Enforceable world law
        to the rescue!


       On U.N. “law” without U.N. enforcement

“...The [Security Council] resolution [unanimously approved] compels all 191 United Nations members to draw up legislation and strengthen laws to prevent terrorists and black market agents from being able to ‘manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.’”
       “...No specific enforcement power was included in the resolution, though United Nations’ Charter rules allow for sanctions against non-cooperating countries.   The American deputy ambassador, James B. Cunningham, said the resolution recognized that some countries may lack the resources to meet the terms of the measure.   He said the United States stood ready to offer the technical assistance necessary.”
       Those two paragraphs are excerpted from an INTERNATIONAL NYT news story April 29, p3.   The purpose of the approved Security Council resolution was seen to be to “keep chemical, biological and nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”
       Does that stand as sensible, credible, realistic?
       How can it be thought that WMD can be kept out of the hands of terrorists?
Can enforcement exist without enabling specifics?
       Doesn’t the U.N. Charter contradict itself on enforcement when reference to specfic enforcement powers is absent?
        Isn’t the World Government Imperative needed as a rubric to create a world institution able to cool justified and deluded heat leading to WWIII with WMD?
       In that context, let’s consider the non-sense of the U.N. Security Council resolution noted above.
       Isn’t that measure stillborn because nations can’t now be
compelled to draw up and strengthen laws providing reasonably for enforcement?
       As the U.N. Charter nails down hard, U.N. Member-States are “equally sovereign.”   Rogue or not, they can fight.
       Whenever have sovereign nations acted effectively to create lasting enforceable world law?
       In theory and in fact even terrorists can’t be compelled by the U.N., as it is, to do what they don’t want to do.
       To dismiss the first and most overriding U.N. Charter principle as peripheral - to dismiss that non-enforcement principle as virtually irrelevant while endorseing the wishes of the most powerful rulers – that might appear not only unprincipled but foolish and bootless.
       Aren’t U.N. resolutions that purport to serve as laws delusionary?   Isn’t that the great U.N. tragedy for humanity ?
       Aren’t what nations can work out under the writ of a sovereign world republic possible in the way of compelling action against terrorists-as-self-styled-and/or-real liberators?  
       Finally, isn’t the only dependable way of creating popular and finally voluntary obedience to world-peace principle the creation of a federal world republic?
       Weren’t the League of Nations covenant and the U.N. Charter works of sincere-but-unwitting and of witting-and-disingenuous con-artists and self-dupes?
       Could all nations be sucked up into the use of WMD in a war of what many will mis-name as a war of liberation, freedom, justice, law, self-interest, democracy, fear of the belligerent chauvinism and stupidity of others, etc.?
       Aren’t those the central war/peace questions?
       Doesn’t The World Government Imperative offer the only feasible “remedy?”
       ––––5.2.04

On Europe’s war-peace front  in an EU gone from 15 to 25 Member-States
       
What’s new in the new and very revised
THE FEDERALIST DEBATE Papers for Federalists in Europe and the World?

“Dear Friends,” the DEBATE says in an enclosed flyer, Lucio Levi, still the editor,“We are hearing more and more often about the need to control globalization.
       “On the other hand we very seldom hear institutional proposals put forward to allow the democratic achievement of this objective.
       “With a wholly renewed lay-out, the Federalist Debate intends to become the promoter and an active part of this political debate, not only on the federalists’ side but also with non-governmental organizations, from which it intends to obtain and to which it intends to offer opportunities of reflection. ...”
       So – on pages 18, 47 and 48, TFD hits on the switch of the Washington based U.S. World Federalist organization into the less than earth-shattering Citizens for Global Solutions, CGS.
       A glance at names and article titles in the new TFD gives WPN, World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, the strong feeling that WPN and TFD are in ideological sync.
       For a telling instance, Britain’s John Roberts concludes:
       “...Nor is it likely that Arab democracy would be easy to create:   the patterns of Arab society do not seem usually to offer openings for women and the resulting social revolutions that would ensue.   On the other hand, not only do the Arabs as Moslems have a strong belief in a universal brotherhood – which is what Islam means – ;  there are religious reasons why such pan-Arabism needs to extend itself towards other, non-Arab, Moslems.   This is only part of world citizenship and Moslems, like Christians, will have to shed their dreams of exclusivity.   We all now constitute part of one minority or another.   Until the human race comes to the only unity possible, that is its own natural identity, there will be no real peace.   We may be a long way from full acceptance, but facts and the alternatives available are driving us inexorably towards it.”
       TFD comments on pages 47 and beyond, backwards and forward in the new book, strike WPN as not only unexceptionable but well within a sensible advocacy that the world be governed federally in the best interests of all peoples.
       For instance, on the U.S. Federalist fold into CGS, this comes from the TFD:  “It is our duty to report that the cancellation of any explicit reference to federalism in the name of the new [CGS] organization ... has come as a shocking surprise to militant federalists the world over...”
       And this on p48:
       “The new name, Citizens for Global Solutions, assumed by WFA implies a weakening of confidence of the American federalists in their traditional identity... "{But don’t ask WPN to expound again on the great oversimplification of the WFA and WFM leadership reality!}   “...The construction of the peace in the world and the re-launch of federalism at international level demand a partnership between the US  (the oldest federation)  and a European Federation.   In order to achieve these goals, the European and the American federalists should share a common design.”
       Emphatically yes!   Such a design is the world-peace imperative on the world level too!
       –––5.1.04


Quo vadis the Hal-and-Tom Show?


   How will the May 7 vote
turn out for The advocacy?

       The following is from the viewpoint of World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org.   The background includes that funny U.N. business about the ending of the scourge of war, the world’s need for all-level, federal democracies-uncorrupted, for the U.N. or a new, unburdened start toward creation of a duly ratified world federal democracy, and about some of the beholden, sometimes enthralled press at the U.N., etc.
       Cast as a letter to Hal from Tom, this article is about the American Movement for World Government, AMWG’s president, Hal, and AMWG’s contract with WPN, Tom.
Beyond the petty, irksome background lie symbolisms of such issues as freedom of the press, proxy shenanigans, the role of elections and federal democracy in human affairs, etc.


Dear Hal,
       Thank you for your $13.65 U.S. Express Mail April 27.   It surprised the doorman and flattered me.   And, offhand without study, I’d say it bears on what is bound to happen May 7 at AMWG’s annual election meeting.   Thank you again.
       But this note to you is to hope that you will desist from attempting to convince the Board to use proxies that will not stand scrutiny on the score of some proxy-holders’ negligible attendance records at AMWG meetings.
       Too, you might, I hope, get it that your agenda mention of revising the AMWG-WPN contract of the early 70’s might strike me as presumptuous, bumptious, insulting, delusionary, nonsensical and wishy-washy.
       If I had any inclination to even consider your idea that I should cease publishing World Peace News  (the newspaper I started in 1970)  as an autonomous paper and that you should be the authority to determine what I should or should not write about AMWG, I’d consider that I failed Stewart Ogilvy and Bill Cox, AMWG founders, and every one of WPN subscribers who hope that I run an honest, useful and pertinent publication with a dot org.   You now have your AMWG dot org.   Use it, not proxies, subterfuges, doomed delusions.
      
 When thought police at the U.N. told me to change my line of questioning [that included why the U.N. didn’t advocate the recreation of the U.N. as able to do its presumed duty to try realistically to end the scourge of war] and why I sometimes thought that they’d disaccredit me and WPN if I didn’t “cool it,” – my frequent response to U.N. officials involved was: “Disaccredit WPN and make my day.”  [See back WPN copies at any electronically connected library.]
       Hal, what exactly makes you think that you are not making my day by trying to have AMWG make common cause with the U.N., we in AMWG being an approved NGO?   What truthfully makes you try to hype-proxy me into giving up to you the most important free-press stamp of any publication including AMWG’s autonomous World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org?
       WPN existed long before its 1970’s contract with AMWG and it will continue to publish after the contract is voided May 7 if it is – which is unlikely, it seems to me.
       Will the AMWG Board be proxied into siding with you?   I believe you are woofing up a dead, wrong and rotten tree if you think so.   If the Board sides with you and is proxied into trying to take away WPN’s autonomy, I guess wrongly and will admit it. If I do, that will not be in line with AMWG member Al Williams who phoned me from California last night and volunteered to give me the proxy you got him to give you.
       Please do think carefully about what you do in trying to bring down an only publication that focuses consistenly on the human need for the world being governed, on the U.N. or some other political unity needing to be created by representatives of all nations, about creating a world political unity able to outlaw war against threats highlighted by and in our nuclear age.
       You agree with that last, I know.   And I assert your best bet is to preside coolly and correctly, not dictatorially, and stop trying to get our world-government advocacy to make common cause with a U.N. neutered by its being based on national sovereignty. Stop proposing that AMWG join for “strength” with any entity based on the humbug of blunting the advocacy that the world should be governed constitutionally.   Best wishes,     Tom

       ––––

Enforceable world law to the rescue!
       “Thousands of Israelis rallied in the largest protest yet over Prime Minister Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Page A12.”      Summary, page one, April 28.   And still some few people aver that the world doesn’t need to be governed, fairly, justly, constitutionally – or at all!
       ––––


“Taiwan Casts U.S. as China Intermediary      A Delicate Balance for the White House   By JOSEPH KAHN BEIJING, April 27 – President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan is pressing the Bush administration to approve his plans to change the island’s Constitution, casting the United States as an intermediary in the most delicate issue dividing China and Taiwan, Taiwan officials said Tuesday.
       “While Bush administration officials say they do not want to get deeply involved in brokering relations between China and Taiwan, the overture shows how instrumental American mediation has become in preventing tense relations across the Taiwan Strait from deteriorating into armed conflict.”    NYT, A10, April 28.
       ––––

     Out  of  whose  pockets?
Democracy  in  heat,
   the U.N.  &  sovereignty

       Whether the rigors of Iraqi war plans in apotheosis now at and around Falluja had anything basic to do with the opening of the democratic process of counting the many and varied costs of war to the U.S. may not be worth the candle of discovery.   But that may be arguable.   Recognizing mistakes often leads to not making them again.
       Anyway, the process did open widely and the U.S. State Department Deputy Richard Armitage and the Defense Department’s Deputy Paul Wolfowitz did appear on the “Foreign Security Assistance Spending” griddle, April 29, live, C-Span.   The event boomed around on two and more official levels removed from President Bush.
       The official Congressional griddle heated up on full-blown, searching questions concerning backings and fillings, i.e., theft of vast oil-for-food monies over the war years poured without much let by Uncle S– Sam into Iraq, questions asked bipartisanly, democratically, coherently, sometimes bluntly.   No listener could have been less than stunned by the gigantic mistake of the U.S. in trusting the U.N. to administer oil-for-food without monitoring.   The rip-off hoorah through kickbacks, theft and accounting cookery was on!
       Wouldn’t you know that the session encouraged the feeling in a world-politically-unity viewer that such public, open, live, Congress-and-Executive, FY 2005 spending, political, death, peace, and cultural exchanges could go toward minimizing war/peace mistakes future.
       The quality of the sovereignty of Iraq this coming June 30 was an issue faced heads up.   The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State noted that, yes, Iraq would become sovereign again on June 30, but that national sovereignty
always had limitations.
      Yes.  National sovereignty always has limitations that make “sovereignty” less than sovereign.
       The Deputy Secretary of Defense agreed with the Deputy of State on that issue. And that agreement might seem to kick open a new age of war/peace world politics. What might seem to have become current globally is this one question:  When is sovereignty better than "sovereignty"?  Is sovereignty divisible? Yes? or No?  Right? Or wrong?
       ----- 4.30.04


Germany’s Fischer on Kant’s Categorical
       World - Government Imperative

          
By PETER HUVOS
       
This year is the bicentennial of the death of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
       Earlier this year, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer visited Kant's grave in Kaliningrad, Russia  (formerly Königsberg, Prussia).   He gave a TV interview in which he talked about Kant's world government ideas.   Here are some excerpts, as transcribed on the German Embassy's web site:

       Question:   What does Kant mean to you personally?
        Fischer:   He's one of the great philosophers.   I believe the influence on political thinking of his seminal work Perpetual Peace is once again apparent in current discussions.   Kant's ideas, his practical philosophy, his ethical theories such as the categorical imperative and his Critique of Pure Reason, had a lasting influence on Western thinking that goes far beyond the German-speaking world.

       Question:   In Perpetual Peace, Kant lays out his concept for a world government. Has the UN borne out of Kant's theories?
       Fischer:   I believe that Kant is the most influential thinker of the modern age; so even though he may not have been thinking of a specific body such as the UN, he did consider the effects of a world state based on a union of countries.   You can see how a lot of Kant's ideas helped shape the UN, and Perpetual Peace is definitely steeped in the spirit of global governance.

       Question:   Which aspects of Kant's thinking are still relevant to politicians today?
       Fischer:   The obvious answer would be in matters of moral law.   But if you want to avoid obvious answers, then one could cite his emphasis on reason, and the importance of maintaining a rational view of the world while also recognizing the limits of reason.   I think the most important lesson that politicians can learn from Kant is that our world is a rational one.   The principle that it is based on an ethical foundation is part of that, as is accepting the limitations of reason.   Politicians have to be aware that sometimes people act irrationally, and they have to be prepared for this eventuality.

