The United Nations deal with oppressive regimes in an inconsistent way. Prime Minister Blair seems to be moving towards enshrining the “pre-emptive war” into international law – itself an implicit admission that the current US-UK venture into Iraq was illegal.
Is intermittent war on badly performing states a sustainable or rational way of arranging world affairs? Is this an acceptable New World Order? There must be a non-violent way of curbing the excesses of tyrannical regimes.
George W Bush’s Operation Iraqi Liberation shows that violent overthrow of oppressive regimes causes as many problems as it solves. The arbitrary and illegal actions of the US-led “Coalition of the willing” have caused unprecedented hostility and controversy. Yet on the other hand few people support the idea that the international community should sit back and watch while atrocities and genocide take place as in Rwanda and Kosovo.
This leaves us in the position of using military violence against a state, violence in which innocent bystanders are bound to be injured and killed. In place of this, the world needs a non-violent system that rewards good governance and gives disadvantages to governments that are tending towards oppression and genocide.
First we need a reliable measure of governmental performance. Several models for this already exist. It would not be difficult to develop an instrument of this kind so that each country in the UN could be ranked in order, with well-performing governments with good human rights records at the top, and badly performing countries at the bottom.
The second phase of the process would be to allocate diplomatic advantages and disadvantages to governments in each band on the scale. Those at the higher end of the scale would have least restrictions. Those lower down would be subject to a progressively tougher “smart sanctions” – designed to restrict the regime without hurting the people.
The problem lies in the way governments are accepted by the international community. Anyone who controls the army and the police is the Government. For our leaders, the question is not, “Is this a decent government dedicated to justice” but “Will he align with us or with some other bloc? Will he trade with us? He may be a bastard, but is he our bastard?” Tyranny is tolerated and overlooked by governments when it suits them. When it is expedient or desirable to do so from the point of view of our leaders, the tyrant that we have been supporting may be denounced in the UN and at home.
All the time, our government and those of our allies are presented as “democratic” and therefore above reproach. This simplistic good/bad categorisation is not a true representation of the situation. Standards of Governance range on a continuum from the reasonably good (e.g. Scandinavian) through the indifferent to the thoroughly unpleasant (e.g. Hussein’s Iraq, Burma, Zimbabwe).
We need to redefine what constitutes a legitimate Government, moving its basis from the de facto towards the de jure.
In order to reflect this continuum, a league table of governmental performance should be created, so that governments could see where they matched up to on an objective set of criteria. It would be a measuring rule to rate the quality of governance of any state.
The performance of any institution can be measured using Human Rights
Other factors which could be included might be the following:
* No use of torture
These indices would be run together into a final score, an Index of Governance, leading to a league table of nations’ performance.
Once the Index is installed, work can be started on the far more difficult task of influencing the behaviour of governments. Diplomatic and economic rights and privileges should be accorded to each country in proportion to their score on the Index of Governance. If the ranking of a country falls, the privileges are reduced. If the position on the index rises, the privileges increase. According to a UN agreed protocol, a failing country will incur penalties on a graduated basis. The penalties will be carefully designed to avoid hurting the people of the country – a lesson learned from the sufferings of the Iraqi people due to the post-1991 sanctions. The sanctions will be targeted onto the elite ruling classes of the country.
Here are some examples of possible sanctions:
* Loss of specified voting rights in UN, with diminution of the power of the country’s vote.
If the country falls further down the scale, graduated sanctions are introduced progressively, beginning with financial transfer restrictions, then followed by restrictions on trade in:
* lethal goods,
If these measures fail to get the oppressive government to reform, opposition groups who support the principles of good governance will be entrusted and empowered with responsibility for imports of, and fair distribution of, necessities like food and medicines.
The effect will be that all parties know where they stand. If Governments choose to behave badly, they know that there will be a price to pay for that behaviour. Good governance will be rewarded and bad governance will be inhibited on a continuous basis.
This above model runs counter to the aims and practices of the WTO.
The central objection of the anti-globalisation campaign is that globalisation sets free trade above human and environmental values. There is a direct contradiction between the aims of the World Trade Organisation and the aims of the Human Rights, Green and Peace movements. The WTO and associated organisations could be challenged by the anti-war movement to assent to these proposals as their contribution towards the war effort.
The humans species has to regulate its population by means that are voluntary and benign and has to take along with a fair proportion of other lifeforms. Proper Earth management will certainly be a necessary tool to achieve our goal. If not there will be a collapse of humanity and of the environment. From now on every global decision we do will have tremendous consequences on our future.
