and enforceable world
law should not be abandoned in favor of just another peace, democracy,
governance whoop-de-do. That possible event could be fatal
for any movement for the creation of a peaceable, lawful outlawing of
war.
–––5.4.06
It’s for Otherselves too!
From Fernando A. Iglesias, fernandoi@ciudad.com.ar,
May 1, 11:01 am.
Dear RAJ,
"Provisional’ means
exactly the same in Spanish as in English. And ‘World
Parliament’ means, in each and every language of the Earth, an assembly
of deputees that were elected by the citizens of the world, which is not
the case. Then, if You take the incentive to form a "Provisional
WP", which is just one of the many ways – as You at the CMS
[City Montessori School] know very well– of campaiging for
a truly WP, You should be – at least- very careful and
keep your ideas on democractically elected representatives -a thing that
¥ou are not – foryourself.
The citizens of the world who
are for a truly WP should be able to say to the leaders of the G8:
YOU ARE NOT THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE WORLD! NOBODY HAS ELECTED
YOU FOR THAT!
HOW CAN WE DO IT IF WE START
BY PROCLAIMING OURSELVES AS MEMBERS OF A WORLD PARLIAMENT OF ANY KIND!
HOW CAN WE DO IT IF WE IDENTIFY IT WITH A TYRANT WHO IS AT
THE GOVERN SINCE DECADES AND ORDERED TO KILL HUNDRED OF PASSENGERS OF
A CIVIL AIRCRAFT?
I repeat: One
thing is that the PWP deliberates on global disarmament, global warming
and so on, and a very different thing is that PWP shouldn’t blame
some national governors and bless others.
NOBODY HAS ELECTED THE PWP TO
SPEAKI ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD! That is why sometimes doing
nothing is better than losing any perspective on the world.
Regards Fernando
Fernando A. Iglesias
Universidad de Lomas de Zamora
----- Original Message -----
From: Raj Rani <mailto:daminirani@yahoo.com>
To : worldcit@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May
01, 2006 3:04 AM
Subject: [spam]
Re: Provisional World Parliament Declaration
Dear Fernando
A writer and a journalist like
you should be able to understand that the very word "provisional"
implies that the World Parliament members are not elected through a worldwide
elections (in which case they would be members of actual World Parliament).
Surely you would appreciate that because
people of the world don't have a process of electing a World Parliament,
they have two choices, either to sit on their hands and do nothing, or
to do something that takes the world forward in the direction of World
Parliament.....
In peace,
Dr Preeti Shankar, Chief Editor,
City Montessori School, Lucknow, INDIA
–––
From Raj Shekhar Chandola, rajchandola@cmseucation.org,
May 2
Dear Fernando and Friends,
This is to clarify that the
email Fernando keeps referring to came from Dr Preeti Shankar, Chief Editor
at CMS (daminirani@yahoo.com) She uses Raj Rani as
her e-mail display name and this has caused confusion and misunderstandings
in the past also. I am again requesting her to change her
display name so that there is no confusion henceforth.
And Fernando I agree with you
that a provisional World Parliament cannot be equated with an actual World
Parliament (constituted after worldwide elections). But
I differ with you in that I think the Provisional World Parliament of
WCPA have been doing very useful work particularly in raising awareness
and popularizing the idea of World Parliament by holding these PWP sessions
in different parts of the world.
I also like Otfried's suggestion
of reconciling these differences in the true spirit of a World Citizen.
So I invite all of you to come to Lucknow this December for the Global
Symposium being held concurrently with the Seventh International Conference
of Chief Justices of the World (8-12 December 2006). If
there is anything we can do to help you raise sponsorship support to cover
your travel fare, please let us know. Boarding, lodging and
local site seeing will be complimentary for all world citizens.
With best wishes
Raj Shekhar Chandola
(I think henceforth I will use
my full name till Dr Preeti Shankar has changed her email display name
so that there is no confusion).
----- Original Message -----
From: Fernando A.
Iglesias, fernandoi@ciudad.com.ar
So that is not me who needs
some Raj's lesson on the meaning of the word "provisional".
––
How shall we all go from here?
How shall our human species
act collectively in order to be able to create what might be called a
just all-people-governed humanity? Given the human condition,
that question is what World Peace News - a World Government report,
worldpeacenews.org would like to ask whoever may be tuning in on
this uncertan morning of May 3, 2006.
––––5.3.06
|