       After two of the bloodiest centuries in history, it's high time to transform Kant's wonderful vision into reality!           PH

       WPN: Just so!
       ––––


       Doesn’t the CGS tent leak?
WHY Does Citizens for Global Solutions  “want to turn up the heat on the ONE MAN who is standing in the way of the democratic process;   Senator Bill Frist”? And exactly what democratic context is at issue?
       The questions are provoked by a CGS pitch for ad money – in a CGS e-mail received April 28.   It is asked here by someone who joined CGS more in order to learn about the CGS “approach” to the creation of enforceable world law than to do anything else.
       We, World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, studied the ad to try to satisfy our curiosity about why the CGS wants to turn up the heat on Senator Frist, the U.S. Senate’s majority leader.
       These next excerpted lines seem to come close for us to explain that Senator Frist opposed letting   “the Senate vote on the Ocean’s Treaty.”   That’s the decades-old Law of the Sea Treaty.   Not only CGS but other organizations oppose as well as support Senator Frist on this.
       The law-of- the-sea treaty shouldn’t be opposed because law at sea, as law on the land, is imperative for human well being, CGS might seem to be asserting.   If so, good.
       But the CGS pitch didn’t say why the Senate should vote on this treaty or how voting on it would work any better now than decades before now – or just how voting on this treaty might remedy humanity’s warlike condition.
       Of course there are reasons pro and con.   But, too, a democratic, federal world governmentalist might wonder why CGS seems to think that voting on a treaty that’s near comatose at sea would help to resuscitate it.
       Some people might agree that extending and enforcing sea law is a great idea, we do, but is turning up the heat on ONE SENATOR who opposes what’s treaty-law-at-sea now a useful way to remedy the absence of a world political unity in the
first place?
       What comes first and what proceeds from what comes first not only should be but is the big issue, it might seem to others.   [Aren’t many of us, as individuals, part of those others?]
       Doesn’t enforceable law require ratified overall law and an adequate context in order for it to be able to breathe and become “relevant?”   And where might that context at sea or land exist now?   How can a useful global context come to exist when everyone knows that treaties can’t be expected to work in a crunch?
       And isn’t it a defeat for world peace that World Federalists in Washington struck their tent in order to move in under a CGS tent that leaks?
       ––––


Tibetans dying in front of the U.N. as parts of the main

       Perhaps no one can tell for sure whether the world and those “three young Tibetans dying since April 2nd in front of UN building for freedom and justice” would have been better off had the U.N been united as a world constitutional unity able to deal legally and enforceably in just and peaceful settlements of disputes.
       It might seem evident, though, that the condition in front of the U.N. of the three dying Tibetans, like the conditions of war victims – and everyone else – calls attention to the ghastly human condition that might have been remedied by now, but isn’t remedied or even much considered in the best interests of humanity as a whole.
       ––––4.29.04

Growing  Old  Disgracefully

          By KEITH SUTER

       The author, someone who is considered here as a leading and first-rate world federal governmentalist, writes for Methodist and other media outlets, especially radio, including the Brian Wilshire Programme in Australia.

       Everyone wants to live a long time but no one wants to get old.   Well, it seems that we are not getting “old “ as we used to – at least not in the traditional sense of that word.
       One of the 20th century’s great achievements was the dramatic increase in life expectancy in the developed western countries.   Indeed, increased life expectancy is one of the indicators of a “developed” country.
       During last century, the average person received as much increased life expectancy as the people in the previous 5,000 years.   Around 5,100 years ago people had a life expectancy of about 25 years;  in 1900 it was around 50 and in 2000 it was about 75 years.
       This helps explain the concern over old age pensions.   When the Germans just over a century ago invented the idea of an automatic government pension for a person reaching 65, very few Germans lived that long and so not much was actually being promised by the politicians.   Now reaching 65 (or an even younger retirement age) is very common.
       Patrick Liedtke is the Secretary General of The Geneva Association, (the International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics).   Writing in the March edition of the Association’s newsletter, he explains what all this means for the insurance and actuarial industries.
       The “age” of the average 60-year old German today corresponds to a German aged 40 a century ago — that is only four “generations” back  (according to the old-fashioned way of calculating “generations”).   A German female aged 60 has a life expectancy of a further 22.85 years and a German male aged 60 has a further 18.48 years.
       This progress has come about through advances in clean water and sanitation, medical science, building technology  (very few people in a developed country now die in a burning building whereas that used to be a common cause of death)  and safer work places.
       In short, life in developed countries today is a lot easier than it was  (say)  a century ago.   People are rarely killed by their work or trapped in burning buildings.   They are rarely killed by contagious diseases  (such as diphtheria, scarlet fever, poliomyelitis, and measles).
       Leidtke reports that economists are having a hard time understanding the economic behaviour of the new “elderly” — they are not behaving as they should  (according to economic theory).
       Older people are — according to traditional economic thinking — risk averse. Young people take risks; older people are supposed to be too sensible to do so.  But today’s “older” people are also often risk-takers.   They are refusing to act their (old) age and instead they often have a young person’s economic behaviour.
       The next time you wish to congratulate a person in a developed country  (such as Germany or Australia)  on reaching their 60th birthday, you really ought to be sending them a birthday card congratulating them on reaching 40.
       –––– 4.28.04

    The  fact  of  the  matter
“The U.N. report smartly addresses these issues, which is why it should be required reading for all policy makers.”
       That’s the last sentence in an NYT editorial  [“Latin America’s Fragile Democracies,”]  April 26.
       The following is a sentence from the end of the second paragraph.
       “The U.N. program surveyed thousands of people in 18 democratic Latin American countries and found that a solid majority would prefer an authoritarian system if it produced economic benefits.”
       What’s the fact of that matter for a non-expert who thinks that any system needs the guidance example of a good democracy that produces benefits for all people it governs, benefits including economic ones?
       And what’s the sense of a U.N. that doesn’t even pretend to want to be an example of any kind of a federal democracy when it gets up such a report on policy making?
       Don’t the questions raised by the U.N. report indicate that the U.N’s lethal fault entails its not having leadership enough to realize that it lacks the political will it needs in order to hope to do its global job?
       -----

   WAITING   FOR   MATURITY   –
We’re told compellingly that Julius Caesar was assassinated by fellow elitists who regarded Caesar’s deference to the needs, plights and wishes of plebes as inconsistent with economic standards valued adamantly by the Roman elite.   It wasn’t that Caesar disagreed much in principle with his elites, but that he sometimes spoke as though he thought that fair treatment for working and soldier classes was good for the empire. But fear of underlings with too many privileges frightened Caesar’s peers.
       So you get Shakespeare writing a play that had Mark Antony, sarcastic and insouciant, telling the mob that he spoke to them not to praise Caesar but to bury him.
       Times have changed.   Humanity has matured here and there.
       The idea even might be loose around the world that war in no one’s interests can be outlawed constitutionally.
       But for that end to be reached, everyone must know that the economic stick has to be clean at both ends.
       ––––


       “It is foolish to fight people who want death,“ a Sheik leader in London, is quoted as asserting, NYT, April 26, in a 2-column news story, top left, page one.
       That may not be frightening to some, but it still might be a good idea to try to understand and remedy war/peace faults reasonably, constitutionally, globally.
       ––––


       Let   the   Fog   Lift!
       Under “The Fog of War,” Harvard professor Daniel Schacter, author of The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers, writes an NYT op-ed April 5 ending this way:
       “Transience, misattribution and bias occur even when we do our best to recollect the past accurately.   With external corroboration, we cannot know for certain which aspect of Mr. Clarke’s or Mr. Miller’s accounts  [in connection with the 9/11 hearings] are off the mark – but we do know enough about memory’s sins to implicate the likely culprits.   It’s something the  [9/11]  commission, and the country, should keep in mind when Ms. Rice testifies as well.”
       Ah yes!
       And please let’s all try to recollect who does and who doesn’t remember who did and who didn’t go beyond 9/11 implications and argue that, for remedies to the “malaise” of war, the great benefit of the Iraq War for humanity is that it throws a laser light on the need to strive now for the creation of a just world political unity able to outlaw 9/11’s and all that dumb war stuff.
       ––––4.27.04

“The Wrong War” – ?
       “Even as I write this, reporters from The Times and other news outlets are filing stories about marines dying in ambush and other acts of mayhem and anarchy across Iraq.   This was not part of the plan.   The administration and their apologists spread fantasies of a fresh dawn of freedom emerging in Iraq and spreading across the Arab world.   Instead we are spilling the blood of innocents in a nightmare from which many thousands will never awaken.”
       That in quotes above are the title and last paragraph of Bob Herbert’s column April 19.
       Might it not seem that the right question is not what the right war would have been?   This is the war that is.
       So isn’t the plain fact that right wars and wrong wars are the same wars because they blend into each other?   And must it not be that all wars are therefore wrong wars?
       Any war with or withoiut WMD could turn into a war that ends all war and everything else human.
       ––––


There is light at the end of wars’ tunnel!
So war could be outlawed in favor of a world federal democracy based on settling disputes through enforceable law?
       Then wouldn’t outlawing war constitutionally always be better than accepting war, as now, with or without WMD?   War can lead to the termination of our species of life.
       But if so, why don’t we question the appropriateness of this well vetted question:
       “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
       Isn't it a mistake for Government to ask any person to die any time for a mistake? And isn’t all war a mistake because of its terminating possibility for our species of life?
       But isn’t the obvious fact that humanity decides to ignore this human condition?
       So?
       So why does humanity accept the short-term risk of our own demise when the alternative is obvious in getting on with establishing a ratifiable alternative to the only perhaps slight and unavoidable demise possiblity?
       Unavoidable indifference must be at least part of the explanation.   Right?
       So are we all stuck with Einstein’s last best hope that nuclear bombs exploded on earth so very recently that their import hasn’t had time to sink in?
      If so, we might take some cheer.
       War’s import is sinking into our human consciousness, as arguably indicated by the unique U.S. presidential-election topic concerning the larger question of the mistake of our considering war as any way, any time, to settle disputes among nations.
       There is always the alternative of enforceable, democratic, federal law.
       ––––4.26.04

Does the danger in WMD
   far outweigh WMD’s usefulness?
Yes?

Does the danger in taping publicly
   far outweigh the danger of facts?
No?

Why are both WMD and tape machines
feared by some so much that they are said by different types of people that they, during public debate –
   SHOULD BE ABOLISHED?

Are tape machines more dangerous to everyone than tape machines that record what people say in open debate?

Why are tape machines openly displayed at some open debates among conflicted people and hidden from view during other open debates?

Is that because some people want kept most the records of positions taken in public debates and others want most to avoid the existence of evidence of the washing of everyone’s dirty linen in public?

Can this conflict between motives be behind efforts to avoid discretely the presence of taping during meetings that degenerate into illustrations of the essence of confidence between those in contest with a felt need for facts and those with a felt need for power?

In this, do the presence or absence of tape-machines throw light on the perversion of the word confidence in the expression conman?

In this – in Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that if he had the choice between government and press freedom he would choose press freedom – do we have revealed the essence of the all-too-human attitude toward the importance of winning despite the evidence of efforts exerted in the face of facts?

Is consideration of this evidence vital to the creation of a world political unity able to outlaw war through just and enforceable world law?

    
   ––––4.25.04

What   means   sovereign?
       Semantically, normally speaking, a person doesn’t limit a pregnancy by taking a pill to deal with it partially.
       Likewise, normally, semantically speaking, you don’t
limit national sovereignty by placing severe limits on it.   You end sovereignty that way.
       Semantically speaking, it might be, obviously, that you end Iraq’s new sovereignty before it starts anew if you limit it before it starts.
       Sovereignty, if it’s what monarchs and “absolute” dictators have, isn’t what most people might think is divisible.
       States that have on escutcheons that they assert that they are sovereign really don’t mean that in any strict sense.   If higher government can limit sovereignty in one area, it well might be able to go on along that line.

