This is the main index for information concerning activities of the Global Community and of the Global Community Earth Government(GCEG)
Visit the Portal of the Global Community Continue your visit of Global Dialogue 2008  Main Index of the Global Dialogue

October 15, 2007
The Global Community perspective on the control of the Northwest Passage, Canada sovereignty of Nunavut and 'blood resources'
An investigative report researched by
Germain Dufour
Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
President of Earth Government

and by
Global Community Assessment Centre
Global Community of North America
Global Government of North America


Key words: Canada sovereignty, Northwest Passage, criteria for sovereignty, biodiversity zone in the North, new Nunavut settlements, blood resources, Global Community, movement for taxation on natural resources, North America security for all life, Earth is the birth right of all life, Earth ownership, Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, global citizenship, Kyoto Protocol, global warming, climate change, global symbiotical relationship, Global protection Agency, Agency of Global Police, invasion of Afghanistan and Middle East, Saudi Arabia, war industry, United Nations, GCNA Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre

Summary    Summary
Introduction    Introduction
Who owns the Nortwest Passage? What is Canada sovereignty in the North?     Who owns the Nortwest Passage?  What is Canada sovereignty in the North?
The Global Community perspective    The Global Community perspective
Conclusion    Conclusion
Background research for this paper: historical facts, principles, standards, articles, ways of doing things in the past, issues, maps, etc.    Background research for this paper: historical facts, principles, standards, ways of doing things in the past, issues, etc.
Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut    Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage
Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut    Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut







Summary
Billions of Canadian tax dollars were used by the Government of Canada to invade Afghanistan and no money was used toward Canada sovereignty in the North. Just what Bush wanted. Just what the White House wanted, Republicans and Democrates alike. Bush is smart in his own bad ways but what is wrong with the PM of Canada. Bush and the White House never approved of the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act conceived and enacted by Jean Chrétien, a Liberal Prime Minister. Bush, a Republican, never approved of the Kyoto Protocol either, but then neither did Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, head of the Conservatives. Docile, docile, be docile, and I will grab the North, says Bush to Harper. God knows what will happen to the environment if the White House keeps being what it is, a threat to Canada, to the world, and to the Global Community. Actually we know what is happening to the environment: global warming and climate change due to American activities. And it is only going to get much, much worst. Bush says: first the invasion of Iraq to get its oil and gas for free, build permanent US military bases so Israel wont be needed anymore, then the invasion of Iran, and then Russia, India, and China to get them out of the Middle East. And then Canada's North! Wherever there are resources, including fresh water. Oopps! No! We will first ask Canada to spend more tax dollars to get rid of Russia, India, and China, and then we will invade Canada, says the White House. Deep integration of Canada has already started. Canada is being invaded economically and now militarily by the United States. When Canada's Commander in Chief follows similar politics as the US Commander in Chief that means Canada has been invaded militarily. The threat of international terrorism originated for the most part outside North America and is due primarily on the American Government foreign policies which perpetuated an old way of doing things: 'blood resources'. Canada should have a veto power on such policies. They are in essence criminals. All foreign policies should be dealt by Congress and the Canadian Parliament on an equal basis. Canadians want a veto power on all major proposals, policies, strategies submitted to Congress for approval. No one should be allowed to go alone (unilaterally) on any such major proposals, policies, and strategies, or any action (s) that can have an impact on Canada. If the PM truly wanted to help Afghans he would first stop the invasion and offer them to settle in Nunavut, a territory practically empty of people. In fact most of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are practically empty of people. Farmers left their land for the cities. So the land is not producing anything useful and settlers from all over the world should be allowed to come in. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world. You own property because the owners could not pay. Use that property, or share it or lose it. The Inuit have not chosen to declare themselves a nation, a State. They could have. Instead they have chosen to be a part of Canada. There is now a well established symbiotical relationship between Canada and the Inuit people. The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. They have the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands. In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely. Blood resources is on the rise in the world especially in the USA. The Inuit community has to be actively involved with both the Earth management of the Northwest passage and Nunavut territory. How come when there is an immense area of land to settle in such as in Nunavut, no one, including Canada, the USA, and United Nations say anything at all. Complete silence! In 1947, when there were over one billion Moslims and Arabs opposing the partition of Palestine, suddenly the USA came along to coerce the UN membership and created the State of Israel, an area already overcrowded and politically volatile. How come?! Well! We all know now but fear to say it. It is because the USA wanted the oil and gas of the Middle East to build the biggest military power of the world, with all the WMDs you can ever imagine and more. The mother of all invaders!! Hitler seems like a kid in the block compared to the USA. Americans are spending about a few billion dollars (Canadian $) a year to operate their permanent military bases in Iraq. Very little money indeed! Global Community Assessment Centre has estimated that the profit they will make over the years from stealing the oil and gas resources of Iraq will be about 40 trillion dollars. That should keep the American economy from collapsing completely because America's astronomical national debt, mostly due to the military spending. But dream on Americans this will never happen. The 40 trillion dollars will go into the pockets of a few people you dont even know anything about. Mega corporations will be handling the business. They dont even have head offices in the USA. So if you believe the American economy will get better because of the 40 trillion dollars, dream again. Canada is having the same problem with its oil and gas industry. The industry is owned by foreigners. Most Canadians will never see the good of the wealth but they will suffer its impacts on their environment and the global warming of the planet. That's right! Just the global warming impacts. This is the proof of how the White House deliberately and strategically from 1947 on, made use of its military to plunder the resources of the Middle East nations. Somewhat like pirates on high sea attacking an other ship. With the approval of the United Nations, of course! They are still trying to make the world believe what they have done was the right thing to do. The next generations of Americans will have to live with the fact that their wealth, their goods, their fake righteousness, their out-of-control lifestyle, their ways of doing things, their prosperous economy, their civilization, all of it, is due to the plundering of Iraq, to blood oil and gas. Blood resources is not the way we should be dealing with the rest of the world. Nothing to be proud of! People used to look up to Americans! Now they dont! And the fact remains that Israel was the Trojan Horse for the invasion of the Middle East. This is when the American invasion of the Middle East was deliberately started by the White House. A well planned strategic military invasion to plunder the resources of an other nation! Blood oil and gas! The UN had no right to create the State of Israel. They forced their way into over one billion Muslims and Arabs and have done ever since. It has become a necessity to implement a total and global embargo on all American consumer products, goods and services, and mass destruction chemicals, nuclear war heads, weapons, war products and war equipment. 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 American products. Let us call 'blood oil and gas' the oil and gas produced in a war zone in order to finance an american invasion, and the american economy, or supporting a White House Earth resources exploitation. We could extend the name to 'blood resources' or 'blood Earth resources' to mean any Earth natural resource. Geopolitical boundaries between nations are gradually disappearing to make place to georesources boundaries. Blood oil and gas is illegal and the Agency of Global Police has already got a Global Community Arrest Warrant against Bush and Cheney. They are dangerous criminals. The United Nations and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:
1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and global justice at the U.N.;
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations; and
9.    powerful lobbying groups forcing decision making at the UN.
The UN along with the United States and Israel, are an invading force, a colonization drive in the same way as the British have done after World War I. The UN committed an illegal and arbitrary act by creating the State of Israel. Israel no longer qualifies to represent a global community. It cannot be called a nation either. A nation is defined primiraly by its people, its communities, and it has a properly established government. Israel is run by a military leader who, at the moment, is Major General Dan Halutz. Ever since its creation by the United Nations in 1947 (partition of Palestine by the UN), Israel has been at war for the gradual invasion of the Middle East by the United States. It has been given continuous amounts of money, arms, war products and equipment, war planes, weapons of mass destruction, and has used them. Therefore, Israel is a military organization and has nothing to do with a People forming a government and a nation, much less a democracy, and even less a global community. Surely this is a proof that the United Nations dont make decisions based on sound sustainable principles, on global Peace and Justice, but instead make decisions based on powerful lobbying groups such as the USA. That is what politicians do. Creating global communities in Nunavut would give Canada a strong position to obtain the sovereignty of the territory it never truly had. Just because you say it is yours means it is. Just because someone put a flag on Mount Everest, the Moon or on Mars means that someone owns the mountain, the Moon or planet Mars. Unless you are a predator, you know someone who kills other life-fomrs to feed itself. A killer! An invader! Like our first explorers who found the Americas and shut dead the Natives. Like what Canadians are doing in Afghanistan and Americans in the Middle East and anywhere else there are Earth reources to grab. Those surveys conducted in Iraq and in Afghanistan have absolutely no meaning. Any survey done at gunpoint has no meaning. When you ask a question to a villager, child, man or woman, about whether or not they like the military presence in their country, obviously they will say yes. I would. You bombed their country. You practically destroyed everything they had for their own survival. Your tanks are destroying their home, communities, and you are killing children, men and women in their country. What do you expect they would say if you ask them if they like you? They will say yes because they dont want anymore killing and destruction. What a farce those surveys. It is a total disgrace that politicians in Canada and in the US would use such surveys to help themselves win votes during an election. Politics and North American media go hand in hand. The media helps electing politicians of their choice, usually those with most money, and the politicians use the media to promote their policies and ideas. If you find out who owns the media you will know who is in control of the nation. Certainly not the people! The Canadian General in Afghanistan says he is stopping Osama bin Laden and the Talibans from coming to Canada. With this invasion of Afghanistan we have made ourselves a target by those who dont want Americans to be in Afghanistan and the Middle East. We thought about the Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' as suicide bombers that truly hated Americans. The Al Qua'ida 'terrorits' want Americans out of the region. The reality is that Osama Bin Laden and the Talibans fought along with the American in Afghanistan to force the Russians out of the region. The question is what were Americans doing over there in the first place? Why would Americans be on the other side of the world to fight the Russians? They were there to protect their interests in the oil and gas of the Middle East. After the Cold War, Americans left Afghanistan in a terrible state. Destruction every where. But Afghans were free of the Russians. Americans left the people of Afghanistan living with a nightmare. No wonder civilians objected to be treated as 'non-human beings' by Americans. They wanted Americans out of their country just the same. Suicide bombers are actually civilians who cannot see any other way to fight back. We call them 'terrorists' here in the West. The word 'terrorists' was invented by President Bush and the American Congress. The reality is that Osama bin Laden and the Talibans are freedom fighters. They want neither the Russians, the Americans, or the Canadians in their countries. They are being invaded, and they dont want that. If Global Law could be applied today, Bush and the Canadian General would be thrown in jail for the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan and the Middle East and the complete destruction of those countries. By 2050, the world population will be about 9 billion people, most of them in great need of help, living in poverty, starving, and fighting for their own survival. If Bush and the Canadian General were right with the thinking of being in Afghanistan and the Middle East to stop 'terrorists' from coming to our soils and hurting us then we would be at war against those billions of people. Their thinking is completely wrong and must be stopped. Over the years, American have brought disgrace to humanity by their selfish, immoral, unethical, incoherent, inconsistent, dishonnest, erratic, and mostly aimed at making money behavior in the Middle East and towards Afghanistan. You would think we would be 'civilized' by now. Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong. There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The invasion of nations such as those of the Middle East and Afghanistan are crimes against humanity and will be prosecuted. War is the greatest violation of human and Earth rights that one people can inflict on another. It brings deaths and injuries, starvation, diseases, millions of people losing their homes and livelihoods, and massive destruction of property. Children and teenagers are placed in internment camps, and several are often forced to serve as soldiers. War not only corrupts the morals of soldiers, it leads to a decline in the morality of the whole nation. Political and military leaders are always convinced that their particular war is justified. From their point of view, there are several reasons to go to war: loyalty to allies, religion, a thirst for power, greed, ancient grievances to be settled, or the desire to alleviate suffering among their people. A nonviolent settlement to a conflict would always be more advantageous. War is self-defeating because it cannot secure what it sets out to achieve, protection against attack. The hatred for the enemy whipped up by war and the desire for revenge among the losers leads to an accursed vicious circle from which there is no escape. The difference between agressive and defensive, or just and unjust wars, is ridiculous. They are tags each side adopted to suit its interests. War and militarism destroy civil liberties within a nation. What happens to a person's conscience when he/she wears the uniform of the soldier? It is enslaved to the state. He must kill when ordered. No government, whether democratic or despotic, can allow the soldier to decide what to do according to his conscience. That would undermine discipline and the power to fight. Territorial conflicts has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars have been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. Blood resources started when the first explorers came to America and started to shut dead Natives. Explorers had to come back home with the prospect of future catches for their countries. We have seen oil conflicts in the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of economic and military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries. Geopolitical boundaries between nations are gradually disappearing to make place to georesources boundaries. Democracy is an excuse to gain control over those resources by mega corporations. 'Blood oil and gas' is certainly a proof of this statement. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. To gain control of the Northwest Passage, Canada would have to show strong Earth management initiatives and not making empty promises like Brian Mulroney with his Polar 8 icebraker. We remember the purchase of the Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada northern border was cancelled in 1989 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives. If the Conservatives want to make a difference with Canada's sovereignty it better be a real one, not a fake one. History is telling now. The Conservative PM is more preoccupied with an illegal invasion of Afghanistan than Canada's sovereignty in the North and the protection of its environment. During his time as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and head of the Liberals, Canada has spent $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. That money and its positive impact on Canada's sovereignty were more than what Brian Mulroney and the PM together have ever done toward protecting Canada's sovereignty. Mulroney "Free Trade' with the US has diminished Canada's sovereignty. Most of Canada's large corporations have been bought out by the US and other foreigners. We have seen a gradual lost of Canada's sovereignty because of 'Free Trade' and the signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement.
Global Community criteria for sovereignty:
  • a global community is in place
  • the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
  • the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
  • a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community
  • a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life
  • Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources
Without this criteria no one can claim ownership - sovereignty - of both Nunavut and the Northwest Passage. Canada does not own the area of Nunavut or that of the North West territories. Like we have explained above putting a flag on Moon does not give you ownership. Our first explorers did not own the land just because they stepped foot on North America. Just because you put a flag on Mount Everest means you own the mountain. You dont! And the Inuit dont own Nunavut either. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. So 82.4% of Nunavut is practically empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. If someday a colony is set up on the Moon will that mean the people making up the colony owns the Moon? No it does not! The people of the colony could say they own an area large enough for their own survival, a sustainable living. Not the entire Moon. Similarly for the Inuit people. They dont own Nunavut. The Inuit are in large part being taken care of by the Canadian Government. They are being used by the Canadian Government to claim soverighty of Nunavut. Somewhat like the colony on the Moon would be taken care of by the nation on Earth. So the Inuit people can only claim to own a small area around their communities. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut. In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. The Earth management of Nunavut is an asset to the Global Community and Canada. The Global Constitution shows us how it can be done with Global Law, the Earth Court of Justice, and how the Global Protection Agency (GPA) and the Agency of Global Police (AGP) can protect the territory. Global Community Arrest Warrants can be issued to anyone breaking Global Law. The GCNA Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre is vigilant and quick in helping all life in need of help. Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not commodities, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through global community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.






Introduction
Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming and human activities, the effects of which have a direct impact on all life on Earth. Global warming is causing the melting of the polar ice caps. The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030.

The Northwest Passage is a sea route near the North Pole that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Last summer, the Passage was seen in satellite pictures to be clear of ice, making it possible for vessels to make it through. Canada urgently needs to understand better the processes involved.

Several countries, including the United States and Europe, have claimed that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway that should be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone.