We are asking all oil producing nations to triple their oil prices. The planet has a problem with global warming and your share of the responsibility to causing the problem is way higher then anyone else. Consumers of your product cannot and dont want to be responsible of global warming. We are now putting the responsibility on to you, and we will make you accountable in every way, like it or not, especially if you let the US get their hands on your oil resources. Americans are the worst polluters responsible for global warming. If you cannot be responsible and accountable then you should not be in charge of the oil resources. And we will come after you! Along with the Peoples of Britain and the United States, you will be made accountable for the destruction of the global life-support systems.
What are the reasons for this total embargo?
The United States have lost credibility as a nation able to lead others. They have opted out of resolving the problems of global warming and going along with all other nations by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. They have requested the International Court not to include their military as they dont want their soldiers to be taken to Court. In order word, Justice is for everyone else but not for them. They have created hate in the Middle East, the most ancient civilization and they expect the Global Community to go along with them and pay for a war they are creating for the purpose of taking over the oil resources of the Middle East and, eventually, destroying China. China, another ancient civilization, is their next objective. Americans are obviously racists. They want the destruction of all ancient civilizations. They also have no respect for the survival of the human species and of all other lifeforms on Earth. They are a culture of violence and war. They are bullies.
The world is wiser and will not harm the United States and the American people. But we will stop them as bullies must be stopped. Humanity has no need for bullies especially when they have the biggest nuclear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction in the world. The way things are going now, after they take over the Middle East, Americans will make Adolph Hitler look like a kid in the block. Like President Bush said many times we have to prevent the worst to happen. The worst is for Americans to continue their work of destruction and nation predators.
A short while ago we heard the International Court being told by the United States that American soldiers were not to be taken to Court. How is it possible that a nation such as the United States can be abstained from Justice? How is it possible that the United Nations would not strongly react to such dismal of Justice? How is it possible that any nation, anyone at all, should be abstained from Justice? The judicial body is one of three bodies of a democracy: executive, legislative and judiciary. Take Justice out and you dont have a democracy. So how is it possible that the United States promotes democracy in the Middle East under the condition that there is no Justice as far as they are concerned. America wants to apply Justice with the help of their military to all of the Middle East nations. But they dont want Justice to be applied to themselves.
This is totally unacceptable! Justice is for everyone and is a universal constant. Justice should also be strongly applied in all aspects of global life: the environment, the misused of the Earth resources, problems between nations, the creation of new nations, trade and other global ministries.
To answer the question of "How is it possible that the United Nations would not strongly react to such dismal of Justice?" is probably due to the fact that the UN is not a democracy. It never was a democracy! Justice is non-existent at the UN. The UN is an organization where politicians meet to receive instruction from the United States about what to do next. The UN follow the US lead because the US has a lot of money and a lot of guns and mass destruction weapons for sell. So when the US say that Justice does not apply to Americans then all nations comply. Noone at the UN ever thought for one moment to say that was wrong and to tell Americans that Justice applies to everyone including Americans. The Earth Court of Justice would try President Bush and millions of Americans for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. They have committed the greatest crimes against humanity, against all life on Earth and they must be tried for their crimes. The United States are also a nation that invaded other nations to take away their resources or for self interests and profit. When they dont use their military they use their institutions and corporations. That is the reason why there is such a gap between rich and poor countries.
The quality of Earth governance is reflected in each local community worldwide. The Global Community will show leadership by creating a global civil ethic within the Global Community. The Charter of the Global Community describes all values needed for good global governance: mutual respect, tolerance, respect for life, justice for all everywhere, integrity, and caring. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights has become an inner truth and the benchmark of the millennium in how everyone sees all values. The Scale encompasses the right of all people to:
* the preservation of ethnicity
Governance of the Earth will make the rule of arbitrary power--economic (WTO, FTAA, EU), political, or military (NATO)-- subjected to the rule of law within the global civil society, the human family. Justice is for everyone and is everywhere, a universal constant.
The Global Community has no intention of changing the status and privileges of state governments. In fact, state governments become primary members of the Global Community. Global governance can only be effective within the framework of a world government or world federalism. There is no such thing as global governance through the work of a few international organizations such as the WTO, the EU, or the United Nations dictating to the rest of the world. These organizations are heading in the wrong direction and are causing conflicts between nations, doing away with democracy, increasing the gap between rich and poor, and creating a culture of violence worldwide, terrorism being a small example of what they can do.