       It is of course useful to say that sovereignty can be limited without ending it.  That can be helpful to say and it is not unusual.
       Here’s a case in point in an NYT news story, top left, page one, April 23, yesterday.
       “WASHINGTON, April 22 – The Bush administration’s plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces aad no authority to enact new laws, administration officials said Thursday,”
       That’s the first paragraph by Steven R Weisman.   The news story passes no judgments on national and U.N. policies involved.   But its position on page one indicates that editors and publishers think that it’s important news.   Of course it explains the situation:
       “These restrictions to the plan negotiated with Lakhdar Brahimi, the special United Nations envoy, were presented in detail for the first time by top administration officials at Congressional hearings this week, culminating in long and intense questioning on Thursday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on the goal of returning Iraq to self-rule on June 30.
       What would self-rule look like?
       “Only 10 weeks from the scheduled transfer of sovereignty, the administration is still not sure exactly who will govern in Baghdad, or precisely how they will be selected. A week ago, President Bush agreed to a recommendation by Mr. Brahimi to dismantle the existing Iraq Governing Council, which was handpicked by the United States, and to replace it with a caretaker government...
       "...Several European and United Nations diplomats have said in interviews that they do not think the United Nations will approve a Security Council resolution sought by Washington that handcuffs the new Iraq government in its authority over its own armed forces...”
       So right there, a democratic world federal governmentalist might say, you have the reason that the U.N. Charter was created as a block against the possibility that the U.N. could and would morph itself into a federal government able to outlaw small wars, to say little here about a WWIII with WMD.
       Of course these are facts that most diplomats can be expected to accept as more or less valid.   How couldn’t they be accurate?
       But doesn’t that open discussion of the need for all nations to meet to try to negotiate a world political unity that would be freely approved by all governments because it is in everyone’s interest to outlaw war?
       ––––


You  need  to   know  this,  son
       The following is at the end of a long recital of an imagined session of advice by George 1 to George II.   Forwarded by John O. Sutter, josutter@juno.com, it’s by William A, Cook, a professor of English at the University of La Verne in California.
       “...This has been a long talk, Son, and while you may not be happy about it, I am.
       Age brings wisdom as it should bring respect.   Consider what I've said.   Don't get huffy the way you used to at Yale.   You're no longer a cheerleader, Son, you're a head of state;  pompously parading around doesn't cut it anymore.
       You must read and reflect, weigh options with care in full deliberations with all parties, not for special interests only, but for the good of all; then, having decided on a course of action beneficial to all, act.
       But first, Son, you must be willing to admit that you have made mistakes.  Growth, strength and wisdom come to those who recognize their talents, know their weaknesses and limitations and willingly and humbly admit their failures even as they move to correct them.   You should have answered that question, Son.   Never be afraid to admit mistakes and never fail to apologize for them.   That's the sign of a man.”
       The question(s) referred to go like this:   “What kind of God do you believe in? Wouldn’t he want all of his creatures to share the glory...and share the bounty of the earth He provided for all? ...”
       ––––


CELEBRATING the fact of cultural differences may help develop the political will to reconcile humans to the need to settle differences peacefully.   But without emphasis, too, on the need to reconcile humanity to the hard need to make global decisions, especially war/peace decisions, through the offices specified in a fully and openly ratified world constitution for the creation of a democratic, federal world commonwealth of all nations, nothng peaceful should be expected in the long or short run.
      ––––


          On   democracy’s   failure
“UNITED NATIONS, April 21 (p3, NYT, April 22 (by Warren Hoge) – A majority of Latin Americans say they would support the replacement of a democratic government with an ‘authoritarian’ one if it could produce economic benefits, according to a United Nations report released Wednesday in Lima, Peru.”
       So what other kind of report might be hoped for from a U.N. that tries sometimes to act governmental, even though it has rejected, vehemently on occasion, the idea of itself advocating that it become a democracy?
       That question proceeds from the view that democracy is a difficult concept that, for longevity, needs a world federal democracy as an example of what works well in a world newly dedicated to the proposition that good government can be a republic of, by and for all the people governed.
       ––––


  “ ... ALEXANDER HAMILTON observed in Federalist No.84 that ‘The practice of arbitrary imprisonent' has been 'in all ages' one of 'the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.'”

       That's re “The Court and Guantanamo”from the lead NYT editorial, April 19.
       ––––4.24.04

Will  proxies  count  much
     in  world  unity  advocacy?

Copies of the contract between autonomous World Peace News and the American Movement for World Government will be distributed at the annual election meeting of the AMWG, May 7, at the Moonstruck Restaurant on Third Avenue at 31st St. in Manhattan, according to autonomous WPN, the publication of the AMWG.
       To be decided at the election meeting will be the naming of the 2004-5 AMWG president.   The current president, Hal Schaffer, thinks that the AMWG/WPN contract should be voided.
       Should it?   Is press freedom an issue?   What might be consequences of decisions made at the meeting May 7?   Will there be a 34th annual World Government Seminar?
       The merging of World Federalists with Citizens for Global Solutions might seem to have left the organized world-political-unity advocacy in the U.S. with AMWG and with WPN and its
worldpeacenews.org.
       Does what’s at stake May 7 have any meaning for the world-peace advocacy in the U.S. or in any place beyond?   Is the answer moot?   Meaningless?   Or in any way symbolic of the state of the world-government advocacy in the U.S.?
       Is the split of the AMWG between those who want the AMWG to exist under Hal Schaffer, the current president, in any way larger than a petty takeover squabble with proxies?
       What effect, if any, will proceed from the current emphasis on proxies?  What difference, if any, will decisions made or unmade make?   What will it mean, if anything, if this WPN site and newspaper is separated from the AMWG in a vote heavy or light with proxies?
       ––––4.23.04

WCO’s   splendored
  Pier   60   organization

With athletic grace and focus on the word one, referring to a hundred or so ethnically-diverse young-student-people entertainers on the long and wide stage of the Chelsea Pier 60 last night, April 21, Kiyul Chung presided at the spectacular organizing session and entertainment of the WCO, World Culture Open.
       New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s letter of welcome to the WCO, a non-profit enterprise with roots in Seoul, the city on the west between North and South Korea, emphasising culture, art, globally, as rallying ideas to create social harmony, had been read at the start.
       The neat and cavernous Pier 60 auditorium seated hundreds of guests loudly, spontaneously cheering the children and youths on the stage as they gave brief entertainment turns.
       A WCO opening at Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center Sept.9 would touch off a 3-day series of cultural and art events, it was mentioned, not for the first time.   This was a bang-up organization heard throughout the on-line, corporate and humanitarian world.
       At the organization’s happy climax, WCO executive Chung leaped from one group of young people on the stage to another, addressing them and the often-applauding audience with notice that WCO emphasized the word one as standing for many sorts of harmony worldwide.   The cheering matched that for the smallest entertainers when they did their spirited turn.
       A distributed “Corporate Sponsorship Proposal” carried “contract info”:  “WCO’s goal is to make all communities from around the world stronger than they have ever been and to ensure that the marketplace continues to flourish for – and is as diverse as – the people it represents.   Its aim is to bring even more cultural and marginalized groups into the mainstream economy, empowering their organizations for survival and sustained growth through partnerships aad strategic alliances.   WCO invites you to join us in creating this new paradigm for American business.”
       But there is much more to the WCO substance than culture, art, business and entertainment by troupes of lively, loud and artistic school students.
       That’s what your WPN reporter found out in a talk after the party was over and the Pier 60 entrance lobby was alive with cheerful, departing guests.   This post-event talk about WCO’s world peace purpose was with Mrs. Kiyul Chung, with offices at the Empire State Building, phone 244-7200, worldcultureopen.org.   Her CEO husband happily said good night to guests as they filed toward the exit of the updated, enhanced Hudson River pier.
       Mrs. Chung responded openly and with categorical approval of WPN’s syllogism, published on top of every page 2 of its World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org:   “Survival requires peace; peace, justice; justice, law; law, government: world peace requires world government.”
       “Not everyone agrees with that,” the WPN reporter cautioned Mrs. Chung; sometimes opposition turns vivid.
       She shrugged, and smiled as if to accept gladly the challenge from those who want the world to remain ungoverned in world affairs,  a world where all people really need to become well-endowed world citizens if warlessness is to prevail.
       ––––

Let’s   gruntle   them!
       “...We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli.”
       That suggestion by a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Walter Russell Mead, appears half-way through an NYT op-ed April 21.   At the start of his op-ed, Mr. Mead writes that “the greatest single cause of anti-Americanism in the Middle East today is ... “a widespread belief that the United States simply does not care about the rights or needs of the Palestinian people.”
       “Why They Hate Us, Really” is the op-ed’s title.   Another paragraph consistent with the CFR approach to global problem-solving down the years and then the last paragraph follow:
       “The United States can and should take the lead in establishing an international consensus on the compensation issue and, working with allies and elsewhere, help raise money to ensure that it is more than a pious wish.”
       “Taking the lead on these and other issues  [for basic services, etc.]  vital to the Palestinians would not bring quick progress toward peace in the region,  nor would it reduce overnight the consequences of decades of suspicion and resentment.   But it would help to reduce anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and beyond, as well as to advance the cause of peace..”
       Advance the cause of world peace too?   Hmmm.
       Don’t you think maybe that advocating all that good help without advocating the creation of a world political unity to make it likely might confirm the Muslims and those beyond that some American spokespeople, just like other spokespeople caught in other cocoons, just don’t know or much care to know what happens when the powerful and the comfortable try to minister to unfortunates and those near to desperation?
       ––––4.22.04


WHY is it realistic to think that:

Everyone must be
  equal before
    world law?

  That is unrealistic because enforceable
world law does not exist and because if it
   did exist it would be more difficult to
       enforce than it was to create.

It is not only realistic but
  it is imperative because
if  hope fails that it can  
   exist, the demise of
our species of life
  becomes certain.

    HOW can anyone be sure of that?
  How can anyone be
sure that WMD and
 its proliferation is
not in the interests
     of anyone?

––––

    Loyalty    in    the    nuclear    age

Whatever is “with” Colin Powell concerning his loyalty to President Bush in respect of their loyalties to their own senses of integrity is of course their business.
       On the other hand, the relationship is brought up in the lead NYT editorial April 20. It is a matter that could affect the future of war/peace politics and the structures thereof, now and in the future.
       Powell faces various pressures to be a good soldier and obey orders from his commander in chief President Bush.   Yet he has a mind of his own and he is at some odds with U.S. war/peace policy, as is widely seen.
       How deep and in what ways are Mr. Powell’s convictions different from what might be expected of him as a good soldier, as a citizen and as the U.S. Secretary of State?
       “Colin Powell was never your average secretary of state,” the editorial starts off. “He was the larger-than-life general turned statesman who coined a doctrine of warfare and was spoken of seriously, even longingly, as a potential candidate for president.  But he also was the faithful soldier who prized loyalty, sometimes too much, and had an overly refined sense of the governmental feeding chain.   The question is, which one became secretary of state?”
       In the middle of the editorial, we come to this sentence,  “What we seem to have once again with Mr. Powell is a desire to have it both ways, to be seen as a loyal member of the Bush team, but also as a wise man who knew all along that the Iraq war would be a mistake.   If the Woodward version  [Bob Woodward, author of Plan of Action]  is correct, Mr. Powell should have spoken up more than a year ago...”
       The last paragraph in the editorial:
       “Mr. Powell, who apprenticed in the vicious parlor wars of the Reagan White House, has always played the spin game well.   If the Woodward book is the version of inside-the-White House history that Mr. Powell wanted people to believe, it has done nothing to burnish his reputation.   Knowing that Mr. Powell thought the invasion was a bad idea doesn’t make him look better – it makes his inaction puzzling and disappointing.   It’s an article of faith in Washington that Mr. Powell would not serve in a second Bush administration.   The lasting impression may be this sense of disappointment in the secretary he could have been.”
       But what if the war had been the whiz-bang success that many people seemed to expect it would be?   Then wouldn’t Powell stand to be idolized too?   No one then would look askance at good-soldierism and being right on consequences about one’s own career in politics.
       It is thought by WPN - a World Government Report,
worldpeacenews.org
that the most important judgment might well hinge on the longrange consequences, not on its meaning for any one career.
       Now, it may seem to some, the consequences of the war in Iraq for everyone everywhere is “on the table” globally in a big way for the first now-or-never time in human history.
       That could open new debates on the creation of new thinking on the role of the politics of political unity in the light of the need to re-structure the world politics of a federal democracy that could outlaw war, an idea that seemed to evoke next to no support globally. Such a development would have to go from immediate speculations such as Secretary Powell’s career suggests to the fate of all people caught in a age of WMD.
     Let's get all sentient people worked up about how world politics can and should be a U.S. PR project restructured along the lines of extant democracy experiments existing now within all national governments.   Could such an honest and forthright PR project work wonders for humanity?   Maybe?
       Sticking too closely with the miserable gummy of who is up and who is down in national politics will be seen as old and shaggy hat, far less interesting than humanity’s hammering out a way to creation of a world constitution readily ratifiable by all nations.
       Why would all ratify?
       Why would all not ratify if such a world constitution represents all people as equals before world law?   Why, if that isn’t the only way out of the mess of balance-of-power politics all are in now and as the existence of WMD newly threatens all people equally?
       Why not ratify such a world constitution if no one seems to come up with a better idea for everyone than the creation of a world federal, democratic commonwealth, congressional, parliamentary or whatever, of all nations?
       ––––4.21.04

       "Plan  of  Attack”,
the new book by Bob Woodward, reviewed by Michiko Kakutani in the NYT’s The Arts section, April 19.   The review’s second paragraph:
       “...The chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., describes the White House as trying to perform a circus trick of straddling two horses, the horse of war and the horse of diplomacy.   It is a task, this book shows, that the White House did with difficulty and at times a good deal of disingenuousness, with the horse of war rapidly outpacing the horse of diplomacy.   It is also a White House committed to the ‘vision thing’ in a big way (promoting risky, sweeping ideas like exporting democracy and pre-emptive war)  and the avoidance of any perception of wimpiness, a White House in many ways determined to avoid accusations once hurled at the president’s father.”
       Very well put, including two quibbles:
       The smart idea of teaming a horse of war and a horse of diplomacy might seem to merit sincere commendation, especially if teaming for the straddling of two such wonderful and complementing animals might be seen as something far beyond the skill of any but what finely trained ring-masters might attempt.
       Who but a bunch of dippy warlike geniuses would try to team war with diplomacy, diplomacy being the art of competing nations dickering to get what they can grab up at all practical costs including threats and war?
       Diplomacy, the strange “art” of sovereign nations trying to best each other and at the same time avoid losing war often spurs war on;  it often sets up winners and losers. The U.S. became the world winner in WWII.   War spurs on the losers’ itch for war when wheels turn.   Isn’t it accepted dicta that oppressors in one era often become the oppressed later?
       In an effective politics, the diplomacy leading to the creation of winners and losers, diplomacy is replaced by the political unity of democracy, of a democratic, federal government created under a ratified constitution spelling out governing principles that replace existing anarchy, virtual lawlessness, among nations ungoverned overall.
       Too, for commendation, let’s take “the vision thing” as something perceptive “peace activists” have long and publicly advocated in the name of enforceable law, order and equal justice for all people governed federally, democratically, constitutionally.
       For the word “vision” to be hijacked now in the cause of governmentlessness, anarchy, among nations, that might seem to be to many the height of irresponsible, rash, greedy witlessness.
       For comment on the above, kindly see April 20's, today's lead-
news story's report concerning Jordan King Abdullah's
reaction to President Bush's making peace with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.
       ––––

       Why isn’t genocide outlawed by
              the powerless, disunited U.N.?