The Northwest Passage is entirely within the boundaries of Nunavut, a territory of Canada. Canadian sovereignty of Nunavut is itself very questionable. The ownership of the entire region of the North Pole is questionable. There is an increase interest of Nunavut because the Arctic contains an estimated one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered energy resources, that is up to 50 per cent of the Earth’s remaining undiscovered reserves of hydrocarbons are located north of 60°n latitude.

All water routes through the Northwest Passage are located between the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On that basis, Canada claims the Passage as Canadian Internal Waters, and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control. And that means Canada has the right to set the rules over who gets to go through. A key concern is to avoid letting unsafe vessels sailing through the passage and risk an oil spill in the Arctic ecosystem, and Canada would have to do the clean up.

However, this ownership claim has been disputed, especially by the United States and the European Union. They argued that the Northwest Passage represents international waters, which allows the right of transit passage, and that the Passage ought to be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone. In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage.

Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land for thousands of years.

The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility and Earth management. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security and to the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems.

Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants, the Inuit people, is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.

Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the melting ice. There are actions that can be taken now and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.

Only in a few legal instances has the ownership of the North Pole region been given attention:

A) The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic.

B) Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. Canada’s ability to show control over Hans Island represents a significant indicator of Canada’s ability to exercise sovereignty over its Arctic territory.

C) In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Conceived by Jean Chrétien, the sole purpose of the Act was to establish a one hundred-mile wide Arctic pollution control zone measured outward from the nearest Canadian land in which environmental controls to shipping practices and the protection of the marine environment were to be enforced by Canada. The Act was generally accepted by the international community. Canada’s thinking behind its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act with its emphasis on the uniqueness of the Arctic translated into the arctic exception - Article 234 that was adopted by the final UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, Article 234.

D) In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through. U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway.

E) A few years ago and under the leadership of Jean Chrtien, Canada has spent $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping has help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration.

F) In 1951, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), is particularly important for Canada because the ruling shown some direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts. This ruling:
  • recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters, and
  • accepted a new method of measurement of territorial seas that Canada preferred.

G) After several multilateral conferences and meetings, Canada was able to get acceptance of its idea of custodianship to the world. Few nations recognized the US’s strong legal argument to designate the Passage as an international waterway, and Canada secured enough international support especially amongst the circumpolar Scandinavian states of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and most importantly, the Soviet Union to rejected the US international claim for a Canadian claim focused on custodianship. Canada was recognized by its environmental protection vision for the Passage without having to raise the sovereignty issue. This is further evidence of Canada’s assertion that the Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters. Canada has in fact staged the first global step toward the Earth management of natural resources. Earth management is something the Global Community has been promoting ever since 1985.

The eight circumpolar states have established an Arctic Council - an intergovernmental forum in which issues and concerns related to the environment, sustainable development, as well as social and economic considerations are addressed. This council can only function by putting sovereignty to the side in order to tackle the wider and common concerns of Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States.

Learning to live in harmony with our environment is a challenge that we all face today in the Northwest Passage. The Global Community has risen to this challenge and proposed sound solutions. The stewardship of our natural resources is a responsibility we all have. Sovereignty implies control, authority within a territory, and also implies responsibility, environmental protection, and maintenance of international security over that territory. Earth management is certainly an important part of sovereignty. The focus should be on the Earth management of the Northwest Passage.

Nunavut's territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut. So 82.4% of Nunavut is empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut.

The Inuit lived in the Nunavut region for thousands of years before the first European explorers arrived searching for a Northwest Passage. For all but the last 250 years or so of their history, they were free to govern their lives and manage their territory and resources according to Inuit needs and traditional practices. With the arrival of explorers first from Europe and later from North America, the Inuit way of life started to change, and they have had to struggle very hard to maintain control over their culture, territory and resources. The Inuit are in Canada one of three groups of Aboriginal peoples. The other two are the First Nations and the Métis.

The Inuit people used to hunt the caribou, seals, and fish for food, most Inuit now live in small communities that depend on trapping, sealing, mining such as diamonds, and the production of arts and crafts for their livelihood. There is a small tourist trade, lured by the wildlife and vast space, as well as Inuit cultural attractions.

The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government, a liberal government, and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. They have the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands.

In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.

The Inuit community has to be actively involved with both the Earth management of the Northwest passage and Nunavut territory. All of the above historical facts seem to indicate more than one way to reach the light at the end of the tunnel. What does the Government of Canada says today?

Jean Chretien, during his time as Prime Minister and head of the Liberals, Canada has spent $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration.

Furthermore, today's Prime Minister Harper, head of the Conservatives, has already spent several billion taxpayers dollars toward the military invasion of Afghanistan. If Canada wish to help the people of Afghanistan it would be better to offer them to resettle in Nunavut.

This Canadian spending helps President Bush in many ways. Bush needs an ally for his own invasion of the Middle East to gain control over the oil and gas resources. While the Canadians taxpayers are spending their money in Afghanistan, they are not spending money to gain control over the Canadian Northern Passage and strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the North. That is what the White House wants no matters who is at the helm, Republicans or Democrates alike. The US can see the immense benefits of the North: energy, fresh water, minerals, Northwest Passage, etc. They would not want a Canadian Prime Minister who would buy a Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada's northern border or spend real money to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic.

Bush never approved of the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act conceived and enacted by Jean Chrétien, a Liberal Prime Minister. Bush, a Republican, never approved of the Kyoto Protocol either, but then neither did Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, head of the Conservatives.

Truly, the world is on the threshold of a global revolution, and needs to proceed with the non-violent approach. The Global Community needs to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.

The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must be based on the principle of equal rights to the Earth.

Territorial conflicts has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars have been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflicts in the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of economic and military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is the birthright of all life.

The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

So the ownership of the land and the natural resources of Nunavut, and the control of the Northwest Passage, will be challenged by the international community. Canada needs of all its tax dollars to take on the challenge but first must get out of spending on the military invasion of Afghanistan.

The questions we should ask ourselves are sound.
The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?
Does putting a flag on the Moon gives you ownership of the Moon?
Does putting a flag on Mars gives you ownership of the planet?
Does discovering the Americas by explorers gave them ownership of the Americas?
Does climbing Mount Everest gives ownership of the mountain?
Does Canada own the Northwest Passage or Nunavut?

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

Does Denmark truly owns Greenland? Just because you say you do? Just because the Permanent Court of International Justice say you do? What if the Court was wrong or corrupted?

Canada says it owns the Northwest Passage and Nunavut but how is that possible? Just because Canada says it does? Or because the United Nations say it does? What if the UN is corrupted? or wrong?

The United Nations and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:

1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.;
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations; and
9.    powerful lobbying groups forcing decision making at the UN.

Many other organizations are corrupted and have no intention of changing their ethics rules:
*     G8 nations,
*     World Trade Organization (WTO),
*     Free Trade Agreement (FTA),
*     North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
*     Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA),
*     World Bank,
*     International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the
*     European Union (EU).

Most dont even have ethics. If they do they dont follow them.

The problem is the system they have created. It has become clear that this culture of waste, mismanagement and corruption cannot reform itself.

Russian expedition Arktika 2007 made the first descent to the ocean bottom below the North Pole, and planted a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed. Does planting a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed gives Russia ownerhsip of any kind? Is that not like putting a flag on the Moon or on Mount Everest? The answer is no. Russia does not own whatever they claim they do own.

Does mapping the ocean floor gives you ownership of the land nearby? No it does not.

Just because you put a flag on the Moon means you own the Moon. It just does not work that way.

A dog, a bear, a wolf, and many other life species, leave 'something' at the bottom of a tree, a bush, a building, a park bench, but this does not mean the life species owns the tree, the forest, the park, the building or the town. People can leave a flag or whatever else, but that does not mean they own the Moon, planet Mars, Nunavut or Greenland.

Hans Island has no one living on the island so Canada or Denmark cannot claim sovereignty over the island. Most of Greenland and Nunavut are practically empty of people. Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it. Whatever rulings nations and organizations can come up with, they are only applicable by the nations who have signed in.

Rulings can be wrong. For instance, what gave the Permanent Court of International Justice the right to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. How can that be? The ruling is totally arbitrarily. Probably the Permanent Court of International Justice itself was especially created to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. There is corruption anywhere at all levels of government, and there can be corruption at the Court.

Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it.

From the Global Community perspective the Falkland Islands truly belong to the inhabitants of the islands. There exist a strong sustainable community on the islands, and they dont need anyone's approval to keep living on the islands.

But in the case of Hans Island, no one live on the island. From the Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on Hans Island owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations.

A nation is defined primarily by its people, its communities; arts, history, social, languages, religious and cultural aspects included. Fundamentally a nation or a state is defined as "a politically unified population occupying a specific area of land".

A global community has a well defined criteria based on global symbiotical relationships. And it does not require the occupation of a specific area of land. These relationships allow a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

The definition of the Global Community is:

"The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below."


The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities.

Criteria for sovereignty
  • a global community is in place
  • the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
  • the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
  • a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community
  • a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life
  • Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources

Now that we have established the criteria of sovereignty with its responsibility and accountability, let us see the Global Community perspective concerning the Canadian sovereignty claim of the Northwest Passage and Nunavut.

Everyone remembers the Falkland Islands war. The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers. The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. From the Global Community perspective the Falkland Islands truly belong to the inhabitants of the islands. There exist a strong global community on the islands, and they dont need anyone's approval to keep living on the islands.

But in the case of Hans Island, no one live on the island. From the Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on Hans Island owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations.

By creating the State of Israel, the United Nations have perpetuated the archaic concept of land ownership, a concept that is threatening security in the world and all life on Earth. The UN never had a human criteria for the creation of a new nation. Now they are forcing another one to the Palestinians by arbitrarily creating the State of Palestine. Only the Earth Court of Justice can re-evaluate the creation of the State of Israel and evaluate the application for the creation of the State of Palestine. All nations have to be educated of the new way for the good of all.

The Global Community is inviting Palestinians and Jews of Israel to the global dialogue to create sustainable communities and a permanent peace movement in the land through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. In 1947, the United States found it easy to coerce the United Nations in creating the State of Israel. The effect of creating a new nation in this way was to promote once again the Roman Empire concept: land is all that counts, and that a border around the land is all that is needed to create a community. That's the wrong way of thinking. A community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. There is no need of a high wall around your land. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The UN had no right to create the State of Israel. They forced their way into a one billion Muslims and have done ever since. The UN along with the United States and Israel, are an invading force, a colonization drive in the same way as the British have done after World War I. The UN committed an illegal and arbitrary act by creating the State of Israel.

The Earth Court of Justice will be created in the Middle East for the purpose of deciding on the legality of the State of Israel and the creation of the State of Palestine. Members of this higher Court will be chosen to reflect the Peoples involved here.

Correcting the mistake made by the United Nations in creating Israel can be readily done by having the Earth Court of Justice to start the process of fixing the problem. The process should include important steps such as:
a)     dissolving the State of Israel;
b)     creating a new organization that would include all religious groups in the region and civil society (no military); the organization would manage the affairs of the region; and
c)     setting up a criteria for managing the region, a criteria agreed upon everyone concerned.

Israel no longer qualifies to represent a global community. It cannot be called a nation either. A nation is defined primiraly by its people, its communities, and it has a properly established government. Israel is run by a military leader who, at the moment, is Major General Dan Halutz. Ever since its creation by the United Nations in 1947, Israel has been at war for the gradual invasion of the Middle East by the United States. It has been given continuous amounts of money, arms, war products and equipment, war planes, weapons of mass destruction, and has used them. Therefore, Israel is a military organization and has nothing to do with a People forming a government and a nation, much less a democracy, and even less a global community.

The Global Community has always expresses its support in helping a population forming a democratic government. Democracy requires the existence and application of three fundamental governing bodies:

1.     executive,
2.     legislative, and
3.     judiciary.
So how can anyone claim that the invaders Afghanistan and Iraq have created a democracy?

We denounce the military actions of Israel, the United Nations and of the United States:
1.     Israel is not 'a global community' and, therefore, not a nation,
2.     Israel is a military outpost of the United States, and
3.     The Earth Court of Justice is to decide the fate of Israel and of the Palestinians.

In the aftermath of World war II there were numerous Arab-Israeli wars namely the:
a)     1948 Palestine war;
b)     1956 Suez war;
c)     June 1967 Six-Day war between Israel and Egypt/Syria/Jordan;
d)     1969-70 War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt;
e)     October 1973 Yom Kippur war between Israel and Egypt/Syria; and
f)     Israel's June 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
g)     In 2001, the Jews of Israel declared war against the Palestinian refugees and has been at war ever since.
h)     July 2006, Israel-Lebanon war.

These wars are statements of guilt on the part of Israel being the 'US-milpost' and of the leadership of Israel being of military type, and that in fact, Israel is the Trojan Horse of the US for the invasion of the Middle East and neighboring nations, including China.

After each war America became gradually committed to the security and well-being of Israel. America maintained Israel's superiority over Muslims through regular infusions of money and arms, war products, war equipment, war planes, war ships, and weapons of mass destruction including nuclear. During the Cold War America had a strategic interest in containing Soviet influence and its expansion in the Middle East. The money and arms given to Israel was used to fend off challenges to American interests from radical, Islamic, and Soviet-backed forces. The American support of Israel was criticized by the Arab Middle East and the Islamic world and has fed the radical Islamic fundamentalist movements. Another strategic interest of the United States was the need to preserve access to two-thirds of the world's known petroleum reserves.

In the past, the Global Government of North America (GGNA) has given its support to Israel by accepting the State of Israel as a member nation of the GGNA. But now this is no longer the case. Israel is no longer a nation and had to be dropped from the group of nations forming the GGNA. Global Community Global Parliament has categorically rejected Israel.

A while back the Global Community offered to the Jewsih People to re-settle in Canada's North but again this is no longer possible. The Jewsih People would have to be re-educated to live as a global community, and that would be an impossible task.

In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth.

The Earth management of Nunavut is an asset to the Global Community and Canada. The Global Constitution shows us how it can be done with Global Law, the Earth Court of Justice, and how the Global Protection Agency (GPA) and the Agency of Global Police (AGP) can protect the territory. Global Community Arrest Warrants can be issued to anyone breaking Global Law.

The GCNA Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre is vigilant and quick in helping all life in need of help.

Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?"

We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.

Earth Government found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and  unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern,  a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

The business community can help to create a biodiversity zone in the North by changing its ways of doing things, and ways of doing business, and operate its business as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

Section 1 on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, the ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems, is concerned with the conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet.

The Global Community concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone as a birthright. 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.

Taxes should be designed to conserve resources and energy. Rather than taxing jobs and profits, taxes should be moved to resource use and energy consumption and to reward conservation. The community should benefit from the use of commonly held resources.

Taxes should be designed to increase employment. Moving taxes onto resources and land use and off of incomes should make people less expensive to employ. Products produced by green production methods, which tends to use fewer resources and less energy should avoid taxation. As energy costs rise, the price of labour becomes more economical, and green products which tend to encourage value-added processes, should provide more high quality, skilled jobs than resource intensive products.

Resource taxes should be assessed as early as possible. Resources should be taxed before entering the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects of the manufacturing process from extraction to the finished product. Increasing taxes on resource and energy use will encourage resource and energy efficiency, innovation, reuse, repair, recycling, and used material recovery.

So we see that these rights and the taxation of natural resources can each be used to create a biodiversity zone in Nunavut. The Inuit government and the Canadian government are invited to start the process of creating such zone.