The Global Community allows people to take control of their own lives. The Global Community was built from a grassroots process with a vision for humanity that is challenging every person on Earth as well as nation governments. The Global Community has a vision of the people working together building a new civilization including a healthy and rewarding future for the next generations. Global cooperation brings people together for a common future for the good of all.
Earth governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government exists within the framework of an effective Global Community protecting common global values and humanity heritage. Earth governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of Earth governance.
Earth governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society.
Earth governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of the Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states.
Although the Global Community ensures state governments that it will obey the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, it will also stand for the rights and interests of the people within individual states in which the security of people is extensively endangered. A global consensus to that effect will be agreed upon by all nation states.
Effective Earth governance requires a greater understanding of what it means to live in a more crowded, interdependent humanity with finite resources and more pollution threatening the global life-support systems. The Global Community has no other choice but to work together at all levels. The collective power is needed to create a better world.
This project will help humanity understand itself better.
Certainly our work is sound. We have already produced very valuable and original tools to help humanity: the Vision of Earth in Year 2024, the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Global Community, the Earth Court of Justice, global ministries, and we stood for the values we promoted no matter how big was the opponent. Now is time to expand our work for the good of all humanity.
Send your scenario. We will have workshop sessions on the scenarios
in Global dialogue 2006.
Was getting their hands on the best oil in the world the only reason of the invasion?
What is next?
China is next. We all knew that from the beginning. Americans need a playground for wars. They want their television screens live filled with war stories. Another 'Cold War' is on the horizon. It will be good for the American economy. Imagine the money the war industry will be making with the break up of China, a stable nation economically and politically, a government that can keep over 1.2 billion people living together peacefully.
* uses too much energy
It would be much less costly to recycle discarded materials. It makes no sense to spend so much energy trying to find new mines when there is an enormous amount of useful metal in cities and landfills. For instance, why do we need to keep gold in safety deposit boxes, bank vaults, and jewelry boxes? There is more gold in boxes than in underground mines.
Mines have transformed landscapes and the lives of local people who live near mineral deposits. Entire communities have been uprooted in order to make way for mine projects. People had to forsake traditional occupations and suffer the effects of living beside a mine that poisons their water supplies or pollutes the air they breathe. Local people who got jobs in a mine had to trade health problems for an income. Prostitution and drug use are serious problems at mining sites.
In fact, mineral dependence reduces economic growth in developing countries. Extracting raw materials for export is far less lucrative than processing the materials or manufacturing finished goods. By extracting minerals, countries are essentially running down their stocks of nonrenewable resources.
Mineral exporting-countries become heavily indebted to international lenders and much of what they earn from minerals and other exports never enters the national economy but is used instead to service the external debt. These countries have typically invested little in social services, such as education and health care, and are beleaguered by conflicts over resources and political instabilities.
Even though social, economic and environmental costs of mining are high and mineral prices are low, mining operations are still expanding. Mining firms have profited from direct and indirect subsidies handed out to them by governments. Mining firms benefits a lot from the cheap fuel and from the roads and other infrastructure made available to them. Even more surprising, mining firms do not usually pay royalties or taxes on profits, and governments provide immunity to companies against compensation claims. The final hand-out of public money occurs when mines have to close down or are abandoned, and governments and taxpayers are stuck with cleanup after companies have gone bankrupt or just walked away from poor projects.
There are significant advantages of shifting away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy and toward greater reliance on renewables. Decreasing the impacts of global warming is certainly the most significant advantage. Global carbon emissions must be reduced at least 70% over the next hundred years to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm). The sooner societies begin to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, the lower will be the impacts and the associated costs of both climate change and emissions reductions.
Other costs of conventional energy production and use are:
1. degradation of the environment through resource extraction
The United States represents 25 percent of current global emissions, and 36.4 percent of industrial-country 1990 emissions. Withdrawal from negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol dealt a blow to the Global Community efforts to battle climate change.
The Global Community is interested to enact renewable energy policies that:
a) are consistent and long-term to allow industries and markets to adjust
There is a need to add a sociological, political and anthropological dimension to current debates on the sustainable use of water in the Mediterranean region: Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Crete, Lebanon, Malta and Iraq. More specifically, the impacts of human activities on the management of water supplies can have on local populations.
In order to continue living as a species and achieve sustainability we must re-establish our connections with Nature.
The Global Community should develop and implement a program for the restoration of the hydrological cycle on all continents and the cooling of the planet. The effect will be to stop the drying out of continents.