       The following is from The Keith Suter Comments column.   Mr. Suter is a writer broadcast over radio’s Brian Wilshire Programme in Australia.

       The 10th anniversary of the start of the genocide in Rwanda in which between 800,000 to a million persons were killed occurred earlier this month.
       Now fears rise that another genocide in Africa might be fomenting.
       Rene Wadlow, France-based editor of “Transnational Perspectives” and the Chief Representative of the Association of World Citizens to the United Nations, Geneva has sought to alert the United Nations and governments to the new dangers.
       The nature of the Rwanda genocide and the lack of national responses led to serious study within the United Nations system as to why preventive measures were not taken. After all, there were UN peacekeeping troops in the country during the lead up to the genocide.   During the early months of 1994, there were daily calls of hate upon radio and written in the press.
       Reports on the tensions and violence in Rwanda had been presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.   Meanwhile the Clinton Administration spent more time avoiding having to use the word “genocide” in news conferences than it did in saving lives – something for which he has since apologised. Too little too late.
       It was known to diplomatic, Church, and UN authorities in Rwanda that lists of names of those to be killed were circulating to militia commanders and political groups. Thus, the genocide in Rwanda was due to a failure of properly evaluating the signs of the coming destruction of people and a lack of will to take action on the ground
       Today, in western Sudan’s Darfur, about a thousand miles to the north of Rwanda, a region the size of France, there is a situation which close observers consider to be genocidal.   The UN resident co-ordinator to Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, stated that more than a million people were being affected by the violence.   700,000 people are trapped in the region.   He told the BBC:   “It is more than just a conflict.   It is an organised attempt to do away with a group of people… This is the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, and I don’t know why the world isn’t doing more about it. ...”
       [Democratic world federal governmentalists generally think they know why: not enough people in the world promote the advocacy that the world needs to be politically united in order to be able to outlaw war, its causes, the causes of genocide and other ills in a world without enforceable law.]
      
 Eight Special Rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights, in a rare joint appeal, called for UN action in Darfur.   By the way, this year it is Australia’s turn to chair the Commission.   Australian diplomat Mike Smith is in the hot seat.
       In a statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights, Rene Wadlow stated that the non-governmental community has repeatedly stressed the need for UN mechanisms to investigate serious accusations of genocide.
       [But the U.N. is a forum of sovereign nations, not a government that can outlaw genocide, war, etc.]
      
 The massive violence stirring in Darfur is seen partly in the chronic clashes between farming communities and cattle herders, fuelled by rivalry over dwindling water resources and pasture caused by desertification.   Unlike the “North-South” civil war of Sudan, where differences in religion are a factor in the conflict, the Darfur struggles are between groups that are basically Muslim.
       Wadlow has called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to create clear mechanisms now to study serious accusations of genocide — and to be ready to act. The challenge for the international community is to remember Rwanda and take action in Dafur.
       [Ah study, what can come of it?   Asking a diplomatically led U.N. forum to act like an empowered and sovereign world government to outlaw genocide can be seen as indulging in the ancient human practice of self-deception – self-deception as a lame but popular excuse for not having the political will to grasp humanity’s global war/”peace”/genocide nettle.]
       [Shades of 9/11.   World Peace News - a World Government Report,
worldpeacenews.org, used to be allowed to circulate – for three decades – within U.N. headquarters.   But WPN’s line of questioning the U.N. about the U.N.’s need to become a federal democracy able to end war and 9/11’s and to support freedom of the press, etc., upset the U.N. to the point where the U.N. “made WPN’s Day” by disaccrediting it as a U.N.-accredited newspaper, shortly after the real 9/11.]
       ––––


       “The devastation caused by war and the pollution of our environment knows no boundaries.   Only an effective world government could provide sufficient law and have the power to control these destructive forces.”
       That’s Lloyd Bridges, actor, quoted on the cover of the March-April 2004 – UNITED WORLD, “publication of the Coalition for a Democratic World Government, News and Views.”
       ––––4.20.04

   An imagined morning
Circa the year 2020
       after a sunday
 during which a somber
 party was enjoyed and,

       the abject failure
          of the first
World Constitutional Convention
     was    reported    and    discussed
        by    panels    over   television
          and in articles published
            in serious folio prints

The world fashion of regarding world peace as a benign but unreachable goal had all-but subsided, somewhat replaced by a realization, not quite fully global, that world peace was in fact the rootin’-tootin’ imperative to forestall the demise of “civilization.”
       Not a single person moved around in the shabbying meeting hall in Manhattan where the definitive failure of the first world constitutional convention had been consummated.   The dais with its altar-like marblework focused the scene, as always. But no one had bothered to raise Member-State flags on the 200 or so U.N. poles fronting on First Avenue.   Traffic was sparse.   And the motley place with its spaced-out buildings and with the morning sun up and rising, was deserted outside as well as inside
       Around the world, the mood, afternoon, evening and night, could be glimpsed as reflective and resigned-to-dismissing the failure as passing.   People in small clusters talked in level tones about how the Big Bust had left almost everyone vaguely hopeful. The new Secretary-General was a political activist.   Politicians had banked their glitter and spoke up realistically.
       More-or-less laid-back pleas globally focused on the calling by a nation or a bloc to initiate what many serious people expected to be a second world constitutional conference representing all nations proportionally and all individual people equally. The current alternative was being seen, as always, but now seriously, deadly for everyone.
       ––––

       The three leading NYT headlines of April 19:
       “SPANISH PREMIER     ORDERS SOLDIERS     HOME FROM IRAQ” “Bremer Raising    Pressure to End    Iraqi Uprisings”   “ISRAELI  RIGHTISTS ENDORSE  PULLOUT    FROM  GAZA  STRIP.”
––––4.19.04


How does one get caught in
     the world-peace-law thrall?

       Easy.
       First one needs to have too much curiosity about what diplomats actually do and why.
       Then it might be good to question political scientists, because a world political democratic unity would not be science.   It would be blithering fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants optimism mostly.
       Then it helps too to know that those looking to know how
not to get caught in the thrall don’t know exactly what they do either, and, besides, they make too many mistakes – like everyone else.
       Ditto prime ministers but not leaders such as anyone knows or votes for on occasion.
       Mainly, a pilgrim has got to know how to stay the course even if it keeps everyone in a mess of anarchy among nations like now.
       In other words, one has got to be human, juist like everyone else on streets a person might meet up with any place on earth.
       That’s to say it’s easy to get caught if a person really wants to be caught, seeing that democracy is better than nutty dictatorship or torture or getting-killed in the crossfire or getting caught reading or seeing something no one should not have been caught at or not knowing that it pays to be as careful as one might manage to be sometimes.   Or something.
       Why a world democracy is a good idea is why dictatorship is a nutty idea.
       That’s because in a dictatorship you have only one person or a bunch of right-thinking bloc-heads making mistakes.   And in a democracy everyone makes mistakes, which means that there are all those billions of citizen eyes looking to avoid making mistakes.
       Besides it just feels good to be part of the action, however silly or smart. And it is smart to avoid blocs that hate each others bloc-heads.
       ––––


Did    you   notice   on:
       April 12,  the quotation of the day was:

       “I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America - at a time and a place, an attack.”
       That’s a fearful putdown for World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, because we did our top level best for three decades, in and around the U.N., to preach the democratic world federal government doctrine.   And what did we get for our warning the sovereign Member-States that a world federal government was the way to arrest blackguards who would do humanity in with the war that came?   Disaccredited!
       Summary, p2, NYT:
       “Thousands of demonstrators marched peacefully in Hong Kong to protest the Chinese government’s decision to limit further moves toward democracy.”
       April 14,  Quotation of the Day and a news summary with the word sovereignty:
       “So long as I’m the president, I will press for freedom.   I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.”
       “President Bush is expected to name John D. Negroponte, a veteran diplomat and current representative to the United Nations, as ambassador to Iraq when sovereignty is transferred to a government in Baghdad on June 30, administration officials said.”
       First lines in a paid ad on the op-ed page:   “Near the end of his life, almost 50 years after a band of Boston patriots dumped more than 300 chests of East India Company cargo into their city’s harbor, Thomas Jefferson reflected on the event and wrote:   ‘So inscrutable is the arrangement of causes and consequences in this world, that a two-penny duty on tea, unjustly imposed in a sequestered part of it, changes the condition of its inhabitants.”
       April 8,  Thomas L. Friedman, end of column:
       “Without more allies, without more global legitimacy – and without an Iraqi center ready to stand up against their Khmer Rouge now posing as their Viet Cong – we cannot win in Iraq.   We will be building a house with bricks and no cement.   In that case, we will have to move to Plan B.   Too bad we never really had Plan A.”
       April 6.   From an op-ed, “The Genocide Next Door.” with this text-breaker and last lines:   “Solidarity must have limits or Rwanda’s lessons will be lost.”
       “...Thus leaders are perceived as representing their ethnic group, and elections are perceived as contests between rival ethnic groups.   This situation demands a radical rethinking.   States must be rebuilt by taking the different ethnic groups into account so that no group feels ostracized and all share the country’s resources.   Transforming the state along these lines will bring security to all citizens.   It is this security, more than a museum or commemorative speeches, that will be the greatest homage we can pay to the victims of the Rwanda genocide.”
       pA13:, “...Lord Hurd, the foreign secretary under Margaret Thatcher, told the BBC that ‘it’s absolutely crucial for the reputation of the prime minister, the reputation of the government and of the country’ to send a high-level British envoy to Iraq, preferably a minister, to help guide the country through the process of taking over full sovereignty on June 30.”
       April 7,   from the lead editorial, “Iraq Needs a Credible U.N.”
       “...not only is the role of the U.N. still unsettled, the world organization is suffering from two self-inflicted wounds;   One is a kickback scandal of multibillion-dollar proportions swirling around the U.N.-ruu oil-for-food program that kept ordinary Iraqis from starving during the long years of punishing economic sanctions.   The other is the recent finding by an independent investigative panel that oversights in U.N. security management may have worsened the death toll in last August’s terrorist bombing of the Baghdad headquarters.   Urgent steps, including high-level demotions and dismissals are already under way to address the security failures
       U.N. officials returning to Iraq face unavoidable risks...”   “... U.N. officials have been reporting systematic corruption in the [oil-for-food] program for years, but the Security Council never insisted on a thorough cleanup.   Washington acquiesced since the faulty program was the only way to maintain support for the sanctions.   Now there is finally some political will to investigate, and details of the corruption are emerging from documents seized by American occupation authorities in Iraq.   The U.N. investigation now under way can be credible only if it is independent of the Security Council control.   The investigators must put aside diplomatic niceties and concentrate on cleansing the U.N. reputation.”
       Cleansing the U.N. reputation is not proposing to play pinochle or even backgammon, of course. And it would offer the choice between U.N.-leadership replacement and starting up a world political unity from scratch, outside the U.N.  In this, the U.N. Secretary General’s second term runs out not too many months from now.   Let’s look for a political leader, not another professional diplomat of long standing and flawless reputation.

––––

Turn the war over
          to the itsy U.N.?

       “...There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations.   Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess?   I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle.   I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
       That’s by Michael Moore, forwarded by Garry Davis, received April 17.

     ––––4.18.04
.

