Democratic World Federalists and the San Francisco Promise

UNITED NATIONS, 1 May 2017

Roger Kotila, Editor | Earth Federation News & Views – TRANSCEND Media Service

April 18, 2017 – Democratic World Federalists need your help.  The goal is to persuade the United Nations General Assembly to take a critical look at the aging and fundamentally flawed UN Charter in order to “upgrade the global operating system” to “UN 2.0” as one young world federalist describes it.

A Charter review was promised at the original signing in San Francisco at the request of nations who were unhappy with the veto power granted the UN Security Council.  They knew the system was undemocratic and rigged against the less powerful nations.  But the review was never carried out.

This is the origin of THE SAN FRANCISCO PROMISE, the campaign recently launched by DWF to persuade the UN General Assembly to conduct the review process that was promised, and legally required in the original Charter itself.

Badly Designed UN Charter a Key Part of War System

For world federalists a Charter review potentially opens the door to establish a world federal constitution designed to correct the fatal faults in the present Charter which prevent the UN from doing its job.

The truth is that the UN Charter itself is so badly designed that it is in reality the main part of a geopolitical war system. A global peace system will require replacing the UN Charter with a genuine world federal union constitution such as the Earth Constitution.

In reality, from the very beginning the Charter has been unable to maintain world peace. While signing the Charter the US simultaneously made a mockery of the UN as it dropped the horrendous atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A “new UN” under the Earth Constitution, for example, would establish a UN able to successfully address critical world problems such as militarism, perpetual war, and the threat of nuclear catastrophe.

A change to a global peace system would free up billions and billions of dollars that can be redirected away from death and destruction, and instead can be applied constructively for infrastructure needs, to clean up slums, and to meet the needs of local communities worldwide.  Universal health care, free education, and adequate disability and retirement guarantees become possible.

A World Parliament with Real Law and Order

The vision for a new UN includes adding an UN Parliamentary Assembly and/or forming a democratically elected World Parliament — the world community has a democratic right to a real voice in global affairs — by birthright, we are all world citizens.

The Earth Constitution calls for a World Parliament, and includes a well-designed and fair world judiciary system with enforceable world law.  The present UN lacks a capacity for independent legal enforcement — a main reason why the UN has been unable to prevent illegal wars and other world crimes committed by the leaders of bully nations.

Without a new UN, leaders of powerful nations who are responsible for world crimes remain above the law.

Public Needs Awareness about World Federalism to End Militarism

The public is largely unaware that forming a world federal union government is a real solution to world problems rather than relying on militarism.  World federalists know that militarism to achieve world peace is literally a dead end.

Top thinkers such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking agree with world federalists that the only viable answer to global crises is to form a democratic world federation – a world government with enforceable world law.

The public is also unaware that the United Nations cannot enforce international law.  It lacks a proper world judiciary system. Leaders of the most powerful nations commit world crimes with impunity.

Since the 9/11 attacks the failure of the US to follow a legal path of justice “has so far destroyed half a dozen countries and killed about 2 million people” reports Nicolas Davies in Through the ‘War on Terror’ Looking Glass (Consortium News April 17, 2017).  No one has gone to jail.

Bully Nations Refuse to Give Up Nuclear Weapons 

The Charter is undemocratically rigged in favor of only five nations — the Permanent 5 (P-5) veto nations which comprise the UN Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, France, & the United Kingdom).

The P-5 are the only nations at the UN with a vote that really counts.  Ironically, while the Security Council is supposedly there to insure peace, in shameful fact these five favored nations are the world’s largest weapons’ dealers, and wars and threats of war are routine.

 The war system is so deeply embedded that the P-5 nations are now defying the will of the majority of nations at the UN who are seeking to legally prohibit and ban nuclear weapons.

The UN General Assembly’s Conference to ban nukes is scheduled from June 15 – July 7, 2017, but the United States and other nuclear nations are boycotting the proceedings!

It is indeed time for new answers to global crises and world crimes.

________________________________________

Roger Kotila, Ph.D. – President of Democratic World Federalists and Editor of Earth Federation News & Views.

Go to Original – earthfederation.info

 

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


2 Responses to “Democratic World Federalists and the San Francisco Promise”

  1. Jon Olsen says:

    So, One solution would be for the nations that are so under-represented at the very flawed UN, create their own international institution, base it outside the territory of the 5 permanent members and create a multinational peace force to intervene before genocides or other atrocities like paramilitary rampages occur. Imagine if 80-100 countries united to do this!

  2. Satoshi Ashikaga says:

    Who will manage the core of the world federal government? What if the UN P5 countries will also manage the core organ of the world federal government together with non-P5 countries? Do you think that these powerful countries will give up participating in the management of the core organ of the world federal government? If the world federal government is established, not only less powerful countries will join its management but also these world powerful countries will surely join the management. What might happen to the management of the world federal government, then?

    What are currently being discussed about the UNGA might also be discussed at the world federal government, including its voting system, for instance. Would China be happy, in terms of the population ratio, with having one vote when Iceland has also one vote, for instance? Would the United States be happy with its financial contribution to the world fedreral government when less powerful countries have many votes in total and their financial contribution in total to the world federal government is far less than that of the United States, for instance?

    ———

    The world federal government is a type of a central government system. If all the political, financial, military and all other ruling powers are at the world federal government, it could be a world totalitarian government at any time, especially in the long run. This type of central power system has inheritantly such risk even if how this central government might be democratically managed in its initial stage. Learn from history.

    ———-

    Article 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” The similar provisions can be found in constitutions of many countries. However, that is about individuals. In the international or interstate relations, is there any provision such as “Every sovereign state has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”? One might argue that such provision is unnecessary because the sovereign state is inheritantly capable to act independently and freely; that is what sovereignty is. Someone can answer that way.

    Well, however, things are not so simple in the reality of international or interstate relations. In fact, there were some attempts, among non-P5 states, to organize an international group of nations that could be developed to become another universal international organizations. These attempts were, however, all failed so far; either these states had to give up the attempt by themselves or they were forced to give it up. Why? The answer: No P5 countries wanted such attempt. Besides, all the P5 countries were/are either super powers or powerful enough countries. What could those less powerful countries that attempted “to exercise the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” do in the face of the tremendous power of the P5 countries, especially when such assembly or association could become a “second UN without the P5 countries” in the long run?

    For those less powerful non-P5 countries, the most realistic way to activate the UN in the foreseeable future may be to activate the General Assembly ever more.

    What system is the most democratic one? How should it be managed then? No one has the answer(s) to such questions so far.