The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.

Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources.

This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups such as:

  • Native and aboriginal people claiming that their ancestors owned the land so now they do

  • God gave it to us so the land is ours

  • Property ownership system of the Roman Empire to today, our social-economic system of land owership

  • The military power of this world forcing ownership of land and of all other Earth natural resources against the will of everyone else

None of the above groups can claim ownership of the land and other Earth natural resources. They never did own the land and of all other Earth natural resources. And they never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a community with the same. A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved.

The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

In larger part, the territory of Nunavut is not populated. The Global Community believes that it would be best to populate the territory. Canadians should be allowed to settle the territory. If no Canadians are brave enough to settle in the territory then people from all over the world shoud have the chance to do so.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.

The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any global community. Every community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights . On the other hand, representatives to the Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by the Global Community) that representatives to the Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form the Global Community.

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 global 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.

Perhaps now is time to elaborate more on responsibility and accountability of a global community. The Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act is a good start. This important legislation was approved by Global Parliament. The Act defines rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us must make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act. People from all nations of the world, and all National Governments, are invited to amend the document (read Press Release Feb. 26, 2006 ECO Award).

The spiritual belief, universal values, principles and aspirations of the Global Community will be attained by:

*     practicing tolerance and living together in peace and harmony with one another as neighbours,
*     promoting the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
*     maintaining peace and security in the world by using negotiations and peaceful means,
*     finding unity in diversity with all Life,
*     establishing the respect for the life-support system of the planet,
*     keeping Earth healthy, productive and hospitable for all people and living things, and
*     applying the principle that when there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has proposed a benchmark:

*     formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
*     getting ride of corruption at all levels of government
*     formation of the Global Protection Agency (GPA)
*     the establishment of the Agency of Global Police (AGP) to fight against the growing threat to the security of all Peoples, and to fight against global crimes
*     the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
*     Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person belonging to 'a global community' and to 'the Global Community'
*     an evolved global democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Global Constitution
*     a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
*     the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of governance and management of the Earth
*     a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
*     more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all
*     proposal to reform the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMF, E.U., NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
*     the Peace Movement of the Global Community and shelving of the war industry from humanity
*     a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects
*     the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations
*     establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights
*     Global Justice Movement for all Life
*     Movement for taxation on all Earth natural resources


Every single human being must deal responsibly with the affairs going on in his (her) own 'global community' ~ when a person takes personal responsibility for his own affairs ~ he becomes empowered as a person. He can then reach beyond his own property and family, and help to work with others living in and around, even a part of the local community he lives in ~ the villages, the town community, the surrounding territory, and so on.

The key is personal responsibility. Therefore the individual is the important element, one who takes responsibility for his community. This individual cares about jobs, homes, streets, the welfare and success of his community.

When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village, they can then find ways to bring these changes for all. There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be used. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, the courage to develop his own life for the better and for the good of all. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet now and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future.




Who owns the Nortwest Passage? What is Canada sovereignty in the North?
Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming, the effects of which have a direct impact on all life on Earth. Global warming due to human activities is contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps. The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030.

The Northwest Passage is a sea route near the North Pole that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In the past the Northwest Passage has been practically impassable because it was covered by thick, year-round sea ice. However, satellite and other monitoring confirm that the Arctic sea ice has been declining in both thickness and size. A significant reduction last summer indicates that the summer ice may disappear much sooner than expected. Canada urgently needs to understand better the processes involved. If it were to become more accessible to navigation and for longer portions of the year, the Northwest Passage would represent a potentially attractive and valuable commercial shipping route.

The economic value of a short waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was the subject of many early dreams. Over the centuries many attempts were made to find and explore the elusive Northwest Passage, and many expeditions were unsuccessful. The Northwest Passage was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6. Him and his crfew were the first to have successfully completed the sailing from Greenland to Alaska. In 1940, Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax. In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald. The Manhattan was a specially reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil. While the Manhattan succeeded, the route was deemed not cost effective and the Alaska Pipeline was built instead.

Roald Amundsen was the first over a century ago and between his journey and 1990 there was a total of 50. In the past few years, there have been about 8 crossings a year. But almost all of these have involved ships specially reinforced or icebreakers. The significance of the news last summer was that the entire passage was seen in satellite pictures to be clear of ice, making it possible for vessels to make it through.

Several countries, including the United States and Europe, have claimed that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway that should be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone.

Canada wants control of the Northwest Passage and have this control accepted by relevant international organizations. The Northwest Passage is part of Nunavut, a territory of Canada. Canadian sovereignty of Nunavut is itself very questionable. The ownership of the entire region of the North Pole is questionable.

All water routes through the Northwest Passage are located between the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On that basis, Canada claims the Passage as Canadian Internal Waters, and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control. And that means Canada has the right to set the rules over who gets to go through. A key concern is to avoid letting unsafe vessels sailing through the passage and risk a devastating oil spill in the fragile Arctic ecosystem and Canada would have to do the clean up.

However, this ownership claim has been disputed, especially by the United States and the European Union. They argued that the Northwest Passage represents international waters, which allows the right of transit passage, and that the Passage ought to be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone. In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage.

The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security.

Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.

Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the melting ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.

In 1951, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), is particularly important for Canada because the ruling shown some direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts. This ruling:
  • recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters, and
  • accepted a new method of measurement of territorial seas that Canada preferred.

This new method of measurement introduced the concept of straight baselines.

Rather than following the outline of a country’s land mass, as was the more traditional method, the straight baseline method allows a country with offshore islands and/or very jagged coastlines to calculate its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands or from island to island. One then connects the dots literally and the water behind the lines is designated internal waters while waters away from the line and toward open waters are considered territorial seas. Hence the term straight baseline. The old method of measurement (which is still used and favoured by the US) simply calculated the territorial seas from a baseline not exceeding twelve nautical miles from shore that traced the outline of the coast. Therefore the baseline would exactly match the seacoast (but twelve miles out toward sea). The area encompassing a country’s internal waters can be greatly increased by adopting the new method of calculation thus increasing the amount of water deemed internal and under the full authority and sovereignty of the coastal state.

The coastal state may pass laws it deems fit to control traffic and more importantly, no foreign ship may claim automatic right of passage.

This new method of measurement was reinforced seven years later at the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea. Canada, however, had still not adopted any national legislation to formally claim a historic right to the Passage because, the new jurisprudence was considered quite radical and, at the time, Canada was more preoccupied with protecting Canada’s fishing industry. As well, the anticipated reaction from the US to any formalizing of a Canadian position that the waters of the Arctic Archipelago were internal waters of Canada discouraged precipitate action.

Only in a few legal instances has the ownership of the North Pole region been given attention:

A) The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic. However, if a sufficient number of vessels transit the passage without seeking Canadian permission, Canada’s claims to the legal status of the passage could be challenged, as there would be an increasing claim and perception that the passage constitutes an international sea waterway. This international status would limit Canada’s ability to control these waters, especially in terms of rules governing environmental issues and shipping practices, which would potentially be governed by the International Maritime Organization. Most agree that ensuring control requires a stronger Government of Canada presence in the region, to monitor the passage and ensure compliance with Canadian sovereign claims.

B) In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

C) Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. These competing claims have never been finally settled in international law. In 1972, a team consisting of personnel from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel, working in the Nares Strait determined the geographic coordinates for Hans Island. During negotiations between Canada and Denmark on Northern maritime boundaries in 1973, Canada claimed that Hans Island was part of its territory. No agreement was reached between the two governments on the issue. Canada’s ability to show control over Hans Island represents a significant indicator of Canada’s ability to exercise sovereignty over its Arctic territory. The dispute over Hans Island may turn into a test case on territorial claims in the Arctic especially regarding the contested Northwest. A border between Canada and Greenland was established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.

D) In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. Navigation was difficult. The Manhattan was damaged during the voyage which may have planted the seed for Canada’s future pollution legislation. In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Conceived by Jean Chrétien, the sole purpose of the Act was to establish a one hundred-mile wide Arctic pollution control zone measured outward from the nearest Canadian land in which environmental controls to shipping practices and the protection of the marine environment were to be enforced by Canada. The Act was generally accepted by the international community. Canada’s thinking behind its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act with its emphasis on the uniqueness of the Arctic translated into the arctic exception - Article 234 that was adopted by the final UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, Article 234. In response, a U.S. foreign relations document from 1970 stated that the US cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada because such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.
Article 234 is shown below:

Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.


E) In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international waterway. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through. The agreement pledges that voyages of U.S. icebreakers will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada. The agreement did not alter either country’s legal position vis-à-vis the Arctic waters. With regard to the United States’ legal position, however, there have been some suggestions that U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway. Accordingly, Canada might be wise to manage the passage as a way of securing the North American perimeter.

F) Canada and the United States have disputed the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea, an area that potentially has strong oil and gas resources. Exploration licences and competing claims to jurisdiction could be an ongoing issue. Under the leadership of Jean Chrtien, Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. The United States has not ratified the UNCLOS, despite a vote in 2004 by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommending ratification.

G) In 1951, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), is particularly important for Canada because the ruling shown some direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts. This ruling:
  • recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters, and
  • accepted a new method of measurement of territorial seas that Canada preferred.

Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.

The difficulty for Canada is that many, including the Americans, believe insufficient resources and personnel have been dedicated to the Arctic to demonstrate a significant presence thereby weakening its sovereignty claim. Weak resources translate into a weak claim.

During the Cold War, lacking the finances and manpower, Canada had little choice but to turn to the United States for military presence and weapons. These collaborative defence efforts to guard against a common nuclear threat, while maximizing Canada’s security, also maximized Canada’s potential loss of sovereignty. This fact has not been forgotten.

The Arctic contains an estimated one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered energy resources, that is up to 50 per cent of the Earth’s remaining undiscovered reserves of hydrocarbons are located north of 60°n latitude.

Canada’s Arctic territory and waters have been given increasing attention as areas for the:
  • billions of dollars in transportation costs could be saved each year
  • vast mineral resources of the Canadian North will be much easier and economical to develop
  • ship routes from Europe to Japan, China and other eastern destinations would be 4000 kilometers shorter
  • exploration and shipping of resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and fish
  • eastern portion of the Northwest Passage is important from a commercial and a strategic standpoint as it means a significant economy of time and fuel
  • pristine waters of the North make up 10 per cent of the world's freshwater and will eventually become a hot international commodity worth more than oil
  • oil and gas pools under the frigid Arctic waters
  • oil produced in Alaska could move quickly by ship to eastern North American and European markets
  • besides pipelines, the Passage could represent an expedient way to transport large amounts of oil from the west to the east coast of Canada and the US
  • huge diamond deposits
  • minerals and metals that are just beneath the surface near Cambridge Bay
  • facilitate Canada's development of northern lands and provide an important economic and military possession
  • astonishing beauty of the North is itself a natural resource
  • glaciers are made of the purest drinking waters on Earth
  • vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders

After several multilateral conferences and meetings, Canada was able to get acceptance of its idea of custodianship to the world. Few nations recognized the US’s strong legal argument to designate the Passage as an international waterway, and Canada secured enough international support especially amongst the circumpolar Scandinavian states of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and most importantly, the Soviet Union to rejected the US international claim for a Canadian claim focused on custodianship. Canada was recognized by its environmental protection vision for the Passage without having to raise the sovereignty issue. This is further evidence of Canada’s assertion that the Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters. Canada has in fact staged the first global step toward the Earth management of natural resources. Earth management is something the Global Community has been promoting ever since 1985.

Regardless of sovereignty, protection of the environment is key and Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act does not cover many forms of natural pollution. Which means that any exploitation of resources via use of the Passage will not only impact Canada but also the other circumpolar states. Recognizing the limits of its pollution act, Canada has been a leader in establishing multilateral discussions amongst the various nations to discuss common threats and concerns. In Finland in 1996, the eight circumpolar states established an Arctic Council - an intergovernmental forum in which issues and concerns related to the environment, sustainable development, as well as social and economic considerations are addressed. This council can only function by putting sovereignty to the side in order to tackle the wider and common concerns of Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States.

At the moment there are several ways Canada’s Arctic presence is being applied:
  • The Canadian Coast Guard operates a fleet of five icebreakers that guide foreign vessels through Canada’s Arctic waters and assist in harbour breakouts, routing, and northern resupply. These icebreakers are often the only federal resource positioned in a particular area of the Arctic, and they must also serve in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic.
  • The Canadian Forces Northern Area (CFNA) is headquartered in Yellowknife. CFNA headquarters comprises 65 Regular Force, Reserve, and civilian personnel. CFNA military activities per year include two Sovereignty Operations (Army), two Northern Patrols (flights of Aurora patrol aircraft), 10-30 Sovereignty Patrols (CFNA), and one Enhanced Sovereignty Patrol. As part of the Canadian Forces Transformation, CFNA assumes a greater command and control function. CFNA is now the Northern regional headquarters of Canada Command.
  • Within the CFNA, the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group provides a military presence in northern and remote areas by conducting patrols, monitoring Canada’s northern territory, and collecting information. These part-time reservists comprise a significant element of Canada’s northern presence.
  • As part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Canada maintains a chain of unmanned radar sites, the North Warning System (NWS). The NWS provides limited aerospace surveillance of Canadian and United States Arctic territory. In addition, Canada’s Department of National Defence recently announced the creation of Project Polar Epsilon, which will provide all-weather, day/night [surface] observation of Canada’s Arctic region, using information from Canada’s RADARSAT 2 satellite, by May 2009.
  • As per the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, all vessels in the Northwest Passage are subjected to search for pollution control verification purposes; this way would-be terrorists, smugglers and criminals might consider an alternate route. Currently, vessels voluntarily declare their adherence to the conditions of the Act.

The Canadian Navy does not currently have the capacity to operate within the Arctic ice. Canada requires more all-season icebreaker capabilities in order to properly monitor and patrol the area.

Learning to live in harmony with our environment is a challenge that we all face today in the Northwest Passage. The Global Community has risen to this challenge and proposed sound solutions. The stewardship of our natural resources is a responsibility we all have. Sovereignty implies control, authority within a territory, and also implies responsibility, environmental protection, and maintenance of international security over that territory. Earth management is certainly an important part of sovereignty. The focus should be on the Earth management of the Northwest Passage. There are many aspects of Earth management:
  • Socioeconomic health of Inuit communities
  • Economic ethics and social environment
  • Inuit and Canadian Governments cooperation, partnership, and agreements
  • Circumpolar nations responsibility, cooperation and agreements
  • Government agencies and institutions
  • Financial issues
  • Protection and health of other life-form communities in the Passage
  • Environmental protection and conservation
  • North America security issues
  • Immigration issues
  • Natural resources protection, exploration, research and development
  • Mineral and energy resources exploration and development
  • Transportation and shipping issues
  • Emergency response, rescue and relief issues
  • Construction standards for tankers
  • Rules for safe sailing in the Passage
  • Aids for navigation, icebreaking, weather and ice forcasting
  • User fees
  • Compliance issues and liability for spills and other damages
  • Drug trafficking and other criminal activity issues
  • Clean-up issues, and
  • Water issues

We have seen so far that Canada's assertion of the Northwest Passage had to be substantiated by a proper Earth management of the Northwest Passage. Let us now take a look at how Earth management can be applied throughout Nunavut territory. Nunavut territory is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the south, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea to the east, and the Northwest Territories to the west. Its territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. It is almost 20% of Canada, and is larger than Alaska. Nunavut contains three regions—Kitikmeot, Kilvalliq (Keewatin) and Qikiqtani (formerly Baffin) — and 28 communities. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The land is in large part tundra, rock, frozen and snow-covered for more than half the year. Although there are rich mineral deposits, the lack of paved roads and an infrastructure, as well as the harsh climate, make the development of these resources difficult.