Everything everyone needs      
     to know about WHD

       Articles from publications, circulated at the U.N., with leads touching humanity, articles that somehow get unread here past a first sentence on page one.   Such a one:
       “A quarter century after the General Assembly met in its first special session entirely devoted to disarmament, the Cold War and the arms race are over – the main focus of international concern then – but the world today is a more dangerous place.
       ––––

Considering what-to-do about it –
       “....Yes,   Saddam Hussein is a very evil man; what he did to Iraqi people were crimes against humanity.   But other nations’ leaders harm their citizens and we as Americans, should not be a major commanding force to push for regime change in these often hostile nations.”
       That’s one sentence from an NYT letter yesterday, April 16.
       Although “we” agree strongly with the thrust of that one sentence, could it be also that “we” all define ourselves by the number of “mistakes” possibly perceived in the quoted sentence?
       Do those “mistakes” define thinking as something of a world political indication these parlous days?
       Is “evil” the right or the wrong word, considering that there might be at least the potential for some “evil” in every born mortal?
       Crimes against humanity?   OK?   Maybe?   But only loosely, figuratively and angrily speaking?
       Who or what defines Evil for everyone equally?   How?   Why?   For good?   or dubiously?
       Is anger a good or bad indicator when thinking is about life/death matters, maybe touching Humanity as everyone?
       Where is the globally ratified and enforceable world law that defines anything including crime?
       What do these questions&answers say about anyone anywhere who seems to think that such law exists or doesn’t exist?
      Where?
       How much of a crime done to how many people in which nation might be thought of as crime against humanity?
       Why?
       Why speak of a “crime” in that accusatory and arguably inaccurate way if one implies indifference or worse about the need to outlaw it?
       Why should anyone ever think of a whole nation as either hostile or friendly? Doesn’t such thinking open the likelihood of thinking that it’s necessary and might be right to punish the “innocent” in a guilty nation as well as the “guilty”?
       Doesn’t such thinking distract “useful” attention from, if not preclude, consideration of the asserted practicality or asserted imprcticality of outlawing global crime as well as hood, city and national crime?
       Doesn’t that define thinking as being caught somewhere between chauvinism in and isolation from the rest of the world?
       And isn’t that thinking anchored in the Treaty of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years War, in 1648?
       Don’t the Big Bangs of our nuclear age define the global needs of our own WHD, Weapons of Humanity’s Destruction?
       If so and if not, let us pray!
       ––––4.17.04

Light  lit  in  Iraq
          
[President Bush accepts]


“U.S. OPEN TO PLAN   THAT SUPPLANTS   COUNCIL IN IRAQ

PROPOSAL  BY  U.N.  ENVOY    Caretaker Leaders Seen as Replacing Body Picked by the Americans    By STEVEN R, WEISMAN and DAVID E. SANGER    WASHINGTON, April 15 – The Bush administration accepted on Thursday the outlines of a United Nations proposal to dissolve the Iraqi Governing Council installed last year by the United States and replace it with a caretaker government when Iraqi sovereignty is restored on July 1.
       “Administration officials said that the proposal by Lakhdar Brahimi, the special United Nations envoy in Iraq, to create a new government of prominent Iraqis had many details to be worked out, but that for now it was acceptable to President Bush. ...”
       ––––

April 21 – Pier 60 – 6:30 – Julia Kim

What   ho?    Danger!
       “Just about every region of the world faces some kind of dangerous and intractable conflict.
       “However, conventional and existing approaches to resolutions have proven, by themselves, to be inadequate.” said Secretary General Kiyul Chung, with the WCO, World Culture Open, organizing committee [and with an event noted at Lincoln Center, Sept.8-10].
       “The founders see an urgent need to provide alternative platforms for ideological exchange and conflict resolution through cultural awareness and education   We believe that open communication and full participation of the world commnity can generate significant progress toward a new era of peace, harmony and justice.”
       The notice above came in an email April 14 from Julia Kim, julia@RLMpr.com, addressed to worldpeacenews@earthlink.net.
       To WPN - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, Ms. Kim emails the following:
       “Today’s conflicts in places such as Iraq, the Middle East aad North and South Korea, are creating an immediate need to find alternative solutions.   The World Culture Open (WCO) Organizing Committee, a new non-profit international, is launching its vision on how to achieve peace and harmony through cultural education and awareness next Wednesday, April 21, at Pier 60 at Chelsea Piers from 6:30pm – 8:30 pm.
       The founders envisioned ongoing international events and forums for open cultural and ideological exchange, particularly the World Culture Open in September in New York City.   Below is more information about the WCO Organizing Committee and its upcoming events.   Please let me know if you’d like more information or would like to attend the event.”
       “Dear Julia Kim  [212/741/5106x12]” is how WPN will respond,  “Sue and I would be delighted to accept your invitation to your WCO organizing event at Pier 60 next Wednesday.
       As a quarterly tabloid since 1970 and a website for the last three years or so, we of our little organization are very pleased to know of your timely organizing plans and to receive from you the pertinent plethora of encouraging information you sent us.
       Included was:   “Formed in 2003 by prominent global religious and social leaders as well as scholars, the founders of the WCO Organizing Committee represent all six continents.   The committee will initially focus on a bi-annual international cultural event called the World Culture Open, which is scheduled for Sept. 8-10, 2004, in New York City.
       “The event will consist of cultural festivities, educational programs and the WCO Honors Ceremony.   The Honors Ceremony will honor individuals and grassroots organizations that are devoted to the creative, healing and humanitarian arts as vehicles for creating lasting peace.   The Committee is also committed to developing the World Cultural Open University – a permanent home for the WCO Organizing Committee and its affiliates.”
       The agenda of the event Wednesday is noted as:   “Introduce its mission and purpose;  Preview of the three-day World Culture Open festival in September;  Announce a call for nominations for the WCO Honors Ceremony.”
       “...Currently headquartered in New York City and Seoul, the organization will set up regional secretariat headquarters in Paris, Johannesburg, Sao Paulo, Cairo and Beijing. By establishing offices on each continent, the Committee hopes to change the world with its message and provide a new forum for international communication.   See worldcultureopen.org.”
       ––––

Don’t   expect   peace!
       The toughest of Chicken Little knockoffs would have been run into ground-zero yesterday, April 15, by escalating evidence that the sky is falling around the consequences in a world of anarchy among nations, a world without The Enforceable Law.
       Page one, the editorial page, inside in many places, the NYT was full of the bad news.
       Page one below the fold: “Sharon Coup: U.S. Go-Ahead – Move by White House Bypasses Palestinians.”
       Editorial: “...Mr. Bush’s desire to give Mr. Sharon a prize for pledging to withdraw from Gaza will compromise any subsequent attempts by Washington to broker a lasting settlement, to put it mildly.   Palestinian and moderate Arab nations – as well as the European allies, for that matter – are furious that Mr. Bush acceded to Mr. Sharon’s demands.”
       Lead news story headline:   “Sept.11 Panel Cites C.I.A. For Failures in Terror Case - Tenet Was Told of Suspect’s Pilot Training – He Defends Efforts of Agency.”
       Lead editorial, first paragraph, “The Price of Incuriosity”:   “Americans knew George W. Bush was an incurious man when they elected him, but the hearings of the 9/11 investigating commission, which turned yesterday from the F.B.I.’s fecklessness to the C.I.A.’s blurred vision, have brought that fact home in a startling way.   The president is trying hard to present himself as a hands-on manager who talked terrorism incessantly with the director of central intelligence. ... But Mr, Tenet had to concede yesterday that he was not in Crawford, Tex., for the Aug.6, 2001, briefing titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
      Maureen Dowd: quoting a “shivery” official headline, “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly”:   “‘The news had no evident effect’ on prompting the C.I.A. to warn anyone, according to the drily rendered report of the 9/11 commission’s staff, which faults the agency for management miasma and Al Qaeda myopia, citing a failure to make a ‘comprehensive estimate of the enemy.’”
       Why?
       Isn’t there something much more catastrophic going on here and in the world, refusal to notice that world law against war is imperative if there’s to be hope for outlawing such failures as noted – and that’s to gloss over the WWIII potential.
       That’s because change from a failed world system to deal with war and its causes, change from what exists now on the world level, to a system based on the enforceable law of a federal democracy of all people as equal and voting citizens, might seem to be imperative to augment, bolster, make up for the fallible, often flakey, shortfalls as noted in the front page and editorial, and over TV, as alluded to.
       To expect officials of sovereign nations to rise to creating peace where there is no law needs to be debated at length, soon, globally.
       We, all sentient people, should ask ourselves to specify the means  [a functioning political unity of some kind, however self-limited]  to dealing with war and its causes in major disputes of some kind.   Neglect to do that not-difficult thing could rank in history, if any, as the monumental vision glitch during our time on earth.
       Without the rallying point of ratified law it is idle to expect that we easily distracted mortals are capable of settling disputes over the need to split differences in the cause of a world democratic, federal commonwealth – or something more ratifiable.
       It might be that almost any ratified document that looks, reads, seems like a just, sensible constitution for a federal government might be better than our trying to bumble along with the U.N. Charter as the highest “law” that exists.
       ––––4.16.04

Citizens for Global Solutions,  CGS
 solutions &  world  law,  order

       The following are from two commentaries on the policy of the new CGS.
       The first excerpt is by Peter Bailey, a member of the World Federalist Movement Council.   The second is by Lucio Levi, European Federalist executive, editor and professor, and is co-signed by thirteen leading European federalists.   Both pieces are forwarded by John Sutter, Federalist executive and editor in Northern California.
       The Bailey article is published in Canada’s WFM’s mondial, Dec. 2003, p5:

       . . . the founding purpose and operational practices of Global Solutions will inevitably reduce the cause of world federation to a ghost of its former self.
       Those fears are not without reason. ...The new vision and mission statements are phrased in purely general terms about world peace and world law, make no mention of world federalism and fall well short of implying it. ...
       The [CGS] partnership’s architects nonetheless assert that there is no intent to dilute the long-term mission, and that members will be welcome to work publicly toward world federation. ...this seems to contradict their basic rationale for avoiding virtually all public mention of world federation.   It is difficult for observers to avoid the conclusion that, since the avowed purpose ...is to create a ‘'big tent’ with an inclusive welcome mat, there will be every reason to avoid alienating or discouraging the predicted membership of new recruits whose views on world federation will range from ignorance and skepticism to opposition. ...since the other pupose ...is to present a broader, softer image for public relations, political networking and fund-raising, it would surely be counter-productive to give world federation a visible place in that image.
       ...the new name itself - Citizens for Global Solutions - is unpopular even among those who accept the [CGS] merger.   It is disliked because it is too bland, echoes too many other logos and could mean anything.
       ...[CGS] architects say that every avenue was explored and that “a generic name was chosen to improve outreach to people who share our goals, but who suffer from initial allergies to the word federal or federalist.”
       ...the real question is whether it truly is, as its creators claim, a more savvy strategy for world federalism, a better way to achieve democratic world federation by an indirect route.
       ...Whatever color it is painted, the new partnership looks more like ... the WFA laid to rest.   Undeniably, a cloak has been thrown over US world federalism.   We must hope that it does not become a shroud.

       Prof. Levi wrote:
       The decision taken by the WFA to change its name is an event that does not concern the US federalists only.
       The USA is the country
       - that adopted more than 200 years ago the first federal Constitution,
       - from which the federalist culture disseminated in the world,
       - where there is the largest federalist organization in the world.
       The new name, Citizens for Global Solutions, assumed by WFA implies a weakening of confidence of the American federalists in their traditional identity.
      The UEF, that is promoting in Europe the great design of a Federal Union, is seeking its full membership within the WFM, so as to strengthen the impact on world politics by a single federalist actor.
       The construction of the peace in the world and the re-launch of federalism at international level demand a partnership between the US (the oldest federation) and a European Federation.
       In order to achieve these goals, the European and the American federalists should share a common design.
       –––

What might security require?

       Does it require the vast intelligence, legal, political, social systems often imagined but seldom specified compellingly?
       Or, mainly, does security require only one simple, globally ratified, enforceable, without-which-nothing law outlawing war?
       ––––


What might security look
  like after war is outlawed?


       THE IDLE THOUGHT of an idle fellow, listening to the 9/11 hearings, might turn out to be that everyone involved in U.S. security had tried to do and had done a generally unexceptional job in favor of U.S. security.
       Therefore, it might seem now to this idle fellow, having listened to the 9/11 commission about what went wrong and how to fix it, that what the commission discovered is almost aside from the enlightenment sought at the hearings.
       So, for this fellow’s understanding, just what needs to be done for security in the U.S. about how to fix security arrangements so they work for security of the U.S. public, including for the part of it where Qaeda hit hardest and more than once?
       Isn’t Manhattan part of the whole?   Isn’t it really a lousy, un-American and stupid idea to do security - suggested outside of New York, in the past:   take a big buzz-saw to the connection between New York City and the U.S. and let The City float out to sea in the direction of the rising sun?
       Aside from letting New York City or any other place float away, what might be suggested to take up on what the 9/11 commission left at sea?
       How about the idea that we should think globally about what has become a global and interconnected problem, security?
       Ha!   Didn’t even idle fellows know that U.N.-Interpol hasn’t weighed in much against terrorism?
       Everybody knows that, of course.   And the why of that is tied in with the fact that some people are happy that U.N. leadership itself can’t make, judge or enforce law – and doesn’t want the responsibility, authority and ability.
       So might the trick be to make security in the U.S. something for everybody everywhere too?
       Couldn’t U.S. PR be aimed globally at creating enforceable law making all people equally secure?
       A genuinely idle person might say the earth is getting smaller every day.   So isn’t a genuinely motivated good-will cop needed in every cave where terrorists of any and all stripes might be plotting?
       ––––


Didn’t  you  know?
       “Large scale democracy has not worked.   Democracy in small groups, say of one hundred or so, can work because each member of the group knows every other member and the group can reliably select an honest leader.   However each member of a group consisting of thousands of persons can personally know only about one hundred other members, the rest, a large majority, being unknown to him.   Any potential leader will be known to only a few persons,  thus a large group cannot select an honest leader with any certainty.   In practice, special interest groups promote one of their own, loyal, members, spending much money to deceive the public about the member's qualifications.   This problem can be solved by the use of psychological evaluation. ...” 
       That’s the first paragraph of a 20-page, single-spaced, legal-sized-printout of home.earthlink.net/-jnewell1957 essay titled “Psycheocracy.”
       Far it is for WPN to comment on the erudite whole of the web item recorded April 13.
       But, ah yes.   About the first paragraph.
       There’s no doubt that the purview of democracy could be expanded to take in all of humanity and that the creation of, say, a truly representative, democratic, checked-and-balanced republic would be a happy thing on earth, at least early on before frailties set in.
       A democratic, federal world republic, almost no doubt, could succeed where the U.N. and the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia fail to cool the passions and realities of war.
      