The Global Community needs a basic clarification of First Principles on the concept of "ownership", starting with the principle that the land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally as a birthright to everyone. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property.
We can hatch many birds out of one egg when we shift public finance OFF OF private property and ONTO common heritage property. From the local to the global level we need to shift taxes off of labor and productive capital and onto land and natural resource rents. In other words, we need to privatize labor (wages) and socialize rent (the value of surface land and natural resources). This public finance shift will promote the cooperatization of the ownership of capital in a gradual way with minimal government control of the production and exchange of individual and collective wealth. Natural monopolies (infrastructure, energy, public transportation) should be owned and/or controlled or regulated by government at the most local level that is practical.
The levels of this public finance shift can be delineated thusly: municipalities and localities to collect the surface land rents within their jurisdiction. Regional governing bodies to collect resource rents for forest lands, mineral, oil and water resources; the global level needs a Global Resource Agency to collect user fees for transnational commons such as satellite geostationary orbits, royalties on minerals mined or fish caught in international waters and the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
An added benefit of this form of public finance is that it provides a peaceful way to address conflicts over land and natural resources. Resource rents should be collected and equitably distributed and utilized for the benefit of all, either in financing social services and/or in direct citizen dividends in equal amount to all individuals.
A portion of revenues could pass from the lower to the higher governance levels or vice versa as needed to ensure a just development pattern worldwide and needed environmental restoration.
In the area of monetary policy we need seignorage reform, which means that money should be issued as spending by governments, not as debt by private banking institutions. We also need guaranteed economic freedoms to create local and regional currencies on a democratic and transparent basis.
It was suggested to promote a rotation of Public Employment, so that it can become equally shared and of real common belonging. On the day in which this new social system would come to the fore, no longer, for example, public forces (persons that today are also them assumed for life, becoming so faithful keepers of oligarchyc States) will rage against the demonstrators. The seeds of a new society, without monopolization and exclusion, based instead on equal sharing and full participation by all, will take root. On that day even such ambitious aims as to see every woman, every man on Earth having a work, and therefore an income, minimum guaranted, will become much more easily attainable.
It is the same idea for any consumer product in any industry. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste).
Throughout the 20th Century, the war industry has created the worse evil humanity has ever encountered: the business of conflicts and wars. It is a business that has made trillions of dollars (American) and will continue to do so. It has no moral value, no understanding about Life, no respect for anyone or anything, no law except the ones that it makes for itself, and all its products are meant to kill and destroy. It has sold its products to the enemies for the purpose of making more profit. It has subdued governments all over the world to make them buy its products. It has given trade and way of doing business a bad reputation and, therefore, it is a threat to the establisment of business. Although the war industry has a good public image, it does not really matter who is the buyer as long as he pays good money.
The Global Community promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons: security, sustainability and justice in a nuclear free future.
The Global Community believes it is a necessity to implement a total embargo on all US, Russian and European Union nations mass destruction chemicals, nuclear war heads, weapons, war products and war equipment. These are the countries that have developed and manufactured the weapons of mass destruction. They are also the countries that have been exploiting the developing countries everywhere in the world and especially in the Middle East, and without due respect to human rights and democracy. They are also the countries that have sold weapons of mass destruction to the poor nations of the Middle East for the purpose of making a profit.
The "war industry" throughout the world must be put to a complete halt and shelved forever from humanity. The Global Community is asking all peoples never again to buy there products.
The Global Community believes that politicians create wars. They send the military to solve their problems, satisfy their interest and needs, and destroy the problems or create new ones to be in line with the war industry lobbying. The political game is as deadly as the military game. Peace is the worst enemy to both the potical and military people as peace does not pay for monthly mortgage bills, car payments and lust of the people living off the war industry. It was estimated that in the United States alone the war industry feed over fifty million Americans and has a monthly budget of more than ten trillion american dollars. These people are evils.
The Global Community is promoting the settling of disputes between nations through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. Justice for all is what we want.