The capital and largest town (population 4,200) is Iqaluit on Baffin Island at Frobisher Bay. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth.

The Inuit lived in the Nunavut region for thousands of years before the first European explorers arrived searching for a Northwest Passage. For all but the last 250 years or so of their history, they were free to govern their lives and manage their territory and resources according to Inuit needs and traditional practices. With the arrival of explorers first from Europe and later from North America, the Inuit way of life started to change, and they have had to struggle very hard to maintain control over their culture, territory and resources. The Inuit are in Canada one of three groups of Aboriginal peoples. The other two are the First Nations and the Métis.

The Inuit people used to hunt the caribou, seals, and fish for food, most Inuit now live in small communities that depend on trapping, sealing, mining such as diamonds, and the production of arts and crafts for their livelihood. There is a small tourist trade, lured by the wildlife and vast space, as well as Inuit cultural attractions.

The separation of Nunavut from the Canadian Northwest Territories began with a 1992 territorial referendum in which the electorate approved the move as part of the largest native land-claim settlement in Canadian history. The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. The process concluded with the establishment of the new territory on April 1, 1999. The Nunavut land claims settlement, one of the most comprehensive and innovative land claims between an aborigine group and a state, gives the Inuit control over their economic, political, and cultural future. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut, $1.1 billion dollars in compensation, a share of mineral, oil, and gas development, the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands.

Nunavut has an elected 19 members assembly, which will assume all governing powers by 2009. Members of the assembly are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Paul Okalik, an Inuit, was elected by the assembly as Nunavut's first premier; he was reelected in 2004. The territory sends one senator and one representative to the national parliament.

The Nunavut government faces many challenges with high unemployment, low educational levels and little infrastructure. Some 90% of its budget currently comes from the Canadian government. There are no paved roads, and long-distance travel is largely by air.

The Inuit people face many issues including: aboriginal rights; concerns about both large scale development, especially the potential of oil exploration, and smaller scale or local development such as the establishment of northern tourism by outside interests; the need to formalize Inuit rights with respect to development and to establish appropriate mechanisms for Inuit participation, consultation and decision making powers; formulating policies, programmes and research for dealing with rights to territory and resources and concerns about the right to maintain traditional land use and harvesting practices.

In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.

The Inuit community has to be actively involved with both the Earth management of the Northwest passage and Nunavut territory. All of the above historical facts seem to indicate more than one way to reach the light at the end of the tunnel. What does the Government of Canada says today?

In October 16, 2007, Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, head of the Conservatives, said in his throne speech that his government will strengthen Canada’s Sovereignty.
"Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom. Our Government is resolved to uphold this heritage by protecting our sovereignty at home and living by our values abroad.

The Arctic is an essential part of Canada’s history. One of our Fathers of Confederation, D’Arcy McGee, spoke of Canada as a northern nation, bounded by the blue rim of the ocean. Canadians see in our North an expression of our deepest aspirations: our sense of exploration, the beauty and the bounty of our land, and our limitless potential.

But the North needs new attention. New opportunities are emerging across the Arctic, and new challenges from other shores. Our Government will bring forward an integrated northern strategy focused on strengthening Canada’s sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

To take advantage of the North’s vast opportunities, northerners must be able to meet their basic needs. Our Government will work to continue to improve living conditions in the North for First Nations and Inuit through better housing.

Our Government will build a world-class arctic research station that will be on the cutting edge of arctic issues, including environmental science and resource development. This station will be built by Canadians, in Canada’s Arctic, and it will be there to serve the world.

As part of asserting sovereignty in the Arctic, our Government will complete comprehensive mapping of Canada’s Arctic seabed. Never before has this part of Canada’s ocean floor been fully mapped.

Defending our sovereignty in the North also demands that we maintain the capacity to act. New arctic patrol ships and expanded aerial surveillance will guard Canada’s Far North and the Northwest Passage. As well, the size and capabilities of the Arctic Rangers will be expanded to better patrol our vast Arctic territory.

The Prime Minister talk may not mean much of anything new. In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. And again, in 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international strait. The Polar Sea expedition galvanized the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives of those years, to set out a policy for the North and to pledge to get a top-class Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol its northern border. The Polar 8 purchase was cancelled in 1989. No reason given!

During his time as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and head of the Liberals, Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration.

So Prime Minister Harper's throne speech does not add anything new to the problem Canadians have with sovereignty in the North and control of the Northwest Passage. And so far the Conservatives have never brought anything new that last more than a year or so. We remember that the purchase of the Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada northern border was cancelled in 1989 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives. If the Conservatives want to make a difference with Canada's sovereignty it better be a real one, not a fake one.

Furthermore, today's Prime Minister Harper, head of the Conservatives, has already spent several billion taxpayers dollars toward the military invasion of Afghanistan. If Canada wish to help the people of Afghanistan it would be better to offer them to resettle in Nunavut.

This Canadian spending helps President Bush in many ways. Bush needs an ally for his own invasion of the Middle East to gain control over the oil and gas resources. While the Canadians taxpayers are spending their money in Afghanistan, they are not spending money to gain control over the Canadian Northern Passage and strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the North. That is what the White House wants no matters who is at the helm, Republicans or Democrates alike. The US can see the immense benefits of the North: energy, fresh water, minerals, Northwest Passage, etc. They would not want a Canadian Prime Minister who would buy a Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada's northern border or spend real money to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic.

Bush wants a 'docile' Canadian Prime Minister he can tell what to do and what is good for the US.

Otherwise Bush might call a hostile Prime Minister, like Jean Chretien if he had been around today as PM, a terrorist, and send that terrorist to a foreign country to be tortured.

Bush never approved of the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act conceived and enacted by Jean Chrétien, a Liberal Prime Minister. Bush, a Republican, never approved of the Kyoto Protocol either, but then neither did Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, head of the Conservatives. Docile, docile, be docile, and I will grab the North, says Bush. God knows what will happen to the Environment if the White House keeps being what it is, a threat to Canada, to the world, and to the Global Community. Actually we know what is happening to the environment: global warming and climate change due to American activities.

And it is only going to get much, much worst. Bush says: first the invasion of Iraq to get its oil and gas, build permanent US military bases so Israel wont be needed anymore, then the invasion of Iran, and then Russia, India, and China to piss them off the Middle East. And then Canada's North! Wherever there are resources, including fresh water. Oopps! No! We will first ask Canada to spend more tax dollars to get rid of Russia, India, and China, and then we will invade Canada.

The surveys conducted in Iraq and in Afghanistan have absolutely no meaning. Any survey done at gunpoint has no meaning. When you ask a question to a villager, child, man or woman, about whether or not they like the military presence in their country, obviously they will say yes. I would. You bombed their country. You practically destroyed everything they had for their own survival. Your tanks are destroying their home, communities, and you are killing children, men and women in their country. What do you expect they would say if you ask them if they like you? They will say yes because they dont want anymore killing and destruction. What a farce those surveys. It is a total disgrace that politicians in Canada and in the US would use such surveys to help themselves win votes during an election.

Politics and North American media go hand in hand. The media helps electing politicians of their choice, usually those with most money, and the politicians use the media to promote their policies and ideas. If you find out who owns the media you will know who is in control of the nation. Certainly not the people!

Truly, the world is on the threshold of a global revolution, and needs to proceed with the non-violent approach. The Global Community needs to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.

The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must be based on the principle of equal rights to the Earth.

Territorial conflict has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars have been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflicts in the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is the birthright of all life.

The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few.

So the ownership of the land and the natural resources of Nunavut and the control of the Northwest Passage will be challenged by the international community. Canada needs of all its tax dollars to take on the challenge but first must get out of spending on the military invasion of Afghanistan.

Before we introduce the Global Community perspective, let us try to answer a few simple questions.

After all the technology in the world has been used to get to the Moon, and now Mars, all the hard work, all the sweat and pain endured, and more, much more, to finally put a flag on the Moon. Amazing human achievement! We can really be proud of a team that did it.

Just like the first European explorers who discovered America, they arrived and conquered. Natives did not have a chance. Natives said America was their home. But no longer! The explorers said it is now ours. Most Natives were shot in the USA. More survived in Canada! Explorers were not doing this hard work just for the pleasure of finding something new. Their countries sent them and pay for their expenses. Explorers were expected to find something tangible that could make their countries proud and rich.

How does this relate to Canada's sovereighty in the North?

The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?

Does putting a flag on the Moon gives you ownership of the Moon?

Does putting a flag on Mars gives you ownership of the planet?

Does discovering the Americas by explorers gave them ownership of the Americas?

Does climbing Mount Everest gives ownership of the mountain?

Does Canada own the Northwest Passage or Nunavut?

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

Does Denmark truly owns Greenland? Just because you say you do? Just because the Permanent Court of International Justice say you do? What if the Court was wrong or corrupted?

Canada says it owns the Northwest Passage and Nunavut but how is that possible? Just because Canada says it does? Or because the United Nations say it does? What if the UN is corrupted? or wrong?

Russian expedition Arktika 2007 made the first descent to the ocean bottom below the North Pole, and planted a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed. Submarines have in the past traveled below the Arctic ice cap, but this is the first time man has reached the seabed below the North Pole. The Mir-1 and a second Mir-2 submarine face the challenge of diving 13,980 feet (4,261 metres) deep, and then having to resurface at the exact location where they've submerged, because they are not strong enough to penetrate the ice themselves. The nuclear ice-breaker vessel Rossiya is keeping the ice open for the research ship and the submarines.

The expedition ship Akademik Fyodorov is carrying over 100 scientists to the North Pole. Apart from the purely scientific goal of a comprehensive study of the climate and seabed at the North Pole, this expedition may help Russia to enlarge its territory by more than one million square kilometers, the Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute said. Some Western politicians have portrayed the planting of Russia's flag on the seabed as Russia's territorial claim. Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark (through Greenland) have an Exclusive Economic Zone 200 miles north of their Arctic coastline, established under international laws. Russia is claiming a larger area, extending to the North Pole, saying that a continental shelf called the Lomonosov Ridge runs from Siberia on the Arctic seabed to the North Pole. As such, it would be an extension of Russian territory.

In 2001, Russia made a case with the United Nations to extend its boundaries to the Arctic, but the U.N. requested more scientific data to strengthen the Russian case. The current mission is collecting evidence to submit another request in 2009, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada and Denmark last year sent out a joint mission to establish whether the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories, and Norway is investigating this possibility too. Last May, U.S. senator Richard Lugar (Rep, Indiana) said that it would be difficult to negotiate about Russia's claims as long as the U.S. has not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any issues about Russia's claims would be resolved "in strict compliance with international law." The claimed territory could contain undiscovered natural resources such as oil and gas.

Here is another question to ask ourselves.

Does planting a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed gives Russia ownerhsip of any kind? Is that not like putting a flag on the Moon or on Mount Everest? The answer is no. Russia does not own whatever they claim they do own.

Does mapping the ocean floor gives you ownership of the land nearby? No it does not.

Just because you put a flag on the Moon means you own the Moon. It just does not work that way.

A dog, a bear, a wolf, and many other life species, leave 'something' at the bottom of a tree, a bush, a building, a park bench, but this does not mean the life species owns the tree, the forest, the park, the building or the town. People can leave a flag or whatever else, but that does not mean they own the Moon, planet Mars, Nunavut or Greenland.

Let us take another look at the legal instances where the ownership of the North Pole region have been given attention.

A) The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic. However, if a sufficient number of vessels transit the passage without seeking Canadian permission, Canada’s claims to the legal status of the passage could be challenged, as there would be an increasing claim and perception that the passage constitutes an international sea waterway.

B) In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

C) Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. These competing claims have never been finally settled in international law. A border between Canada and Greenland was established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. The United States has not ratified the UNCLOS, despite a vote in 2004 by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommending ratification.

So there two international organizations concerned with territorial sovereignty:

1) the International Court of Justice, and
2) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

and one organization concerned with the international maritime traffic: the International Maritime Organization.

Whatever rulings these organizations can come up with, they are only applicable by the nations who have signed in.

These rulings can be wrong. For instance, what gave the Permanent Court of International Justice the right to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. How can that be? The ruling is totally arbitrarily. Probably the Permanent Court of International Justice itself was especially created to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. There is corruption anywhere at all levels of government, and there can be corruption at the Court.

Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it.

Everyone remembers the Falkland Islands war. The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers. The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. The islands have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the British invasion of 1833. In pursuit of this claim in 1982, the islands were invaded by Argentina, precipitating the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of Argentine forces. Since the war there has been strong economic growth in both fisheries and tourism. The inhabitants of the islands are British citizens (since a 1983 Act) and under Argentine Law are eligible for Argentine citizenship. Many trace their origins on the islands to early 19th-century Scottish immigration. The islands' residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.

From the Global Community perspective the Falkland Islands truly belong to the inhabitants of the islands. There exist a strong sustainable community on the islands, and they dont need anyone's approval to keep living on the islands.

But in the case of Hans Island, no one live on the island. From the Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on Hans Island owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations.

Someday people from a nation will land on the Moon and on planet Mars for the purpose of settling a colony. They wont ask permission from anybody because there is no one there. People from another nation might do the same and settle a colony somewhere else on the Moon and Mars. There again they dont need to ask permission to do so. Things get more complicated when a nation is a predator nation like the first explorers of North America. There were people living on the continent. The explorers shut dead the natives when they got there. The explorers behave very much like predators. And the nations they represented were predator nations. A predator nation is behaving more or less like a shark eating smaller fishes. No organization in the world should be going along with such human behavior. Civilized people can live without killing others to survive. We dont need blood resources to survive. The global civilization we have created has called upon the Agency of Global Police (AGP) to deal with predator nations.


The Global Community perspective
Now let us deal with the problem of sovereignty over a territory. This should help us understand Canada's claim of sovereignty of Nunavut. The Global Community has established a criteria for a global community to exist.

What makes a 'nation'  ? And what makes 'a global community'  ?

A nation is defined primarily by its people, its communities; arts, history, social, languages, religious and cultural aspects included. Fundamentally a nation or a state is defined as "a politically unified population occupying a specific area of land".

Perhaps it is time to leave behind the concept of 'nation'. It has confusing meanings and has been over-used in many situations and by everyone. Is it truly necessary to discuss about it? I dont think so. Let us move on to the twenty first century. The Global Community has researched and developed new global concepts more appropriate to our times. The concept of 'a global community'
is one of them and is certainly a powerful new concept that will make its place in history.

A global community has a well defined criteria based on global symbiotical relationships. And it does not require the occupation of a specific area of land. These relationships allow a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

The definition of the Global Community is:

"The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below."


The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities.

Criteria for sovereignty
  • a global community is in place
  • the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
  • the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
  • a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community
  • a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life

Now that we have established the criteria of a global community with its responsibility and accountability, let us see the Global Community perspective concerning the Canadian sovereignty claim of the Northwest Passage and Nunavut.

Hans Island has no one living on the island so Canada or Denmark cannot claim sovereignty over the island. Most of Greenland and Nunavut are practically empty of people. Nunavut territory has a similar problem. It covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The capital and largest town (population 4,200) is Iqaluit on Baffin Island at Frobisher Bay. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut. So 82.4% of Nunavut is empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut. Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it.