 Possible bottom line:   success or failure of the concept of any government, democratic or otherwise, offer vast imponderables.
       Although grand wishes might be vain, common sense counsels that humanity’s trying to replace the current higgledy-piggledy law of war with an all-nation law-of-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes might be the greatest of all human obsessions now.
       Plus, the lethal mess that humanity has made for itself in the names of peace, justice, lore, love and law may make a sane world government not only imperative but possible now.
       ––––4.15.04

Oh yes, Virginia, there is an out
       How, in addition to with-difficulty, might you reconcile President Bush’s very reasonable resolve for the U.S. to leave national sovereignty in the hands of Iraqis on June 30 with his vow  [NYT lead April 14]  “that the United States would not bow to the surge of violence in Iraq”?
       Might it be that recognizing the world’s overriding need to outlaw war would cool the heat of wars that make almost everyone everywhere very miserable?
       ––––  
      
There  is  no  Victory!
       “‘The Aeneid’ is a cautionary tale...It is one we need to read today.   It speaks of the terrible price of victory in war, for Virgil knew that victory is finally impossible, that it always lies out of reach.   He saw the unforeseen aftermath, the way war could go all wrong whether from poor plannng or because of the gods on high.   He knew the sheer accumulation of death, the destruction, the pain we inflict when we use force to create empire.’”
          Dr. Robert Fagles, retired Princeton U. professor, writer about empire and death, translator of Greek classics, wrote the above in quotes, as noted by Chris Hedges, in the NYT Metro section, April 13, pB2
       Fagles had been inspired to study the classics after reading Homer..
       At the end of the article, Hedges quotes Fagles as reading these beautiful and famous lines from Virgil:
       “‘A joy it will be one day, perhaps, to remember even this.”’   After reading, Fagles commented,  “‘It is about loss, about overcoming the worst, but the word ‘perhaps’ is important.   It may not be a joy to remember.   It may be a bloody misery.’”
       And there may be what’s most important for humanity about the strife of current moments:   If the human collectivity is able to create a political unity that outlaws war, then there may be joy left to remember.
       ––––


       One never knows about shed blood
       Something there was that might have looked a little like blood stains near the neck-opening of the T-shirt for sale at a 99-cent-store a couple of days ago.   “Look!” a man said, holding up the shirt-for-sale-with-the-blood-stain, “Blood!”
       The shopper addressed did look.   But not hard.
       “Look!   Blood!” the man holding the shirt repeated, waving the T-shirt.
       The other shopper had looked, had seen the stain, and did pass by.
       But we humans pass by at our peril, it might seem – globally, for whose stains near neck openings might never be known.
       ––––4.14.04

Anatomy of a change
       “Members of a baboon troop in Kenya became more peaceful and devoted more time to grooming after disease killed the belligerent males.”
       That’s the photo underline in a Science Times news story by Natalie Angier, headed, “No time for Bullies:   Baboons Retool Their Culture,” April 13, page one, bottom.
       Drawing human parallels, the first paragraph makes a slam-dunk, later summed up as, “...With that change  [during which only the truculent baboons died of tuberculosis caught by eating bad food in a dump where they habitually fought each other]  in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism.”
       “Sometimes,” the first paragraph explains, “it takes a great Dustbuster of fate to clear the room of bullies and bad habits.   Freak cyclones helped destroy Kublai Khan’s brutal Mongolian empire, for example, while the Black Death of the14th century capsized the medieval theocracy and gave the Renaissance a chance to shine.”
       And wasn’t it curious that the Black Death followed on right after the nutty, agonizing, brutal, history-changing Crusades?
       ––––

We,  you – no-one  is  alone
       That is, for us and for everyone, to celebrate the fact of the announced publication of the book, One Planet.   Its gist is in sync with what World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org., has been putting out for 35 years.  The announcement neatly states its world-governmental credo  [and the credo of many ‘thinkers’ throughout modern human history]  to wit:
       “ ... You can choose today to commit to the greatest political revolution in history – the democratic revolution to create enforceable world law.
       “This revolution will put an end, once and for all, to the war system that is the greatest scourge facing humankind. ...
       “... ‘world peace’ is not a vague and utopian goal – but a practical, enduring peace with justice.   The goal of ‘One Planet’ will be achieved through global laws created by a world legislature and enforced by a people’s world government.   In this future world democracy, the executive branch will be strictly limited by a separation of powers, and by world courts, a world constitution, and a global bill of rights.”   [And by the eternal vigilance of world citizens against global governmental malfeasance.]
       Origin Press, San Rafael, CA 94915
       ––––4.13.04

        Two photos and NYT headlines, above the fold April12:

       “TROOPS HOLD FIRE    FOR NEGOTIATIONS    AT 3 IRAQI CITIES    HELICOPTER IS SHOT DOWN    Both Crewmen Are Killed – 7 Chinese Abducted by Rebel Gunmen.”
       “BUSH SAYS BRIEF    ON QAEDA THREAT    WAS NOT SPECIFIC    ECHOES TESTIMONY OF RICE    Asserts That He Didn’t See    Who, When or Where    in Any Intelligence.”
       “Disclosures   Put FBI’s Actions   Under Scrutiny.”
       “Some in Military Fear a Return   To Iraqi Battles Already Fought.”
       “Complex Web   Of Madrid Plot   Still Entangled.”
       1-column photo, next to lead “Bush Says Brief...” news story of the day, underline. “Condoleezza Rice looked on   as President Bush spoke to reporters.”
       3-column, far left of page above  “Some in Military...”  2-column, underline: “An Iraqi woman in embattled Falluja gathered her children in a stairwell occupied by an American marine.”   His hands hold an automatic rifle, pointed down.
       Print and TV reports might seem to have created in U.S. readers and audiences a slight rise in hope for law, order, justice in Iraq and beyond.
       ––––4.12.04

Have we had our fill of war?
       Haven’t politics allowed for little surprise in our response to witless killing by others and by us?   Haven’t the current lackadaisical attitudes to the need for world political unity in the creation of a world politics able to outlaw war and deal with causes in indifference, etc., left us stranded in indignation?
       So shall we cry let loose the dolts of nuclear war?
        No!   Of course not.   Honor our elected leaders
        But do let’s tell them all to act for world political unity now before we are upended by the accumulating consequences of warmaking waved on by the U.N. Charter buffoons of 1945.
       ––––

The long and the short of Billy Paul
    Warsoldier’s hair as he phones in jail

NYT news item, “Equating Long Hair and Freedom, Prisoner Makes a Stand,” 4-column with photo of Mr. Warsoldier with his long hair, April 9, pA16, news item by Charlie LeDuff.
       Last paragraph of the news story about the Apache Indian who calls himself a political prisoner follows.   The prisoner had been arrested for speeding on a highway while drunk, driving through San Fernando Valley, mourning the death of a friend. But, about hair:
       “Marlowe Cassadore, a traditional Apache from the San Carlos reservation in Arizona, said Apache men do indeed cut their hair as a symbol of respect when a loved one dies. ... he takes exception to Mr. Warsoldier’s statement that to wear short hair is a cause for shame.   ‘I’m not ashamed,’ Mr. Cassadore said.   ‘I keep my hair Geronimo length.’”   Geronimo, the formidable warrior chief.
       And there you have the long and the short of Apache hair style and a prisoner who refuses to cut it.   That is a Wild West, California, situation, of course.
       But, by a bit of a stretch, a world governmentalist might add, you have an illustration of how not only hair but how sovereignty gets things like Indian casino gambling in the U.S., to say everything about Indian treaties with the U.S. government, all balled up in contradictions and disarray to everyone’s annoyance, detriment, shame and anger.
       ––––4.11.04

U.S. democracy elements, as in
    U.N. forum, deny press 
         freedom?

“A federal marshal who required two reporters to erase audiotapes in a speech by Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court at a Mississippi high school may have violated the law, experts said.”
       That’s an NYT news summary item, April 9, p2.   On p15, the conclusion of the 2-column news story is:
       “The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press protested the  [speech audiotape]  seizure yesterday in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft.   The letter noted that the deputy’s action appeared to violate a 1980 federal law prohibiting most seizures of journalists’ resource materials.”
       ––––4.10.04

Not going to resign from AMWG

      
 Regarding the American Movement for World Government, I had thought to resign from the Board after the last meeting, recognizing the discrepancy between the organization's noble goals and its troubled leadership.
       I've decided instead, to stay on, and if I can, to try to influence the Board to renew its cooperative efforts.   I've come to understand some of the problems, and I've been assured that the attitude that I found so shocking was simply a military response to frustration.
       But, such attitude is counter-productive to democratic process and just plain decency.   Please, AMWG Board Officers, let's aspire to wiser leadership.
       There must be dignity and respect for a dissenting view.   Ideally, this is what democracy is supposed to be about.   Wouldn't this be a most ironic situation: Advocates for democracy on a global scale who are unable to practice it at a board meeting? This would not bode well for the AMWG.
       I believe in the Movement and want it to succeed;  we can do better.
          BETH  K. LAMONT
  an AMWG board member
       ––


To the AMWG secretary-treasurer, Dorothy Tilson, the AMWG president, Hal Schaffer, HALDP93@aol.com, addressed the following email, April 4, with cc’s to hmrl@libertynet.org>, <marjewb@comcast.net>, <jearny@rcn.com>, <robinlloyd@greenvalleymedia.org>, <lucywebster@lvistas.net>, <worldpeacenews@earthlink.net.
       dorothy:
       thanks for the info.   i do not have any knowledge why tom liggett made a reservation at the moonstruck for 5 may.   you, as the sec/tres of amwg, are my representative who, requests reservations be made at the moonstruck re: board mtgs.
       it is also not up to tom liggett to inform us we, amwg, owe the moonstruck $12.00 from our last mtg re: delinquent tips.   if some bd mbrs failed to leave the proper amount for tips, you have my permission to send them a check for the $12.00 asap, with my apologies for the oversight.
       there will have to be a change in reservation date for the annual bd mtg due to schedules of other bd mbrs.   i will contact you, asap, re: a change of date.
       in the future, if a board member contacts you re: such reservation changes, please have that board member contact me.
       once again, i will, as president of amwg, let you know asap of the suggested change of date of the next board mtg.
       if you have any questions re: this matter, feel free to contact me.
       best
       hal
       –––


       WPN, World Peace News - a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, comments on Hal Schaffer’s, the AMWG president’s, email printed immediately above:
       The AMWG board, meeting March 17 with Mr Schaffer president and presiding, set the May 5 date at the Moonstruck for AMWG’s annual election meeting
       AMWG secretary-treasurer, Dorothy Tilson, made the reservation.   Later, she agreed with WPN that it would be a good idea for WPN to confirm the May 5 reservation while, at the same time, WPN said it would try to make it right with Moonstruck on the tipping matter. That was done by WPN and other board members' habits of respecting Moonstruck’s needs, stipulations and sensibilities.
       After the last meeting Moonstruck made its waiter’s legitimate grievance known to the secretary-treasurer who conveyed it to others.   Later, WPN made the suggestion, approved by the secretary-treasurer, to take care of the tipping matter.   WPN can only guess how and why Schaffer, living in Florida, got these matters confused.   He was present immediately after the last meeting when he was told by WPN of the secretary-treasurer’s information that AMWG’s presence was not without the tipping downside. At the time he seemed to be dismissive of the waiter's complaints.
       Second paragraph by “hal”.   Why is it not a matter for all members to take responsibility to keep restaurants pleased with AMWG arrangements?
       Third paragraph.   Why did president “hal” change the date?   What does his (unnecessary but agreeable)  change say about the president that the new date is May 7? Why the 2-day change?   What was wrong with May 5?  Why not change by the decision of the board that set the date originally?
       Was that because a proxy-by-Schaffer-and-new-board-member can’t be at the Moonstruck on the 5th?
       Does it matter to all the board that the admirable proxy person has never before attended any AMWG meeting?
       The happy upside there is that the proxy’s person’s presence at the meeting May 7 no doubt will be an indication that AMWG thrives.   She, little doubt, will agree that there might be something wrong with an organization whose president acts as though he can appoint board members;  change election-meeting dates at will; want to void AMWG’s contract with WPN because WPN prints pertinent AMWG news accurately and is the autonomous AMWG publication dedicated to democratic and free-press principle; apparently wants to see his associate, Troy Davis, a Harvard graduate, hired as a program director;  and otherwise seems to act as though he, the president, would like to see AMWG merged with  [or absorbed by?]  the new CGS, Citizens for Global Solutions.
       The last three of the president’s paragraphs have bloopers, but enough here is maybe enough to give word to a world-government public panting for news about the only NGO with a consistent and reasonable world-government advocacy.
        AMWG is not a military.   It does have a 3-decades-old contract with an autonomous newspaper. The president indicates that he would void that contract if he can.   He could, perharps, if a proxy-dominated board votes for voiding the contract at the meeting Hal reset for May  7.
       ––––

       Below is something that seems to balance against the evil done by the reporter from the autonomous publication of the American Movement for World Government, World Peace News- a World Government Report, worldpeacenews.org, over the decades. It’s by a college student, a former applicant for a summer volunteer job.
          Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me on the phone a couple of weeks ago!   It was a pleasure to meet you and your wife.   I am very impressed and awed by the work that you have done for the American Movement for World Government.   I'm sorry that I am not the right person to help with and continue with your work.   It was wonderful to meet you!   Have a good summer.
       ––––