Ever since the end of World War I the British tried to colonize the arabs and Moslems of the Middle East and surroundings. Over the past two years, we have proven in articles of several of our Newsletters that the British and American peoples have tried to invade and colonize the Arabs and Moslems of the Middle East. Israel is the Trojan Horse to achieve their goal. Back in 1947, the US have coerced the United Nations to create the State of Israel. It was an illegal and arbitrary process (or the lack of it) that created the State of Israel. There was never a Referendum conducted in the region to find out if there were any reason at all for the creation of Israel (at the time there were only a few Jews in the region) against the will of over one billion Arabs and Moslems. The reason was colonization and invasion of the Middle East for profit and self-interests. Brut and simple exploitation of the people of the Middle East and of their resources. Another invasion but different than the invasion of Vietnam and of other Peoples by the same invaders. After World War II, at the UN, it was easy for the US to get all the allies on their side. The Five Permanent Members of the UN (Great Britain, France, China, US, Russia) had no objection and all passed the resolution that created the state of Israel. That was all that was required. No process! All political! Politicians created the State of Israel without any reason except preparing grounds for a systematic invasion of the Middle East and the exploitation of the Arabs and Moslems and of their resources. In Canada, every province have jurisdiction over their resources. Ask to the Premier of Alberta what he would say if Ottawa was to create a new agency to manage or take over the resources within his province. He would probably seperate from the rest of Canada and join the US. So why would it be any different in the Middle East? Dont people from other nations have the rights to own and control their resources? The US do not think so. We are asking the US to justify their action in the Earth Court of Justice (not in the news media which they own and control). We want Justice for all and universal. We want a process for the creation of new nations. We want the Earth Court of Justice to be an independent and impartial body that will create the process and verify it for the case of the creation of the State of Israel.
Let us define what is meant by the "war industry". The war industry comprises all persons (a person can be an organization such as a government, a business, a non-government organization, an institution such as a university or an institute of technology, or it can be a professional, an individual, or the like) directly or indirectly related to the research, engineering, production, manufacturing, promoting, selling, use of war products, war equipment, war ships, war planes, or the like. Conflicts and wars are often created for the exploitation of tax payers of a country and resources, for the purpose of making a profit and protecting self-interests. The war industry will use every mean possible to survive as an industry.
All persons working, directly or indirectly, for the war industry, are responsible and accountable to humanity and to God for anything happening to their products after they are sold. Even here in Ontario, Canada, we manufacture weapons and war products. Workers go home happy after a good day of work. They have to pay for their mortgages and make car payments and others. They are mostly Christians. When they go to work, they leave their religious beliefs at home. Ethical and moral values no longer touch them. They dont think that are actually responsible and accountable for spreading evil all around the world. They think they are "good people", good citizens. Every single bullet you manufacture you are responsible and accountable for it, all of you from the President of the company to the employee on the industrial line. Our Society holds responsibility and accountability as well. And if that bullet happened to be a nuclear war head then it becomes even more imperative to held the manufacturer and the people involved responsible and accountable.
It is the same idea for any consumer product. You manufacture, produce, farm or create a product, you become responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste).
People in our society often argue that their manufacturing products and the trading principles or rules that regulate their actions are all legal! But what about ethical values and moral principles?!
Greed is what drives belonging or involved with the war industry. By making an astronomical profit through the selling of arms, war products and equipment to all of the Middle East countries, including Iran, Irak and Afghanistan, and by sucessively calling these old friends their new enemies and terrorists, and destroying their countries, America and Great Britain have shown that they could never be trusted. Since the Cold War is over, the only American interests in the Middle East are the cheap crude oil and the protection of Israel. The Jews come first even if it mean to fight and annihilate the entire Islamic Civilization with nuclear war heads. If you have any doubt that they would do such an atrocious crime, ask the people from Japan and also, ask the Russians as they have back off from rubbing their noses with those of the American and the British.
Today the war industry is exploiting the issue of terrorism for profit. Everyone knows terrorism cannot be fought by conventional warfare but that would not deter the industry from saying it is the best way to get rid of terrorists. Our governments are now spending tax dollars used for social and environmental programs and services to pay for more war products and equipment. Terrorists have committed the horrible acts of september 11 because the war industry brought terror in their homeland and is continuing to do so today in Afghanistan and in Palestine. The only way to fight evil is by not buying its products. The industry should die eventually, hopefully. But now the war industry is organizating a massive international media campaign to make taxpayers pay for their expenses. More illusions about protecting the humble people from nuclear war heads being sent from one continent to another. The terrorist act of September 11 has shown that if terrorists wanted to use war heads they would not use intercontinental missiles.
War brings terror to the children and wonen of Afghanistan and Irak. War brings deaths, and destroy everything. War creates more hate and, therefore, more terrorism. War brings money and wealth to the war makers in the West and the war industry. And the taxpayers pay for it. Innocent people here in the West and in the Middle East are killed because of the greedy war industry.
(a) a healthful, sustainable environment for every global community citizen,
This effort will lead over time to an escalation of human values and symbiotical relationships transcending money centered economics.
Back to top of page