Everyone remembers the Falkland Islands war. The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers. The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. From the Global Community perspective the Falkland Islands truly belong to the inhabitants of the islands. There exist a strong sustainable community on the islands, and they dont need anyone's approval to keep living on the islands.

But in the case of Hans Island, no one live on the island. From the Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on Hans Island owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations.



In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth.

The Earth management of Nunavut is an asset to the Global Community and Canada. The Global Constitution shows us how it can be done with Global Law, the Earth Court of Justice, and how the Global Protection Agency (GPA) and the Agency of Global Police (AGP) can protect the territory. Global Community Arrest Warrants can be issued to anyone breaking Global Law.

The GCNA Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre is vigilant and quick in helping all life in need of help.

Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.

We will not explain here why we need to have a biodiversity zone in the North because I believe most people know why it is necessary and must be done. But we will show it can be done. The fundamental definition of the "Global Community" includes all people, all life on Earth. The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities of all life-forms. It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. The land ownership of the Earth means ownership of the land and of all other Earth natural resources.

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?"

The following backgroung information was taken from the Global Constitution. These passages give us the processes by which we can create a biodiversity zone in the North.

We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.

Earth Government found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and  unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern,  a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

The business community can help to create a biodiversity zone by changing its ways of doing things, and ways of doing business, and operate its business as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

The Scale of Human and Earth Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on.

Concerning sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Earth Government highest priority to guarantee these rights to Member Nations and to have proper lesgislation and implement and enforce global law as it applies.

Section  1.    Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems

Section  2.    Primordial human rights

  • safety and security
  • have shelter
  • 'clean' energy
  • a 'clean' and healthy environment
  • drink fresh water
  • breath clean air
  • eat a balance diet and
  • basic clothing.

Section  3.    The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

Concerning Sections 4, 5 and 6, it shall be the aim of Earth Government to secure these other rights for all global citizens within the federation of all nations, but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the Earth Government to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.

Section  4.    Community rights, rights of direct democracy, the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically

Section  5.    Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)

Section  6.    Cultural rights and religious rights

Section 1, the ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems, is concerned with the conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet.

Section 1 has also dealt with the rights that the Global Community has in protecting the global life-support systems

Earth rights are ecological rights and the rights that the Global Community has in protecting the global life-support systems. Earth rights are those rights that demonstrate the connection between human well-being and a sound environment. They include individuals and global communities human rights and the rights to a clean environment, and participation in development decisions. We define ecological rights as those rights of the ecosystem of the Earth beyond human purpose. They are those rights that protect and preserve the ecological heritage of the Earth for future generations. The biggest challenge for social democracy today is to articulate coherent policies based on a unifying vision for society.

The Global Community concept of ownership, states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone as a birthright. 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.

Taxes should be designed to conserve resources and energy. Rather than taxing jobs and profits, taxes should be moved to resource use and energy consumption to reward conservation. The community should benefit from the use of commonly held resources.

Taxes should be designed to increase employment. Moving taxes onto resources and land use and off of incomes should make people less expensive to employ. Products produced by green production methods, which tends to use fewer resources and less energy should avoid taxation. As energy costs rise, the price of labour becomes more economical, and green products which tend to encourage value-added processes, should provide more high quality, skilled jobs than resource intensive products.

Resource taxes should be assessed as early as possible. Resources should be taxed before entering the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects of the manufacturing process from extraction to the finished product. Increasing taxes on resource and energy use will encourage resource and energy efficiency, innovation, reuse, repair, recycling, and used material recovery.

So we see these rights and the taxation of natural resources can each be used to create a biodiversity zone in Nunavut. The Inuit government is invited to start the process of creating such zone.

The definition of the Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. This is the fundamental definition of the expression Global Communit It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. Evolution, Creation and now, Guiding Souls

Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.

Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources.

This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups such as:

  • Native and aboriginal people claiming that their ancestors owned the land so now they do

  • God gave it to us so the land is ours

  • Property ownership system of the Roman Empire to today, our social-economic system of land owership

  • The military power of this world forcing ownership of land and of all other Earth natural resources against the will of everyone else

None of the above groups can claim ownership of the land and other Earth natural resources. They never did own the land and of all other Earth natural resources. And they never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth.

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

The Global Community has many expert groups able to begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.

Earth Government has established the criteria of 'a global community of a million people'. There is no need of having a piece of land at all costs. We have shown that a community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical global community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or it can be people with different values, cultural background or religious values and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one global community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.

The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic.

We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a community with the same. A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved.

The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

In larger part, the territory of Nunavut is not populated. The Global Community believes that it would be best to populate the territory. Canadians should be allowed to settle the territory. If no Canadians are brave enough to settle the territory then people from all over the world shoud have the chance to do so.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.

This is not an easy call. Many times in the past the Global Community has asked the people of Israel to settle in Nunavut but we never got an answer. It just seemed that they would rather to continue to be at war with the people of the Middle East and surrounding nations whom, we know, dont want them in Palestine, then to move in the richest and most peaceful country in world.



There are many instances where the Earth Court of Justice could be successful.

The Global Community is inviting Palestinians and Jews of Israel to the global dialogue to create sustainable communities and a permanent peace movement in the land through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. In 1947, the United States found it easy to coerce the United Nations in creating the State of Israel. The effect of creating a new nation in this way was to promote once again the Roman Empire concept: land is all that counts, and that a border around the land is all that is needed to create a community. That's the wrong way of thinking. A community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. There is no need of a high wall around your land. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The UN had no right to create the State of Israel. They forced their way into a one billion Muslims and have done ever since. The UN along with the United States and Israel, are an invading force, a colonization drive in the same way as the British have done after World War I. The UN committed an illegal and arbitrary act by creating the State of Israel.

Israel no longer qualifies to represent a global community. It cannot be called a nation either. A nation is defined primiraly by its people, its communities, and it has a properly established government. Israel is run by a military leader who, at the moment, is you, Major General Dan Halutz. Ever since its creation by the United Nations in 1947, Israel has been at war for the gradual invasion of the Middle East by the United States. It has been given continuous amounts of money, arms, war products and equipment, war planes, weapons of mass destruction, and has used them. Therefore, Israel is a military organization and has nothing to do with a People forming a government and a nation, much less a democracy, and even less a global community.

The Earth Court of Justice will be created in the Middle East for the purpose of deciding on the legality of the State of Israel and the creation of the State of Palestine. Members of this higher Court will be chosen to reflect the Peoples involved here.



The emphasis of a global symbiotical relationship is not so much on how much money a nation should have or how high a GDP should be although money can be made a part of the relationship. We all know developed countries live off developing countries so the emphasis has no need to stress out the profit a rich nation is making off a poor nation. The emphasis of the relationship should give more importance to the other aspects such as quality of life, protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems, the entrenchment of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and Global Law into our ways of life, justice, peace, cultural and spiritual freedom, security, and many other important aspects as described in the global ministries (health, agriculture, energy, trade, resources, etc.).

The Global Community has shown that a global community can be united by religion to form a Global Government (GG). It does not have to be a democracy. A GG based on religion is very acceptable to Earth Government. People can unite in any way they wish.

The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world.

The number of people making a typical global community becomes important when a democratic election to elect representatives to the Global Community is going on. The voting system of the Global Community is very simple and practical. One representative per million people. A global community of 300 million people would have three hundred representatives.

The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any global community. Every community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights . On the other hand, representatives to the Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by the Global Community) that representatives to the Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form the the Global Community.

Perhaps now we could reflect on how things are done in the Middle East, say for example the people of Saudi Arabia, and take a look at their political system.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Prince is second in line to the throne.

The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet. Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as foreign affairs, education and finance.

The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing ones. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year terms that can be renewed.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons. There are also courts in the Kingdom. The largest are the Shari’ah Courts, which hear most cases in the Saudi legal system.

During the 1950s and 1960s, twenty government ministries were founded. The Council of Ministers, in conjunction with the King, formed the executive and legislative branches of the government.

This was the first step taken towards formalizing the long-established Islamic system of popular consultation, which has always been practiced by Saudi rulers. In the Majlis, weekly meetings that are open to all, members of the general public can approach the King and leaders at the local, provincial and national levels to discuss issues and raise grievances.

Beginning in the early 1970s, Saudi Arabia launched highly successful five-year development plans to set up a modern physical, social and human infrastructure. The rapid modernization of Saudi Arabia led to a re-evaluation of the country's political and administrative system.

By the 1990s, just as had his father before him, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd bin Abdulaziz felt the need to revitalize the existing political system. The primary goal was to streamline the system to deal with the requirements of the nation on the verge of the 21st century. Taking into consideration the Kingdom's role in the Islamic world as well as its traditions and social fabric, the changes were made in total adherence to the Islamic religion.

In 1992, King Fahd introduced a new Basic Law for the System of Government, and regulations for the Provincial System and Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative Council). The following year, he announced bylaws for the Council of Ministers System. In October 2003, the cabinet approved procedures for the election of half of the members of the municipal councils, as a start towards greater participation of the citizens in the governing of their country.

Now surely this system of government is good, not perfect but good. It is good for as long as the people of Saudi Arabia want to keep it that way. It also has possibilities for improvement. And this is when the criteria of a global community becomes useful. The adoption of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights would definitely be an improvement.

Saudi Arabia can also be united with other nations to form a global government. That will be their decision.

The power of the Global Community was de-centralized to give each GG a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation.The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and the Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. A typical example is the Global Government of North America (GGNA) can be made of willing Member Nations such as Canada, the United States, Mexico, Great britain, the Territories, and include the North Pole region.

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 global 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 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.
Global Community of North America (GCNA) Emergency, Rescue, and Relief Centre

In case of an environmental disaster or of any king of emergency in the North, the Global Community is offering services such as those shown here:
  • Provide basic medical care: Its tented medical aid station can serve up to 250 outpatients and 10 inpatients a day. The medical platoon treats minor injuries and tries to keep diseases from spreading, but doesn't perform surgeries. The aid station includes a lab, a pharmacy, limited obstetrics services and rehydration and preventative medicine section.
  • Produce safe drinking water: Water purification staff can produce up to 50,000 litres of potable water a day, as well as chlorinating local wells and monitoring water supplies.
  • Repair basic infrastructure: Engineers can fix roads and bridges, repair electrical and water supply systems and build refugee camps.
  • Make communication easier: DART sets up facilities to make communication easier between everyone involved in the relief effort, including the afflicted country, non-governmental organizations and UN aid agencies.
  • Provide environmental clean up and decommissioning

Perhaps now is time to elaborate more on responsibility and accountability of a global community. The Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act is a good start.

The peoples of all Nations, in creating an ever closer Earth Government among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, Earth Government is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the Global Community citizenship of Earth Government and by creating an era of freedom, security and justice.

Earth Government contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of all Nations as well as the national identities of Member Nations and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in this Constitution.

The Global Constitution reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of Earth Government and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to Member Nations, the Scale of Social Values, or Scale of Human and Earth Rights, adopted by Earth Government and by the Global Council of all Nations and the case law of the Earth Court of Justice of Earth Government and of the Global Court of Human and Earth Rights. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations. Earth Government therefore recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out hereafter.

We the Peoples of the Global Community are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and smalll. We the Peoples implies every individual on Earth. Earth management and good governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. The Global Community has taken action by calling the Divine Will into our lives and following its guidance. Divine Will is now a part of the Soul of Humanity to be used for the higher purpose of good and Life's evolution. We will learn to serve humanity and radiate the Will of God to others. We will establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and we promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

The spiritual belief, universal values, principles and aspirations of the Global Community will be attained by:

*     practicing tolerance and living together in peace and harmony with one another as neighbours,
*     promoting the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
*     maintaining peace and security in the world by using negotiations and peaceful means,
*     finding unity in diversity with all Life,
*     establishing the respect for the life-support system of the planet,
*     keeping Earth healthy, productive and hospitable for all people and living things, and
*     applying the principle that when there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

Realizing that:

*    the Global Community today has come to a turning point in history, and that we are on the threshold of new global order leading to an era of peace, prosperity, justice and harmony;

*    there is an interdependence of people, nations and all life;

*    humanity's abuse of science and technology has brought the Global Community to the brink of disaster through the production of weaponry of mass destruction and to the brink of ecological and social catastrophe;

*    the traditional concept of security through military defense is a total illusion both for the present and for future generations;

*    misery and conflicts has caused an ever increasing disparity between rich and poor;

*    we, as Peoples, are conscious of our obligation to posterity to save the Global Community from imminent and total annihilation;

*    the Global Community is One despite the existence of diverse nations, races, creeds, ideologies and cultures,

*    the principle of unity in diversity is the basis for a new age when war shall be outlawed and peace prevail; when the earth's total resources shall be equitably used for human welfare; and when basic human and Earth rights, responsibilities and accountabilities shall be shared by all without discrimination; and

*    the greatest hope for the survival of life on Earth is the establishment of a democratic Earth Government.

We, citizens of the Global Community, hereby resolve to establish a federation of all nations, Earth Government, to govern in accordance with this Global Constitution.

The purposes of Earth Government for the Global Community are to:

1.     maintain international peace and security in conformity with the principles of justice and global law;

2.     promote friendly relations among nations, individuals and communities based on:

*     respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of Peoples; and

*     symbiotical relationships;

3.     promote global co-operation to:

*     find sound solutions to economic, social, cultural, humanitarian, local and global community problems; and

*     establish respect for human and Earth rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.


4.     be a home and a global community centre to all nations, people and local communities and help them harmonize their actions to achieve their common goals.

5.     promote worldwide awareness of:

a)     the "Beliefs, Values, Principles and Aspirations" of Earth Government, which constitute the Preamble and Chapter 1 to Chapter 10 inclusive;
b)     global symbiotical relationships amongst people, institutions, cities, provinces and nations of the world, and between Earth Government and all nations, and in the business sector, which constitute Chapters 20.24 and 23.3.2;
c)     global societal sustainability, which constitutes Chapter 4.4 of this Constitution;
d)     good Earth governance and management, which constitute Chapter 6.3.2 of this Constitution;
e)     the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, which constitutes Chapter 10 of this Constitution;
f)     the Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a Person and of the Global Community, which constitutes Chapter 6.3 of this Constitution;
g)     the Criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship, which constitutes Chapters 6.1 and 6.2 of this Constitution;
h)     consistency between the different policies and activities of Earth Government, which constitutes Chapter 15 of this Constitution; and
i)     a global market without borders in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capitals is ensured in accordance with this Constitution, which constitutes Chapter 16 of this Constitution;
j)     the new ways of doing business in the world, which constitutes Chapters 16 and 17;
k)     the Celebration of Life Day on May 26 of each year, which constitutes Chapter 20.7 of this Constitution;
l)     the finding of an Earth flag, which constitutes Chapter 20.8 of this Constitution;
m)     the ECO Award, which constitutes Chapter 20.9 of this Constitution;
n)     the Portal of the Global Community, which constitutes Chapter 20.10 of this Constitution; and
o)     the concept of a Global Dialogue, which constitutes Chapter 20.11 of this Constitution.

Earth Government shall reinforce humanity's new vision of the world throughout the millennium.



Vision of the  Global  Community in year 2024


Humanity's new vision of the world is about seeing human activities on the planet through:

a)     the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;

b)     the Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person and the Global Community; and

c)     building global symbiotical relationships between people, institutions, cities, provinces and nations of the world.