Avoid hooey in Iraq and the world
       Democratic, federal governmentalists, having had so much failure during our human histories, don’t usually mind admitting the truth of our own failure to help create a world democracy.
       Following on in that vein we’d say that our U.S. shouldn’t mind admitting the truth about our war in Iraq and suppport the Bush administration in getting out of Iraq by June 30.
       Leaving can be only in part because we leave our hand-picked proxies assertedly in charge there.
       But that might not seem to wash because Iraqis need to look to their own many mature people to take charge democratically, letting religion be personal, not governmental.
       Other nations do that.   Iraq can too if left with the injunction to invite Iraqi and world statesmen to take charge there, regardless of religion.
       That way things there could play out better than wishing-and-by-goshing along outdated and damned world-balance-of-power-solutions.
       –––– 4.6.04





   Terror won over
international anarchy

       “...any blind spots she  [Condoleeza Rice]  had upon taking office in January 2001 might have been rooted in the fact that she emerged from a generation of scholars trained to focus on great-power politics, with terrorism seen as a troubling and subordinate element.”
       That’s by a Stanford U colleague – as quoted from  “New to the Job,  Rice Focused On More Traditional Threats,   Terrorism Not Seen as Equal to Big-Power Politics,”   NYT, top left, 2-column headline, April 5.
       No one, including WPN, foresaw that the terror of extremists would rise in importance over great-power balance-of- power politics.   But the difference between traditional scholarly emphasis and WPN’s was that we took terrorism as a branch of balance-of-power politics that needed to be replaced on the global level with the creation of a federal democracy able to outlaw war.
       This Thursday, the key Bush administration advisor on these matters, is set to have her day at the U.S. 9/11 investigation.
       ––––


WHY?
       Answer:   Without structured, enforceable world law, 9/11’s exist.
So?
       Let’s all peoples at least start to make easily available the dress of world law to all the soothsayers of all the emperor’s advisors
globally.
       Sure, 9/11 was a series of many kinds of flukes,
       Everyone on the Stephanapoulos panel 4/4/04 seemed to agree.   That old ”truth” was blurted out.   The suicide attacker-hijackers had been lucky.   But 9/11’s could happen again.   And again!
       Another difficult thing:   some 9/11 widows came on asking why they had lost their husbands in the bad-lucky taking down of the two Trade Towers, etc.
       Then Mr. Stephanapoulos let the conversation drift back not so much into why 9/11’s happen after they are set up to happen as to why the facilitating flukes happened, exactly why our U.S. pre-9/11 mistakes had not been caught and corrected.
       Exactly why a world based on lawless principle among nations comes to war was not raised by the distinguished moderator or by his distinguished panel or by anyone on the distinguished Tim Russert panel or by the distinguished Mr. Russert himself.   Was that because none wanted to be the first to notice that our emperors can’t have clothes on?
       So what might have been said to peace effect by the two excellent, not-dissimilar panels?   [True! what might have been said is difficult to say because nincompoops at the U.N. and everywhere larf at it.]
       Enforceable world law doesn’t exist.   War among mere mortals is almost inevitable in the absence of enforceable world law.
       Not one on yesterday’s 4-4-4 panel or the other Russert panel said
that – and some or one might have.
      Mere mortals don’t come to peaceful decision-making except through freely ratified law among themselves and their nations.   People, even leaders, tend to error sometimes.   They, all people,
need world law outlawing war.   Otherwise we, all people, will bumble into war because everyone knows thzt war exists and is handy and because it is not outlawed.   War is much easier to get into than enforceable world law outlawing it.   That’s WHY.
       We all have been and have met soothsayers and our sayings are not so much sooth as avoidance of the plain fact that peace requires government, world peace, world government.
       ––––4.5.04


We’ve  won  the  fight  –  if

       Successful political change on the world level tends to run in fits and starts – and that’s the way of failed political change, too.   As short perceptions become long perspectives, what may seem successful may fail and vice versa.
       For an “activist” whose eyes have suffered the light of the difficulties of creating world political unity, the educational/legal business of creating it may cause disenchantment and denial that it’s possible or, if possible, likely.
       In order to feel comfortable in the field, perhaps most activists develop the habit of seeing change as something that happens in persons in modes between that of an astronomer and a milkman.
       There’s an Einstein quotation that supports the view that the need for political unity exploded so recently in humanity’s fumbling hands that – of course! – the creation of a world federal democracy will be held back on occasion by fits globally.
       The reality here, it might seem, is that the eventual success of world political unity is assured, given that enough younger people do see the necessity.
        Of course fits among individuals or among earthly groups could negate all people by letting loose the dogs of nuclear war.
     –––4.4.04

Good   can   be   bad!

       It is useful often – but far from always – to heed the advice that the way to get along is to go along with conventional wisdom, strategy, custom.   To glory in being a misfit is to risk getting teeth lost from chops on the kisser.
       So it might seem good, too, to wonder how useful it is to go along with conventional wisdom, strategy, custom based on the nonsense that there is no alternative to nations trying to balance war/economic power for peace, each nation in its own contradicting best interests.
       We do see that contradicting realities, the world fix on national sovereignty and each nation bound to going to war, as now, in its own best interests.   That often leads to wars of catastrophic disaster.   Proxy wars tend to be only marginally and temporarily better in producing best interests for any nation.   Any war and any world peace are most often mutually exclusive.
       War to preserve national sovereignty as the best way to create enforceable world law tends often to be founded on mush.   We do begin to agree widely, don’t we, that global war with WMD is MAD, leading to mutual assured desruction?   We avoid world war by settling for proxy wars – at our peril.   WMD rules – for now.
       Too, we might feel the going-along pull of the Citizens Global Action advocacy when it can be contradicted by the CGS with advocacies for the ICC, International Criminal Court, for instance.   Doesn’t that imply that “civilization,” in order to become civilization, must be a democracy in order to be able to create and enforce a
real ICC writ?   Don’t sophistries busying around avoiding the need for a world government effectively ratified by nations come to disingenuousness?
       We happily joined the move for creation of one, big, strong, peace advocacy with the feeling that it will come up unequivocally for the creation of a world federal democracy – and that it will avoid recreation of another League Covenant, another disunited United Nations Charter.   But can it?
       Worse!   What we did get and what we would stand to get in a new world peace structure was and could merrily be again what the most powerful League and U.N. founders
intended.
       If you like it, please give serious thought to not joining the American Movement for World Government.
       ––––


       Why haven’t we been told why?   Why?
       It must be sad for some to wonder about the current news concerning widows whose spouses died during 9/11 and now want to know why – instead of wanting to know that war kills, that a world war with WMD would kill everyone and that the way to end that possibility is to find a life working to help form a world democracy able to outlaw war.
       That’s impossible to do?
       How do we know, since humanity has never really tried hard to create a sovereign one-world democracy able to outlaw war?
       ––––


       “Voters paying for this buy-now, fly-later dream  (‘Dream-Filled Missile Silos', NYT lead editorial April 1)  deserve realistic planning and candor, not another slice of political pie in the sky.”
       Right, and no fooling around with our lives, either.
       ––––4.3.04


Friends, countrymen...
       We the Superpower brought lots of things on, and now we might think about what to do globally about consequences.
       In that possibility, the following is a rundown of the starts of the four of NYT news summaries, April 2, p2:
       – The burned and beaten corpses of four Americans were removed from display in Falluja.   One of the gravest sins in Islam is desecrating of the dead, and many Iraqis were torn between pride in the attacks and shame. ...
      – The Bush administration is imposing sanctions on 13 foreign companies and individuals that it says have sold equipment or expertise ...
       – International arrest warrants have been issued for a Tunisian man and five Moroccans in connection with the March 11 bomb attacks in Madrid. ...
       - Hundreds of people held a vigil in Hong Kong to protest Beijing’s plans to restrict Hong Kong’s movement toward greater democracy. ...
       The lead editorial ends with  “Wednesday’s horror in Falluja underscores the need for an honest discussion about how, and whether, America and other countries can help Iraqis build a viable nation.
      Fine, but isn’t the only way now left for everyone to start to help everyone else to create a liveable world in order to do what is imperative initially?
       Isn’t that to start to create leadership toward creating a politically, constitutionally governed world?   Don’t we kid ourselves outrageously, globally with our proposing less than that?
       ––––


Oh yeah –
       world government
       What else is there to think about, now that global disasters pile up on top of global disasters, showing to cynics like ourselves that all is vanity, all is hopelessness.
       We have little left to hope for in our current state of hopelessness about the vanity of hopelessness, too.
       There is one thing we can continue to hope for in spite of the great weight to the contrary.   We can hope to keep our dignity to the end.   All of us can hope to hold to the conviction that our failed movement for world political unity should have succeeded, that war could have been outlawed and war’s causes dealt with sanely.
       Can we hold to the belief that our species of life could have survived under the law of some kind of a world federal democracy?   Honestly conceived?   Honestly administered?
       That might be our best ticket at last?
       But we shouldn’t expect miracles to happen where our advocacies fail.
       ––––

Hal   &   the   AMWG
The world needs to be governed in world as well as in national and other affairs. Right?   Otherwise the world is apt to go the screwy way it is going now.   Right? The AMWG, American Movement for World Government, is the only organization we know of that has such a great title as the AMWG.   But the AMWG has a great, big, also difficult problem, its president, Hal.   So?   So AMWG’s election meeting May 5 at the Moonstruck Restaurant should be able to fix that.   What makes up that?   AMWG has two websites, its own, new, and worldpeacenews.org, old.   That’s what you are reading now, the autonomous AMWG/WPN website.   Bossy Hal, who runs the other new AMWG website, has angered some there.   Too, he has, with some obfuscation, called an “emergency” meeting to talk about spending money AMWG doesn’t have to gamble on hiring a competent program director whom he and others want to hire, Troy.   That’s not an emergency.   That’s phew, some say.   Too, there’s the well-heeled Citizens for Global Solutions.   CGS doesn’t have nearly as timely, helpful and means-oriented a name as AMWG.   So there’re angry sparks flying there, too.   Then there’s beat-’em-by-proxies, fair-and-unfair.   But let a Board member, Alfred Kaplan, explain further in an email he posted on a no-fooling April 1, 2004.   This is Al’s akap70@juno.com message, hot off the cold web this morning:

       Greetings Hal,
       I don't understand why you feel that you need to censor our WPN;  we should have nothing to hide from our readers of WPN, or readers of our other website.   Ethics seems to be a real problem in the way we hold our meetings
       -- you have managed to get quite a few of us fellow board members angry.
       It certainly seems much more of a problem than what Tom puts into the WPN.
       By the way, you never did tell me why you feel it is a value to have the announcement of the Citizens for Global Solutions remain on our web site.
       I guess you don't really believe in censorship.   But still, it is a puzzlement!   What do you say about this?
       Whatever the WFA/CUNR, the CUNRE, or the CGS has to say about AMWG, or the UN, it doesn't speak for AMWG's mission.   However, I noticed that you are adding something more to our mission with your "short term goals –long term goals."   You do not seem to be aware how much confusion you are adding to our web site.
       Your suggestion that AMWG can do without the WPN, which is the primary voice of AMWG for the past twenty-five to thirty years, is another puzzle you are adding to our communications difficulties.   What's going on?   Why do you think that you are the only one that has answers?   We have tried to keep a unity to our mission...now you have a new scheme in mind.   What's the secret?   We vote that the entire board would be responsible for the content of our web-site.   Do you think that passing a motion doesn't matter?
       The way you handled the emergency meeting was an embarassment.   There seems to be some smoke-and-mirrors involved in your "presidential" stewardship.   One thing I feel you should honestly review is the way you fulfill your four AMWG hats  (president, chairman, website administrator and policy director);  I refer to the way you are collecting "votes" for your agenda.   Are you sure that your constant AMWG supporter understands and really agrees with you?   I think that more than half of our board members have a problem understanding what you expect AMWG's mission is to do now.
       You call for an emergency meeting to change what we had for four or five decades as our mission.   WFA, now CGS, has a nice brim potful of financial grants to withstand another few more decades of applying their agenda.   So far they are juggling organizational NGO names; the CGS agenda remains the same.
       Hal, we in AMWG have the most direct and valuable mission.   We don't have the financial leeway that other NGOs may have, but the best route over the chasm of chaos as Arnold would tell us is with a single GIANT leap to get to the other side.   Don't lose faith.   We got the [world federal democracy] mission and we should protect it from any dilution by others.   That is the AMWG board's responsibility.   It is supposed to be your guideline for your stewardship as board president.   If you doubt, step down for a while. Time will prove to you and all of us in AMWG that we are right.   And honestly, that is all that matters in our struggles.
          P E A C E -
          A L F R E D