For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has proposed a benchmark:

*     formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
*     getting ride of corruption at all levels of government
*     the establishment of Global Police to fight against the growing threat to the security of all Peoples, and to fight against global crimes
*     the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
*     Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person belonging to 'a global community' and to 'the Global Community'
*     an evolved global democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Global Constitution
*     a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
*     the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of governance and management of the Earth
*     a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
*     more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all
*     proposal to reform the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMF, E.U., NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
*     the Peace Movement of the Global Community and shelving of the war industry from humanity
*     a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects
*     the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations
*     establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights





We can no longer perceive ourselves as a People who could survive alone and a People who does not need anyone else. We belong and depend to this much larger group, that of the Global Community. The 21st Century will see limitless links and interrelationships within the Global Community. That is the 'raison d'etre' of the Global Governments Federation. Someday the State of Palestine will a part of a Global Government (GG). The power of Global Community was de-centralized to give each GG a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation. The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world.

Every single human being must deal responsibly with the affairs going on in his (her) own 'global community' ~ when a person takes personal responsibility for his own affairs ~ he becomes empowered as a person. He can then reach beyond his own property and family, and help to work with others living in and around, even a part of the local community he lives in ~ the villages, the town community, the surrounding territory, and so on.

The key is personal responsibility. Therefore the individual is the important element, one who takes responsibility for his community. This individual cares about jobs, homes, streets, the welfare and success of his community.

When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village. They can then find ways to bring these changes for all. There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be used. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, the courage to develop his own life for the better and for the good of all. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet now and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future.

Perhaps now we should introduce some important members of the Global Community: the global civil society, the Earth Community, the human family, Earth Government, all different ways of expressing the same people. Most of the time many politicians representing their citizens at the United Nations have no knowledge, experience, and understanding of global problems. They seek advise from others, and these 'others' are always members of the global civil society. Yet politicians make global decisions or the lack of them during meetings. Politicians become actors on the world scene. Actors taken jobs they are not always qualified to take in reality. They make decisions and they dont understand consequences. In effect, politicians are threatening the security of all people and all life on Earth. And that is the 'raison d'etre' of the House of Advisors in Global Community. You will be required to send representatives to your House of Advisors.

The global civil society is made of people from all aspects of life who have a greater understanding of the problem whatever it may be. The global civil society is the mind, heart and Soul of humanity, the human family. They maybe NGOs, businesses, agencies, scientists and professionals, religious groups, or other groups. They should have a voting right during all meetings of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. They are given an important status in Global Community.

Global Community has given back responsibility to every citizen on Earth. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of life within the Global Community. We will work together in working out sound solutions to local and global problems. It would be wrong and dishonest to blame it all on the leader of a country. Most problems in the world must find solutions at the local and global community levels (and not assume that the leader alone is responsible and will handle it). There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be utilized. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, and encouraged to develop his or her own life for the better. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. Everyone can think of better ideas to sustain all life on Earth and realize these ideas by conducting positive and constructive actions. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss; that is the grassroots process. Global Community can help you realize your actions by coordinating efforts efficiently together.

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. Justice is a universal value for anyone, anywhere, and in any situations. By creating the State of Israel, the United Nations have perpetuated the archaic concept of land ownership, a concept that is threatening security in the world and all life on Earth. The UN never had a human criteria for the creation of a new nation. Now they are forcing another one to the Palestinians by arbitrarily creating the State of Palestine. Only the Earth Court of Justice can re-evaluate the creation of the State of Israel and evaluate the application for the creation of the State of Palestine. All nations have to be educated of the new way for the good of all.


Global Community is promoting that the creation of a new nation does not have to be at the expenses of human lives and destruction of an entire world. It can and should always be done through a decision made by a higher Court. We are promoting the immediate use of this higher Court, the Earth Court of Justice to hear cases and to prosecute those nations, corporations, communities, individuals who commit crimes such as:
*     nation states
*     national political and military leaders accountable for violations of international humanitarian law
*     'core' crimes of genocide
*     crimes against humanity and human and Earth rights
*     war crimes
*     crimes with significant impacts perpetuated against the life-support systems of the planet (for instance wars and use of weapons of widespread destruction are listed under this category)
*     crimes related to the relentless misused of the Earth resources
*     environmental crimes
*     social crimes as the Court may see apply
*     crimes stemming from the global ministries

The Court will also be asked to decide on

*     the formation of a new nation in the world,
*     on disputed lands between nations,
*     the de-institutionalization of market speculation, and
*     the annulment of the debt of poor or 'developing' nations as the loans are actually a form of global tax given by the rich nations to the poorer ones. The IMF and World Bank loans are called taxes from the rich nations paid to the 'developing' nations; these loans/taxes are really a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and 'developing' countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. These loans/taxes are not to be paid back to the rich nations.

The Court decides in accordance with:

*     the Scale of Human and Earth Rights,
*     the Global Constitution
*     Global Law
*     the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act
*     the belief, values, principles and aspirations of Global Community,
*     international treaties and conventions in force,
*     international custom,
*     the general principles of law, and
*     as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.

Mr. Secretary General, I did not get into politics to get a title or position. I got into politics to fight for the things I believe in. As President, I lead by example. I have already begun the process of fixing the system by legislating and enforcing the Global Community Responsibility and Accountability Act – a specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up bad global governance in the world. The U.N. is bad governance.

Accountable government is what humanity needs. The Global Community deserves nothing less.

A very important legislation is the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act which, after its approval by Global Parliament, will define rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us will make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act. The final document will be brought forward for approval during the Tenth Global Meeting of the Global Community Earth Government, Fall 2006. People from all nations of the world, and all National Governments, are invited to amend the document proposed here today  (read Press Release Feb. 26, 2006 ECO Award).

The U.N. and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:

1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; and
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations.

Seeing such a mess, Global Community had no other choice than to research and develop the Global Constitution, and to enforce Global Law.

Global Community had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity.

Global Community has established the criteria of 'a global community of a million people'. There is no need of having a piece of land at all costs. Global Community has shown that it was wrong and illegal to create the State of Israel. Let us not make the same mistake in creating the State of Palestine without a due process. Let Global Community help you here.

We have shown that a community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise as was done by the United States and the United Nations with Israel. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Israel was created by the United Nations because the United Nations still operate following precepts that were brougth forward 2000 years ago by the Roman Empire. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a community with the same. You should seek forming a Global Government (GG) with nations of similar beliefs and interests. We should seek to de-centralize the U.N. by creating GGs.

By creating the State of Israel, the United Nations have perpetuated the archaic concept of land ownership, a concept that is threatening security in the world and all life on Earth. The UN never had a human criteria for the creation of a new nation. Now they are forcing another one to the Palestinians by arbitrarily creating the State of Palestine. Only the Earth Court of Justice can re-evaluate the creation of the State of Israel and evaluate the application for the creation of the State of Palestine. All nations have to be educated of the new way for the good of all.

Global Community is inviting Palestinians and Jews of Israel to the global dialogue to create sustainable communities and a permanent peace movement in the land through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. In 1947, the United States found it easy to coerce the United Nations in creating the State of Israel. The effect of creating a new nation in this way was to promote once again the Roman Empire concept: land is all that counts, and that a border around the land is all that is needed to create a community. That's the wrong way of thinking. A community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. There is no need of a high wall around your land. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The UN had no right to create the State of Israel. They forced their way into a one billion Muslims and have done ever since. The UN along with the United States and Israel, are an invading force, a colonization drive in the same way as the British have done after World War I. The UN committed an illegal and arbitrary act by creating the State of Israel.

The Earth Court of Justice will be created in the Middle East for the purpose of deciding on the legality of the State of Israel and the creation of the State of Palestine. Members of this higher Court will be chosen to reflect the Peoples involved here.

Everyone of those communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.




Conclusion
The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. They have the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands. In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely. The Inuit community has to be actively involved with both the Earth management of the Northwest passage and Nunavut territory. How come when there is an immense area of land to settle in such as in Nunavut, no one, including Canada, the USA, and United Nations say anything at all. Complete silence!

In fact most of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are practically empty of people. Farmers left their land for the cities. So the land is not producing anything useful and settlers from all over the world should be allowed to come in. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world. You own property because the owners could not pay. Use that property, or share it or lose it.

Creating global communities in Nunavut would give Canada a strong position to obtain the sovereignty of the territory it never truly had. Just because you say it is yours means it is. Just because someone put a flag on Mount Everest, the Moon or on Mars means that someone owns the mountain, the Moon or planet Mars.

The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of economic and military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries. Democracy is an excuse to gain control over those resources by mega corporations. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. To gain control of the Northwest Passage, Canada would have to show strong Earth management initiatives and not making empty promises like Brian Mulroney with his Polar 8 icebraker. We remember the purchase of the Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada northern border was cancelled in 1989 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives. If the Conservatives want to make a difference with Canada's sovereignty it better be a real one, not a fake one. History is telling now. The Conservative PM is more preoccupied with the illegal invasion of Afghanistan than Canada's sovereignty in the North and the protection of its environment. During his time as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, and head of the Liberals at the time, Canada has spent $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. That money and its positive impact on Canada's sovereignty, was more than Brian Mulroney and the PM together have ever spent toward Canada sovereignty.

Global Community criteria for sovereignty:
  • a global community is in place
  • the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
  • the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
  • a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community
  • a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life
  • Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources
Without this criteria no one can claim ownership - sovereignty - of both Nunavut and the Northwest Passage.

In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth.

Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.

The Earth management of Nunavut is an asset to the Global Community and Canada. The Global Constitution shows us how it can be done with Global Law, the Earth Court of Justice, and how the Global Protection Agency (GPA) and the Agency of Global Police (AGP) can protect the territory. Global Community Arrest Warrants can be issued to anyone breaking Global Law.

The GCNA Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre is vigilant and quick in helping all life in need of help.

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?"

We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.




Background research for this paper: historical facts, principles, standards, articles, ways of doing things in the past, issues, etc.
Canada Northwest Passage geographical site    
Canada Northwest Passage geographical site
History of the Northwest Passage    History of the Northwest Passage
Dispute over Hans Island     Dispute over Hans Island
Canada - United States Northwest Passage water dispute    Canada - United States Northwest Passage water dispute
Natural resources of the North    Natural resources of the North
Environmental protection    Environmental protection
North America security and strategic issues    North America security  and strategic issues
Requirements of an international sea waterway    Requirements of an international sea  waterway
Canadian sovereignty of the Northwest Passage and Nunavut    Canadian sovereignty of the Northwest Passage and Nunavut
Management of the Northwest Passage    Management of the Northwest Passage
The Canadian Inuit community and Nunavut    The Canadian Inuit community and Nunavut
Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut    Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage
Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut    Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut
Criteria for a global community to exist    Criteria for a global community to exist
The Earth, and all its natural resources, are owned by the Global Community, along with all the "global communities" contained therein     The Earth,  and all its natural resources, are owned by the Global Community, along with  all the
Global Community of North America (GCNA)     Global Community of North America (GCNA)
The building of Global Communities for all life    The building of Global Communities for all life
To create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources    To create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources
GCNA Global Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre (GERRC)    GCNA Global Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre (GERRC)
Global Protection Agency (GPA)     Global Protection Agency (GPA)
Agency of Global Police (AGP)     Agency of Global Police (AGP)
Becoming a global citizen     Becoming a global citizen
Participate in group discussions on global issues related to Nunavut and the Northwest Passage    Participate in group discussions on global issues related to Nunavut and the Northwest Passage
The Falklands War, also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the disputed Falkland Islands    The Falklands War, also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the disputed Falkland Islands
Promoting the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut    Promoting the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut
Russia claims North Pole by planting a flag on seabed August 2, 2007     Russia claims North Pole by planting flag on seabed August 2, 2007
Website of the Global Community of Nunavit    Website of the Global Community of Nunavit
No one could own the Moon, planet Mars, or America just by going there and back     No one could own the Moon, planet  Mars, or  Americajust by going there and back
No one could own Mount Everest in the Himalayas just by climbing to the top     No one could own Mount Everest in the Himalayas just by climbing to the top
Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia    Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia
Who owns the Earth? Movement for taxation of all Earth natural resources    Who owns the Earth? Movement for taxation of all Earth natural resources
Global Protection Agency (GPA)    Global Protection Agency (GPA)
To shut down the war industry    To shut down the war industry
Israel is not a Global Community    Israel is not a Global Community
Deep integration of Canada by the United States    Deep integration of Canada by the United States
Maps    Maps

 
Canada Northwest Passage geographical site

Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming, the effects of which have a direct impact on fragile ecosystems. It is contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps and that will open the Northwest Passage to increased shipping activity.

Beside the global warming of the planet, there is another factor that contributes to warming of the waters in the Arctic It is the increase in discharge rates from melting glaciers. This runoff is much warmer than the Arctic Ocean water. The net result is a slight warming of the Arctic Ocean waters and a dilution of salinity.

The Northwest Passage is a sea route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

From the east coast of Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, the Northwest Passage runs through waterways such as the Davis pass and Baffin Bay. From there on there are seven different channels, collectively known as the Northwest Passages, to get to the west coast but not all of them are good for large ships. Only two channels are considered accessible to large ships. All of them are a part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and they include the Prince of Wales pass, Dease pass and the McClure pass. Then the Passage runs through Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and, finally, the Bering Strait that separates Russia and Alaska, to the Pacific Ocean.

In the past the Northwest Passage has been practically impassable because it was covered by thick, year-round sea ice. However, satellite and other monitoring confirm that the Arctic sea ice has been declining in both thickness and size. For over a decade, satellite images taken near the end of the Arctic summer often show that large portions of the Passage are almost ice free. In September of 2006, these images showed that the Arctic Ocean was free to sail directly to the North Pole from northern Europe. In the summer of 2007, the area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level. There was a drop of 1 million sq km of ice cover in just one year. The Northwest Passage was opened for sailing. This extreme reduction in just one year indicates that the summer ice may disappear much sooner than expected, and that Canada urgently needs to understand better the processes involved.

Several countries, including the United States and Europe, have claimed that the Northwest Passage is an international strait that should be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone.

If it were to become more accessible to navigation and for longer portions of the year, the Northwest Passage would represent a potentially attractive and valuable commercial shipping route.


Back to top of page

 
History of the Northwest Passage

Inuit living in Northern Greenland or Canada had likely crossed this area for centuries. Up to the early 19th century, the northern area of Greenland and Canada remained completely unexplored by Europeans.

The economic value of a short waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was the subject of many early dreams. English explorers, including Martin Frobisher, John Davis and Henry Hudson searched for it from the Atlantic side in the late 1500's and early 1600's. These expeditions were unsuccessful.

Explorations continued through the 1600's and 1700's without success. Then in 1849 Robert McClure passed through the Bering Strait with the intent of sailing through to the Atlantic. His ship was trapped in the ice not far from making it to Viscount Melville Sound and probable passage to the Atlantic. After spending three winters on the ice McClure and crew were rescued by a sledge party from one of Sir Edward Belcher's ships and transported by to the Sound. McClure and his crew became the first to survive a trip through the Northwest Passage.

From 1850 to 1880, the area in which Hans Island is situated was explored by American and British expeditions. Reasons of these expeditions were to search for the missing British explorer John Franklin, and for the elusive Northwest Passage.

The Danish "Celebration Expedition" of 1920 to 1923 accurately mapped the whole region of the Northern Greenland coast from Cape York (Kap York) to Denmark Sound (Danmark fjord).

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

Since the 1960s, a few surveys have been made in the Nares Strait region: ice flow, seismic, mapping, archeological and economic surveys. From 1980 to 1983, Canadian-based Dome Petroleum Ltd. investigated the movement of ice masses and also made surveys on and around Hans Island.

In 1972, a team consisting of personnel from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel, working in the Nares Strait determined the geographic coordinates for Hans Island. During negotiations between Canada and Denmark on Northern maritime boundaries in 1973, Canada claimed that Hans Island was part of its territory. No agreement was ever reached between the two governments on the issue.

The border is established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.

The Northwest Passage was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6. Him and his crfew were the first to have successfully completed a path from Greenland to Alaska in the Gjøa. Although the crossing was an important "first" it had little economic value because the journey took three years and used waters that were too shallow for commercial shipping. Since that date, a number of ice-fortified ships have made the journey.

The first traversal of the Northwest Passage via dog sled was accomplished by Greenlander Knud Rasmussen while on the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921-1924). Rasmussen, and two Greenland Inuit, traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the course of 16 months via dog sled.

In 1940, Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax. In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald. The Manhattan was a specially reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil. While the Manhattan succeeded, the route was deemed not cost effective and the Alaska Pipeline was built instead.

In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep waterway route of the Passage. They covered the 4,500 miles of semi-charted water in 64 days.

Roald Amundsen was the first over a century ago and between his journey and 1990 there was a total of 50. Since then there have been roughly the same number again. In the past few years, there have been about 8 crossings a year. But almost all of these have involved ships specially reinforced or icebreakers. The significance of the news last summer was that the entire passage was seen in satellite pictures to be clear of ice, making it possible for vessels to make it through.


Back to top of page

 
Dispute over Hans Island

Hans Island is a small, uninhabited barren island, located in the centre of the Kennedy Channel of Nares Strait — the waterway that separates Ellesmere Island from northern Greenland, a territory of Denmark, and connects Baffin Bay with the Lincoln Sea. This island is uninhabited and is only 1.3 km² (0.5 mi²) in size. Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. These competing claims have never been finally settled in international law. A 1973 agreement between Canada and Denmark on the delimitation of the continental shelf between Greenland and Canada did not resolve the issue.

Canada’s ability to show control over Hans Island represents a significant indicator of Canada’s ability to exercise sovereignty over its Arctic territory. Former National Defence Minister Bill Graham visited the island in July 2005, as did Canadian military personnel, who placed a Canadian flag on the territory. The Danish navy made similar visits in 2002 and 2003.

The dispute over Hans Island may turn into a test case on territorial claims in the Arctic especially regarding the contested Northwest Passage south of the island, a region that could become more important if Arctic shrinkage opens it up to more human activity.

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

In 1972, a team consisting of personnel from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel, working in the Nares Strait determined the geographic coordinates for Hans Island. During negotiations between Canada and Denmark on Northern maritime boundaries in 1973, Canada claimed that Hans Island was part of its territory. No agreement was reached between the two governments on the issue.

The border is established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.


Back to top of page

 
Canada - United States Northwest Passage water dispute

The impacts of climate change heighten disputes over the status of the Northwest Passage. All water routes through the Northwest Passage pass between the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On that basis, Canada claims the Passage as Canadian Internal Waters, and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control. And that means Canada has the right to set the rules over who gets to go through. A key concern is to avoid letting unsafe vessels sally through the passage and risk a devastating oil spill in the fragile Arctic ecosystem that Canada would have to do the clean up.

However, this claim has been disputed, especially by the United States and the European Union. They argued that the Northwest Passage represents international waters, which allows the right of transit passage, and that the strait ought to be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone. In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage.

In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. Navigation was difficult. The Manhattan was damaged during the voyage which may have planted the seed for Canada’s future pollution legislation. In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which asserts Canadian regulatory control over pollution within a 100-mile zone. In response, a U.S. foreign relations document from 1970 stated that the US cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada because such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.

In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international waterway. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.

Each of those voyages became the known international incidents. The Polar Sea expedition galvanized the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to set out a policy for the North and to pledge to get a top-class Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol its northern border. The Polar 8 purchase was cancelled in 1989. No reason given!

In 1988, however, Canada and the United States forged an agreement on Arctic Cooperation, which pledges that voyages of U.S. icebreakers will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada. The agreement did not alter either country’s legal position vis-à-vis the Arctic waters. With regard to the United States’ legal position, however, there have been some suggestions that U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway. Accordingly, Canada might be wise to manage the passage as a way of securing the North American perimeter.

Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.

The difficulty for Canada is that many, including the Americans believe insufficient resources and personnel have been dedicated to the Arctic to demonstrate a significant presence thereby weakening its sovereignty claim. Weak resources translate into a weak claim.

During the Cold War, lacking the finances and manpower, Canada had little choice but to turn to the United States for military presence and weapons. These collaborative defence efforts to guard against a common nuclear threat, while maximizing Canada’s security, also maximized Canada’s potential loss of sovereignty. This fact has not been forgotten.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.
Back to top of page

 
Natural resources of the North

The astonishing beauty of the North is itself a natural resource.

Glaciers are made of the purest drinking waters on Earth.

There is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. Everyone of those communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth.

The Arctic contains an estimated one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered energy resources, that is up to 50 per cent of the Earth’s remaining undiscovered reserves of hydrocarbons are located north of 60°n latitude.

Canada’s Arctic territory and waters have been given increasing attention as areas for the:
  • billions of dollars in transportation costs could be saved each year
  • vast mineral resources of the Canadian North will be much easier and economical to develop
  • ship routes from Europe to Japan, China and other eastern destinations would be 4000 kilometers shorter
  • exploration and shipping of resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and fish
  • eastern portion of the Northwest Passage is important from a commercial and a strategic standpoint as it means a significant economy of time and fuel
  • pristine waters of the North make up 10 per cent of the world's freshwater and will eventually become a hot international commodity worth more than oil
  • oil and gas pools under the frigid Arctic waters
  • oil produced in Alaska could move quickly by ship to eastern North American and European markets
  • besides pipelines, the Passage could represent an expedient way to transport large amounts of oil from the west to the east coast of Canada and the US
  • huge diamond deposits
  • minerals and metals that are just beneath the surface near Cambridge Bay
  • facilitate Canada's development of northern lands and provide an important economic and military possession


Back to top of page



 
Environmental protection

The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030. Because sea ice has a bright surface, the majority of solar energy that hits it is reflected back into space. When sea ice melts, the dark-coloured ocean surface is exposed. Solar energy is then absorbed rather than reflected, so the oceans get warmer and temperatures rise, making it difficult for new ice to form.

Increased navigation and commercial use of the Passage create several environmental risks. The Arctic ecosystem is very fragile and the fauna strongly depends on the ice for its survival. The seasonal ice that serves as a hunting platform for coastal communities is very sensitive to heavy traffic. Even the icebreaker Amundsen is a source of concern.

There are risks concerning eventual accidents, such as oil spills and groundings in the the Passage. Canada has duties and responsibilities to the ecosystem and the Inuit. After the first voyage of the Manhattan and the realization that it could be the start of an international navigation practice, Canada searched for ways to, above all, protect the delicate environment of the Passage. Even though the Manhattan supertanker was empty of oil when it was damaged on its first voyage, and quite seriously damaged, the Canadian government realized that legislation had to be passed to protect the North from environmental damage. In fact, the Government of Canada has created the Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was a truly novel response to the potential crisis. The Act enabled Canada to exercise jurisdiction over shipping in the Passage in order to protect the Arctic marine environment but it did not, in any way, change the position of Canada with respect to their claim of sovereignty over the Passage.

At the time of the first Manhattan voyage, the Canadian public, the media and the opposition cried foul and demanded more concrete action by the government to protect its sovereignty. Prime Minister Trudeau, however, resisted this pressure in favour of a Canadian liberal internationalist ideology. The Act was seen as a vital tool to protect the distinctive way of life of Canada’s northern communities. Conceived by Jean Chrétien, the sole purpose of the Act was to establish a one hundred-mile wide Arctic pollution control zone measured outward from the nearest Canadian land in which environmental controls to shipping practices and the protection of the marine environment were to be enforced by Canada. This legislation was necessary because of the danger posed by oil-laden tankers that could spill their contents thus permanently damaging the fragile Arctic environment. Such actions could not be considered “innocent”. The 100-mile limit was chosen as it was compatible with international legal standards applicable to oil pollution from tankers. The thinking was: if states could defend themselves against armed attack, why not environmental attack? At a time when the world was only beginning to think about environmental protection issues, this legislation was particularly avant-garde in its custodianship concept. The Act was generally accepted by the international community.

After several multilateral conferences and meetings, Canada was able to get acceptance of its idea of custodianship to the world. Few nations recognized the US’s strong legal argument to designate the Passage as an international waterway, and Canada secured enough international support especially amongst the circumpolar Scandinavian states of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and most importantly, the Soviet Union to rejected the US international claim for a Canadian claim focused on custodianship and exceptionalism. Eventually, Canada’s thinking behind its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act with its emphasis on the uniqueness of the Arctic translated into the arctic exception - Article 234 that was adopted by the final UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982. Article 234 is shown below:

Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.


Canada had obtained environmental protection for the Passage without having to raise the sovereignty issue. This is further evidence of Canada’s assertion that the Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters. Canada has in fact staged the first global step toward the Earth management of natural resources. Earth management is something the Global Community has been promoting ever since 1985.

Regardless of sovereignty, protection of the environment is key and Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act does not cover many forms of natural pollution. Which means that any exploitation of resources via use of the Passage will not only impact Canada but also the other circumpolar states. Recognizing the limits of its pollution act, Canada has been a leader in establishing multilateral discussions amongst the various nations to discuss common threats and concerns. In Finland in 1996, the eight circumpolar states established an Arctic Council - an intergovernmental forum in which issues and concerns related to the environment, sustainable development, as well as social and economic considerations are addressed. This council can only function by putting sovereignty to the side in order to tackle the wider and common concerns of Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States.


Back to top of page

 
North America security and strategic issues

At the moment there are several ways Canada’s Arctic presence is being applied:

  • The Canadian Coast Guard operates a fleet of five icebreakers that guide foreign vessels through Canada’s Arctic waters and assist in harbour breakouts, routing, and northern resupply. These icebreakers are often the only federal resource positioned in a particular area of the Arctic, and they must also serve in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic.
  • The Canadian Forces Northern Area (CFNA) is headquartered in Yellowknife. CFNA headquarters comprises 65 Regular Force, Reserve, and civilian personnel. CFNA military activities per year include two Sovereignty Operations (Army), two Northern Patrols (flights of Aurora patrol aircraft), 10-30 Sovereignty Patrols (CFNA), and one Enhanced Sovereignty Patrol. As part of the Canadian Forces Transformation, CFNA assumes a greater command and control function. CFNA is now the Northern regional headquarters of Canada Command.
  • Within the CFNA, the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group provides a military presence in northern and remote areas by conducting patrols, monitoring Canada’s northern territory, and collecting information. These part-time reservists comprise a significant element of Canada’s northern presence.
  • As part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Canada maintains a chain of unmanned radar sites, the North Warning System (NWS). The NWS provides limited aerospace surveillance of Canadian and United States Arctic territory. In addition, Canada’s Department of National Defence recently announced the creation of Project Polar Epsilon, which will provide all-weather, day/night [surface] observation of Canada’s Arctic region, using information from Canada’s RADARSAT 2 satellite, by May 2009.
  • As per the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, all vessels in the Northwest Passage are subjected to search for pollution control verification purposes; this way would-be terrorists, smugglers and criminals might consider an alternate route. Currently, vessels voluntarily declare their adherence to the conditions of the Act.

The Canadian Navy does not currently have the capacity to operate within the Arctic ice. Canada requires more all-season icebreaker capabilities in order to properly monitor and patrol the area.

Because the Cold War is over, protection of the North is not as urgent as it once was simply because the proximity of Russia to the US and Canada no longer represents an immediate threat. However, since the events of 9/11, the US and Canada focus is on continental security. The US would be unwise to aggravate relations with Canada at a time when cooperation is needed. The US should, therefore, abandon its insistence the Passage be designated an international strait in favour of Canadian control through its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in order to complete a security perimeter around the North. The US would be better served in the long run by abandoning its international strait argument and courting Canada for preferential treatment. In political terms, this would be referred to as a harmonization of policies.


Back to top of page

 
Requirements of an international sea waterway

The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic. However, if a sufficient number of vessels transit the passage without seeking Canadian permission, Canada’s claims to the legal status of the passage could be challenged, as there would be an increasing claim and perception that the passage constitutes an international sea waterway. This international status would limit Canada’s ability to control these waters, especially in terms of rules governing environmental issues and shipping practices, which would potentially be governed by the International Maritime Organization. Most agree that ensuring control requires a stronger Government of Canada presence in the region, to monitor the passage and ensure compliance with Canadian sovereign claims.


Back to top of page

 
Canadian sovereignty of the Northwest Passage and Nunavut

The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security. Former National Defence Minister Bill Graham has stated that 'Sovereignty is a question of exercising, actively, your responsibilities in an area'.

Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.

Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the pack ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.

In 1951, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), is particularly important for Canada because the ruling shown some direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts. This ruling:

  • recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters, and
  • accepted a new method of measurement of territorial seas that Canada preferred.

This new method of calculation introduced the concept of straight baselines.

Rather than following the outline of a country’s land mass, as was the more traditional method, the straight baseline method allows a country with offshore islands and/or very jagged coastlines to calculate its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands or from island to island. One then connects the dots literally and the water behind the lines is designated internal waters while waters away from the line and toward open waters are considered territorial seas. Hence the term straight baseline. The old method of measurement (which is still used and favoured by the US) simply calculated the territorial seas from a baseline not exceeding twelve nautical miles from shore that traced the outline of the coast. Therefore the baseline would exactly match the seacoast (but twelve miles out toward sea). The area encompassing a country’s internal waters can be greatly increased by adopting the new method of calculation thus increasing the amount of water deemed internal and under the full authority and sovereignty of the coastal state.

The coastal state may pass laws it deems fit to control traffic and more importantly, no foreign ship may claim automatic right of passage.

This method of calculation was reinforced seven years later at the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea. Canada, however, had still not adopted any national legislation to formally claim a historic right to the Passage because, the new jurisprudence was considered quite radical and, at the time, Canada was more preoccupied with protecting Canada’s fishing industry. As well, the anticipated reaction from the US to any formalizing of a Canadian position that the waters of the Arctic Archipelago were internal waters of Canada discouraged precipitate action.

The Arctic region has featured prominently in debates about Canadian sovereignty. Canada’s identity and well-being as a country must not rest solely with ownership of the Passage. There has been a renewed focus on the Arctic due to the effects of climate change in the region, notably the melting of the polar ice caps. At the same time, there are continuing strategic issues relating to potential incursions into Canadian Arctic territory at various levels – airspace, surface (terrestrial and maritime), and sub-surface (by nuclear submarines). Canada’s ability to detect and monitor such territorial incursions and to enforce sovereign claims over its Arctic territory in such cases has been questioned. Canada’s identity needs to include monitoring of the Northwest Passage, and drawing new legislation for enforcement of Canadian sovereignty.