       On Fri, 26 Mar, 2004 16:08:42 EST HALDPD93@aol.com writes:
       > to my "advisory committee" a quick note. > 1) amwg's adv for a p/t program director is now on line w/ > www.idealist.org > please check it out and let me have your feedback. it can be > revised.> 2) amwg and wpn's contract: thanks to john and Marjorie for finding > and > faxing me a copy of the original signed by the late bill cox, then > president of > amwg, and tom liggett on 8/20/73. based upon the agreement either > amwg or wpn > can "end this agreement on notice." > while tom has every right as a board member to be part of all > business at a > bd mtg, i do not believe he has the right, nor is it in good taste, > to place > in wpn and it's web site items of business, as well as names of > board members > involved, in discussions at amwg's bd mtgs. > i therefore believe it is not in amwg's best interest to continue > this > contract at this time. i have drafted up a letter to tom informing > him, "amwg is > ending this contract as of the date of the letter." it is clear to > me that tom, > at best, is now an obstructionist! > please let me have your advise and council re: this issue asap.> as president of amwg, i am prepared to send such a letter to tom on > amwg > stationary.> thanks> hal.”
       –––4.2.04


U.N.  structure  figures
in  AMWG  free-press
  contract  brouhaha


On the basis of 180-degree differences between the U.N. Charter balance-of-power founding principle and AMWG-WPN advocacy, the United Nations figures in a freedom-of-the-press dispute within the American Movement for World Government, AMWG, a New York State corporation formed in the early 1960’s.
       The contract dated Aug.20,1973, between the WPN and the AMWG, provides that “World Peace News will serve as the official publication of the American Movement for World Government.   AMWG will provide financial and other support for WPN. AMWG can end this agreement on notice; will determine for itself how much support and what kind to give to WPN; and open talks toward amending this agreement.   WPN can end this contract on notice; will exercise autonomy in all WPN functions.”
       According to their contract, AMWG and WPN merged three years after WPN was founded with the backing of Luther Evans, a former Librarian of the U.S. Congress and former UNESCO Director General, and others in and around the U.N.   Tom Liggett, editor and publisher, was accredited as a U.N. correspondent early in 1971.
       From the end of 1970 until the winter of 2001-2002, Liggett wrote and published hundreds of news stories originating at and around the U.N.   In answer to a question to the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, WPN “correspondent” Liggett [the writer here] asked early in the new year, January 2001, if Mr. Annan would feel comfortable with his job had the U.N. been structured as a federal democracy.   In answer the U.N. Secretary General said that if Liggett wanted the U.N to become a world government, “you should get the United States to want that too.’”
       Liggett often regards his 30-years as a reporter at the U.N. as divided into three parts.   First came ten years on friendly cheerful, productive terms with the first U.N. Secretary-Generals’ spokesperson, Bill Powell, and his successor.  The second ten years featured infrequent U.N. efforts to disattach WPN’s reporting wings.   And the third ten years were terminated by the U.N. because, as WPN has no reason not to feel, he reported on such things as the absurdity of the U.N.’s anti-world-governmentalist weapons-inspection chief in Iraq, Richard Butler, as frequently asserting, with obvious error, that U.N. Security Council resolutions were the same as enforceable law.
       Liggett “worked with” all of the news spokespeople for Secretary Generals. The unpaid AMWG reporter had a falling out with the last and current, Fred Eckhard.   That falling out came before, at and after 9/11 when Eckhard, at daily news briefings, took to stiffing WPN questions.
       The first chief U.N. arms inspector, Rolf Ekeus, had done an excellent and lauded job of disarming much of the Saddam Hussein regime, and he’d left the U.N. warning that Hussein did have the ability to become a threat to world peace.
      Not being a federal democracy of any kind, U.N. assertions of its competence in the directions of war/peace, press freedom, rights, poverty, health, education, the environment, its own viability, etc., impressed WPN as increasingly void.   Shortly after 9/11 WPN’s U.N. 2-days-expired-ID plastic was picked up by an officious, gruff, side-armed U.N. guard.
       Within the last year, AMWG president, Hal Schaffer, initiated an ongoing AMWG effort to be taken in, recognized, by the U.N. as a U.N. NGO, non-governmental organization.
       Despite its skepticism, Liggett cooperated with Schaffer to the extent of providing him with a copy of the U.S. government’s 501c3 ID form, required lately by the U.N. as part of AMWG’s pending, on-going bid for U.N recognition.   To Schaffer’s insistent and repeated requests for a copy of the AMWG-WPN merger contract, WPN reminded him that copies had been widely distributed in answer to all requests, that his request for immediate compliance would not be responded to soon because, for one of several reasons, it was inconvenient for WPN.
       In a phone talk with a Board member, WPN agreed with the obvious and unexceptionable, that the AMWG president had a right to have a copy.   WPN suggested that the board member send Schaffer the board member’s copy – which WPN had given to the board member long ago.   WPN plans to bring several contract copies to the annual election board meeting at the Second Avenue Moonstruck Restaurant, May 5.
       Information from a go-between board member indicates to WPN that Schaffer has a copy of the agreement making WPN autonomous, as noted above.
       To the president’s “advisory committee”, Schaffer posted this note, March 31:
He, Schaffer, believes that World Peace News “is not in amwg’s best interest to continue this contract at this time. i have drafted a letter to tom [WPN reporter/publisher] informing him, ‘amwg is ending this contract as of the date of the letter.’ it is clear to me that tom, at best, is now an obstructionist!”
       Tom now awaits fellow Marine Hal’s letter, anticipating that it will be deeply flawed.
       How does the AMWG president know what the AMWG will decide when and if it takes up the question of the president’s voiding of the autonomy-authorizing contract of Aug.20, 1973?.
       Or does Schaffer imagine that he can continue to get away with making out-of-his-hand decisions in the name of the board?   Of calling the ”emergency” meeting on the false need to deal now with the unaffordable hiring of a program director?   Why does Schaffer want to end World Peace News - a World Government Report,
worldpeacenews.org?   Or does he dream of taking it over?
       Why does he, an academic, seem motivated by his announced objection to WPN’s reporting of facts of sensitive AMWG, U.N. and new Citizens for Global Solutions efforts, opinions marked by italics?
       CGS announces its hope to consolidate in one place U.S. peace-effort advocacy. AMWG members including the Liggetts, skeptical of CGS’s watered-down world federalism, have however joined CGS.   Some members point out that CGS claims of its
“Building Peace, Justice and Freedom in a Democratically Governed World” – in its Spring flyer – seems to contradict its support of the ICC, which is often seen to distract attention from the prior need for creation of a world democracy.
       Success of a world democracy could make possible the creation of a useful, freeely ratified and functioning International Criminal Court, supported by virtually all nations, many world governmentalists – but not all – seem to believe.
       Regardless, why is Schaffer seemingly confident that a Board split by his proxy, treasury-raid, and other administrative shenanigans will continue to vote his way or be governed by proxy wiles??
       At the last meeting a Board member appointed by Schaffer – after never having attended an AMWG meeting – joined with two other members, also unable to attend the “emergency” meeting, in giving the President proxies which were used to outvote five Board Members present, 6-5.
       Without his proxies, Schaffer would have been outvoted 5-3.   Or 5-2, possibly, depending.
       A new AMWG member left the AMWG meeting early, March 17, expressing dismay at the conduct of the meeting.   Later by phone she said that she had been disgusted, she used that word, disgusted, by the way the meeting had been conducted – and that she planned to resign.
       WPN tried to talk her out of doing that.   A lot may seem to ride on the fate of a last U.S. advocacy organization motivated by the conviction that humanity must outlaw war before it abolishes humanity.
       ––––4.1.04 no kidding.   The above is for real.   It’s not an April fool joke.

       
HIS
   vision?  
Not Dante’s vision?   Not Einstein’s?   Not Wilson’s?   Not Churchill’s?   Not Willkie’s nor Dewey’s nor, later, Truman’s, etc.?   Not George Washington’s?   Not the world-government vision?
       The at-point of the thing you are reading, Dear Reader, is the following from the NYT, March 29, pE7:
       Hint:   The textbreaker of the book review is  “The ‘war on terrorism’  approach vs. working with other nations.”
       Here’s the way the print March 30, yesterday, starts:
       “BOOKS OF THE TIMES    Brzezinski Offers His Vision As an Alternative on Security    By G. JOHN IKENBERRY   THE CHOICE     Global Domination or Global Leadership    By   ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI    242 pages.   Basic Books.   $25.    The United States is in the midst of a great debate about national security.
       “The last great debate was in the 1940’s as American officials struggled to cope with the insecurities generated by postwar Soviet power and global Communism. That era’s search for security transformed the American relationship with the world, yielding a global system of alliances, doctrines of containment and deterrence and commitments to multilateral cooperation.
       “A half a century later, the events of Sept.11 ...”
       The main reasons that Zbig-the-former-Columbia-University-guru’s new book fixed WPN’s wandering attention on its review is that of course the book hits on the main interest of “civilization” since its beginnings:   security.   These WMD Days no one has it.
       Nor was Brzezinski credulous of the potential of world political unity to effect world security when he was at Columbia and gave an interview in early 1971.
       He seems credulous now, judging from the review of his new book.
       The interview that Columbia University Prof. Brzezinski of Poland gave to WPN was to World Peace News - [now, what it was then, however then checking in as a correspondent-cum-reporter at the U.N.] a World Government Report.
       Check electronically-connected library files for that interview.   It has a 2-column WPN-taken picture of Brzezinski sitting at his desk.   WPN reported that the professor went along with U.N., academic, governmental and most other drifts against the notion of world political unity, against the creation of a world federal democracy.
       Happily for “civilization,” as it now turns out, the professor’s services were just what U.S. President Carter wanted and thought the U.S. needed then.
        Now, as the review of Brzezinski’s new book indicates, he has picked up on the global trend in the direction of what he rejected in 1970.   That’s a blessing.   The structuring of a world government to be ratified credibly is not cake.   But that’s where security for the U.S. and all nations may be seen to be.
       In 1971 Prof. Brzezinski quickly dismissed the U.S. formation of its U.S. federal government as a world “model” for what’s still needed today.
       You could wave your teacher-stick at dozens of new “indicators” for the creation of security in the world now.   The favorable review of Brzezinski’s new book is one. And, academically speaking, he is on TV often.
       How about the following world-government indicators that came through on the Web yesterday, March 30, from
EUInfo@cec.eu.int? –…:

[The E.U. “model” in action]

       At the European Council in Brussels March 25-26, 2004, the recent terrorist attacks in Madrid were very much top of mind for the EU heads of state and government.   In this vein, the EU leaders called for accelerating the full implementation of measures to combat terrorism, in line with the European Security Strategy adopted last December by the European Council, as well as for the development of a long-term strategy to address all the factors contributing to terrorism.   As an immediate measure to reinforce intelligence cooperation, EU leaders appointed a counter-terrorism coordinator to serve under the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana. ...
       The European Council welcomed the Irish Presidency's report on the Intergovernmental Conference for a Constitutional Treaty... and reaffirmed its commitment to reaching an accord, both as a means of better equipping the Union to respond to the demands of its citizens, and to play a more effective role in the world. It decided that agreement on the Constitutional Treaty should be reached no later than the June 2004 European Council.
       ... the European Commission hosted the African Union Commission, in their first-ever joint meeting on March 24, 2004. ... they ... exchanged views on issues of common interest ... including the peace and security agenda. ... europa-eu-un.org.
––––

THE WHITE HOUSE agreed on March 30 that National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice may testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission as long as her testimony is not taken as a precedent for bypassing executive prerogatives.   The President and Vice President will testify privately together before the entire ten-member commission.
       ––––

What “ENERGY” face-up?
       “...energy bills that have passed the House and await action in the Senate not only ignore fuel economy.   They also encourage the unhealthy fiction that a country that uses about one-quarter of the world’s oil but owns just over 2 percent of the world’s reserves can somehow drill its way out of dependence.   It can’t be done.   Until the nation faces up to that fact, it will remain dependent on a few important producers, and its economic and strategic vulnerability will continue.”
          That’s from the lead NYT editorial March 22.
       And righto.   Our U.S., with all our virtues, faults, goods and good intentions would do well for ourselves and all nations if we began to face up to the obvious World Political Unity Imperative.
       ––––


       “...Population growth contributes to not just a few environmental problems, but to all.
       “As you say, ‘timely regulations and new technologies’ can help address pollution and urban sprawl.   But even with the best regulations and technologies, two million people will use more resources and generate more waste than one million.
       “No one denies that immigration is a major contributor to our population growth. The Sierra Club may have compelling political reasons for ducking the issue, but to deny that immigration is a major environmenal issue defies reason.”
          That’s the end of a letter-to-the NYT editor, March 22.
       But what denies reason much, much, much more is the implication that global problems can be solved through any nation's stratagems.
       ––––


       “...Gaddis employs a judicius tone and avoids categorical or simplistic answers. He recognizes that the United States faces a different sort of threat from those of the cold war and earlier.   Traditional deterrence and balance-of-power policies are inadequate to confront the devil’s brew of failed states, rogue regimes, suicidal terrorists and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.   Unfortunately, there are are no magic potions or certain cures, despite the tendency of both sides in the political debate to pretend that there are.”
          That’s the conclusion of an NYT book review, March 21, p13.
       From the view of a third world-governmentalist party, what makes you seem to pretend that the U.S. Constitution, for instance, is a magic potion or uncertain cure now for another Civil War?
       ––––

       From lines in the lead in the NYT Week in Review of March 21:
       World political forces “...push in a differemt direction, and they appear stronger. As Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, said last month,   ‘Regardless of our opinion of the war, we have to win the peace together because otherwise we will lose together.’   Two hundred corpses in Madrid have made that message clear.’”
       Right.
       ––––3.31.04








Survival requires peace; peace, justice;
justice, law; law,government;
World Peace Requires World Government.

 
NEXT