Other countries, including the United States, Russia, Denmark, Japan, and Norway, as well as the European Union, have expressed increasing interest in the region and differing claims in relation to international law. As the ice melts, the shipping route through Canada’s Arctic waters will be open to increased shipping activity in the coming decades. Canada’s assertion that the Northwest Passage represents internal, territorial waters has been challenged by other countries, including the United States, which argue that these waters constitute an international waterway. Interest in the region’s economic potential has resulted in discussions of increased resource exploration and disputed sub-surface resources, as well as concerns over environmental degradation, control and regulation of shipping activities, and protection of northern inhabitants. It is important to note that the Arctic is a vast and remote territory that presents many difficulties in terms of surveillance, regulation, and infrastructure development.

Canada and the United States have disputed the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea, an area that potentially has strong oil and gas resources. Exploration licences and competing claims to jurisdiction could be an ongoing issue. Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. The United States has not ratified the UNCLOS, despite a vote in 2004 by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommending ratification.

Back to top of page

 
Management of the Northwest Passage

Learning to live in harmony with our environment is a challenge that we all face today in the Northwest Passage. The Global Community has risen to this challenge and proposed sound solutions. The stewardship of our natural resources is a responsibility we all have. Sovereignty implies control, authority within a territory, and also implies responsibility, environmental protection, and maintenance of international security over that territory. Earth management is certainly an important part of sovereignty. The focus should be on the Earth management of the Northwest Passage. There are many aspects of Earth management:

  • Socioeconomic health of Inuit communities
  • Economic ethics and social environment
  • Inuit and Canadian Governments cooperation, partnership, and agreements
  • Circumpolar nations responsibility, cooperation and agreements
  • Government agencies and institutions
  • Financial issues
  • Protection and health of other life-form communities in the Passage
  • Environmental protection and conservation
  • North America security issues
  • Immigration issues
  • Natural resources protection, exploration, research and development
  • Mineral and energy resources exploration and development
  • Transportation and shipping issues
  • Emergency response, rescue and relief issues
  • Construction standards for tankers
  • Rules for safe sailing in the Passage
  • Aids for navigation, icebreaking, weather and ice forcasting
  • User fees
  • Compliance issues and liability for spills and other damages
  • Drug trafficking and other criminal activity issues
  • Clean-up issues
  • Water issues




Back to top of page

 
The Canadian Inuit community and Nunavut

Nunavut (nOO'nuvOOt') territory is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the south, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea to the east, and the Northwest Territories to the west. Its territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. It is almost 20% of Canada, and is larger than Alaska. Nunavut contains three regions—Kitikmeot, Kilvalliq (Keewatin) and Qikiqtani (formerly Baffin) — and 28 communities.

Nunavut includes Ellesmere Island to the north, as well as the eastern and southern portions of Victoria Island in the west. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. If Nunavut were a sovereign nation, it would be the least densely populated in the world: nearby Greenland, for example, has almost the same area and twice the population. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. There are three official languages, Inuktitut, English, and French.

The land is in large part tundra, rock, frozen and snow-covered for more than half the year. Although there are rich mineral deposits, the lack of paved roads and an infrastructure, as well as the harsh climate, make the development of these resources difficult.

Nunavut encompassess most of Canada's Arctic islands, including Ellesmere, Baffin, Devon, Prince of Wales, Southampton, and Coats, as well as the islands in Hudson and James bays.

The capital and largest town (population 4,200) is Iqaluit on Baffin Island at Frobisher Bay. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth. Grise Ford, the northernmost city, (population less than 150) lies north of the Arctic Circle. Temperatures range from -40 degrees F in the winter to 5 degrees F in the summer. Inuit means "the people who are alive at this time" in Inuktitut and refers to the people of "Eskimoid" ancestry inhabiting northern Canada. The term Eskimo, a Cree Indian word meaning "eaters of raw meat," is no longer used in Nunavut.

The Inuit lived in the Nunavut region for thousands of years before the first European explorers arrived searching for a Northwest Passage. For all but the last 250 years or so of their history, they were free to govern their lives and manage their territory and resources according to Inuit needs and traditional practices. With the arrival of explorers first from Europe and later from North America, the Inuit way of life started to change, and they have had to struggle very hard to maintain control over their culture, territory and resources. The Inuit are in Canada one of three groups of Aboriginal peoples. The other two are the First Nations and the Métis.

The Inuit people used to hunt the caribou, seals, and fish for food, most Inuit now live in small communities that depend on trapping, sealing, mining such as diamonds, and the production of arts and crafts for their livelihood. There is a small tourist trade, lured by the wildlife and vast space, as well as Inuit cultural attractions.

The separation of Nunavut from the Canadian Northwest Territories began with a 1992 territorial referendum in which the electorate approved the move as part of the largest native land-claim settlement in Canadian history. The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. The process concluded with the establishment of the new territory on April 1, 1999. The Nunavut land claims settlement, one of the most comprehensive and innovative land claims between an aborigine group and a state, gives the Inuit control over their economic, political, and cultural future. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut, $1.1 billion dollars in compensation, a share of mineral, oil, and gas development, the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands..

Nunavut has an elected 19 members assembly, which will assume all governing powers by 2009. Members of the assembly are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Paul Okalik, an Inuit, was elected by the assembly as Nunavut's first premier; he was reelected in 2004. The territory sends one senator and one representative to the national parliament.

Nunavut's head of state is a Commissioner appointed by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As in the other territories, the commissioner's role is symbolic and is analogous to that of a lieutenant governor. While the Commissioner is not formally a representative of the Queen of Canada, a role roughly analogous to representing the Crown has accrued to the position. The members of the unicameral legislative assembly are elected individually; there are no parties and the legislature is consensus-based. The head of government, the premier of Nunavut, is elected by, and from the members of the legislative assembly.

The Nunavut government faces many challenges with high unemployment, low educational levels and little infrastructure. Some 90% of its budget currently comes from the Canadian government. There are no paved roads, and long-distance travel is largely by air.

The Inuit people face many issues including: aboriginal rights; concerns about both large scale development, especially the potential of oil exploration, and smaller scale or local development such as the establishment of northern tourism by outside interests; the need to formalize Inuit rights with respect to development and to establish appropriate mechanisms for Inuit participation, consultation and decision making powers; formulating policies, programmes and research for dealing with rights to territory and resources and concerns about the right to maintain traditional land use and harvesting practices.

The discovery of oil in the northern regions of Canada during the 1960s and 1970s stimulated aboriginal groups to bring several land claims against the Canadian Government.

Inuit Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements signing:

  • November 11, 1975 - James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
  • June 5, 1984 - Inuvialuit Final Agreement
  • May 25, 1993 - Nunavut Final Agreement
  • April 1, 1999 - Creation of Nunavut Territory
  • January 22, 2005 - Nunatsiavut Final Agreement


In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.

Many Inuit initiatives have been noticed:

  • the Commercial Renewable Resource Development policy
  • the Aboriginal and Arctic Circumpolar Affairs committee
  • Nunavut Wildlife Service Conflict Control Policy
  • Indian and Northern Affairs’ Sustainable Development Strategy 2004-2006
  • Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)
  • Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)

Faced by criticism of his policies, Premier Paul Okalik set up an advisory council of eleven elders, whose function is to help incorporate "Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit" (Inuit culture and traditional knowledge, often referred to in English as "IQ") into the territory's political and governmental decisions. The territory has an annual budget of $700 million, provided almost entirely by the federal government. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin designated support for Northern Canada as one of his priorities, with an extra $500 million to be divided among the three territories. In October 16, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also said if the throne speech passes his government will strengthen Canada’s Sovereignty.
"Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom. Our Government is resolved to uphold this heritage by protecting our sovereignty at home and living by our values abroad.

The Arctic is an essential part of Canada’s history. One of our Fathers of Confederation, D’Arcy McGee, spoke of Canada as a northern nation, bounded by the blue rim of the ocean. Canadians see in our North an expression of our deepest aspirations: our sense of exploration, the beauty and the bounty of our land, and our limitless potential.

But the North needs new attention. New opportunities are emerging across the Arctic, and new challenges from other shores. Our Government will bring forward an integrated northern strategy focused on strengthening Canada’s sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

To take advantage of the North’s vast opportunities, northerners must be able to meet their basic needs. Our Government will work to continue to improve living conditions in the North for First Nations and Inuit through better housing.

Our Government will build a world-class arctic research station that will be on the cutting edge of arctic issues, including environmental science and resource development. This station will be built by Canadians, in Canada’s Arctic, and it will be there to serve the world.

As part of asserting sovereignty in the Arctic, our Government will complete comprehensive mapping of Canada’s Arctic seabed. Never before has this part of Canada’s ocean floor been fully mapped.

Defending our sovereignty in the North also demands that we maintain the capacity to act. New arctic patrol ships and expanded aerial surveillance will guard Canada’s Far North and the Northwest Passage. As well, the size and capabilities of the Arctic Rangers will be expanded to better patrol our vast Arctic territory.









Back to top of page

 
Criteria for a global community to exist

What makes a 'nation'  ? And what makes 'a global community'  ?

A nation is defined primarily by its people, its communities; arts, history, social, languages, religious and cultural aspects included. Fundamentally a nation or a state is defined as "a politically unified population occupying a specific area of land".

A global community has a well defined criteria based on global symbiotical relationships. And it does not require the occupation of a specific area of land. These relationships allow a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.



The Glass Bubble concept
of
"a Global Community"


The Glass Bubble is designed to illustrate the concept of "a global community" to elementary school children as opposed to the idea a community is "the street where I live".

It is an imaginary space enclosed in a glass bubble. Inside this is everything the child can see: above to the clouds, below into the waters of a lake or in the earth, to the horizons in front, in back, and on the sides. Every creature, every plant, every person, every structure that is visible to him(her) is part of this "global community."

By focusing on familiar ground in this manner it can be taught that every living thing within the glass bubble is there because his/her food is there, his/her home is there, all he/she needs to survive is there. And every creature will stay as long as what his/her needs remains to be available within that "global community."

Look up, look down, to the right, to the left, in front and behind you.

Imagine all this space is inside a giant clear glass bubble.
This is "a global community."

Wherever you go, you are inside a "global" community. Every thing, every living creature there, interacts one upon the other. Influences inter-weave and are responsible for causes and effects. Worlds within worlds orbiting in and out of one another's space, having their being.

Your presence has influence on everything else inside your immediate global community.

Learn to be aware of that and act accordingly, to create good or destroy, to help or to hurt. Your choice.

Now let us explore this Global Community that we have visited and discover why each member is important ~ each bird, each tree, each little animal, each insect, plant and human being ~ and how all work together to create a good place to live.

You walk like a giant in this Global Community. To all the tiny members you are so big, so powerful, even scary…

You can make or break their world. But by knowing their needs, and taking care, you can help your whole Global Community be a good one.

From the experience in your life and local community tell us:

*    Why are you important to this "Global Community"?
*    Why is it important to you?
*    What do you like about it?
*    What bothers you about it?
*    Anything need to be done?
*    What is really good there?
*     What is very very important?
*     What is not so important?
*     What is not good?
*     What is needed to keep the good things?
*     What could make them even better?
*     What could you do to keep the good things good?
*     Could they help get rid of bad things?
*     What unimportant things need to go?
*     How could you help get rid of these things?

to sustain the Global Community, humanity and all life.

Let each child be aware he/she either grows up to be a person who helps or a person who destroys.
Each child makes his own choice. He creates his own future in this way. He becomes a responsible citizen.

This may or may not inspire some sort of creative project of what "could be" to aid this Global Community to remain healthy.

To interact knowledgeably within one's global community has to be taught ~ especially to urban children. It has to be brought to them very clearly all life forms interact and depend upon other life forms for survival. They need to know "reasons why" ignorance of nature's law causes such damage, and why working in harmony with nature produces such good results.

The concept of the Glass Bubble can be extended to include the planet Earth and all the "global communities" contained therein.

The following definition of the Global Community is appropriate:
 

"The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below."


The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities.

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources.We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is the birthright of all life.

The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

The definition of the Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. This is the fundamental definition of the expression Global Communit It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. Evolution, Creation and now, Guiding Souls

Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.

As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources.

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

The Global Community has many expert groups able to begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.

This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups such as:

  • Native and aboriginal people claiming that their ancestors owned the land so now they do


  • God gave it to us so the land is ours


  • Property ownership system of the Roman Empire to today, our social-economic system of land owership


  • The military power of this world forcing ownership of land and of all other Earth natural resources against the will of everyone else

None of the above groups can claim ownership of the land and other Earth natural resources. They never did own the land and of all other Earth natural resources. And they never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth.

Perhaps it is time to leave behind the concept of 'nation'. It has confusing meanings and has been over-used in many situations and by everyone. Is it truly necessary to discuss about it? I dont think so. Let us move on to the twenty first century. The Global Community has researched and developed new global concepts more appropriate to our times. The concept of 'a global community' is one of them and is certainly a powerful new concept that will make its place in history.

Earth Government has established the criteria of 'a global community of a million people'. There is no need of having a piece of land at all costs. We have shown that a community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical global community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or it can be people with different values, cultural background or religious values and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one global community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.

The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic.

We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a community with the same. A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved. The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

The emphasis of a global symbiotical relationship is not so much on how much money a nation should have or how high a GDP should be although money can be made a part of the relationship. We all know developed countries live off developing countries so the emphasis has no need to stress out the profit a rich nation is making off a poor nation. The emphasis of the relationship should give more importance to the other aspects such as quality of life, protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems, the entrenchment of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and Global Law into our ways of life, justice, peace, cultural and spiritual freedom, security, and many other important aspects as described in the global ministries (health, agriculture, energy, trade, resources, etc.).

The Global Community has shown that a global community can be united by religion to form a Global Government (GG). It does not have to be a democracy. A GG based on religion is very acceptable to Earth Government . People can unite in any way they wish.

A global community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical global community of a million people that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world.

A typical global community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people sharing with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or they can be people with totally different backgrounds and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.

The number of people making a typical global community becomes important when a democratic election to elect representatives to the Global Community is going on. The voting system of the Global Community is very simple and practical. One representative per million people. A global community of 300 million people would have three hundred representatives.

The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any global community. Every community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights . On the other hand, representatives to the Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by the Global Community) that representatives to the Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form the the Global Community.

The power of the Global Community was de-centralized to give each GG a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation.The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and the Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. A typical example is the Global Government of North America (GGNA).

As we have shown in the Global Constitution, the Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below. This is an important concept and particularly useful in the context of the Global Governments Federation. A community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical community of a million people that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same. The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities.

A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved. The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development.

This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group Member Nations from different parts of the world. For example, the Global Government of North America can be made of willing Member Nations such as Canada, the United States, Mexico, Great britain, the Territories, and include the North Pole region.

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 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.

Back to top of page

 
The Falklands War, also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the disputed Falkland Islands

The Falkland Islands are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of Argentina, 671 miles (1,080 km) west of the Shag Rocks (South Georgia), and 584 miles (940 km) north of Antarctica (Elephant Island). They consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, together with 776 smaller islands. Stanley, on East Falkland, is the capital city. The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers. The islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, but have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the British invasion of 1833. In pursuit of this claim in 1982, the islands were invaded by Argentina, precipitating the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of Argentine forces. Since the war there has been strong economic growth in both fisheries and tourism. The inhabitants of the islands are British citizens (since a 1983 Act) and under Argentine Law are eligible for Argentine citizenship. Many trace their origins on the islands to early 19th-century Scottish immigration. The islands' residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.

The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. The Falklands Crisis of 1770 was nearly the cause of a war between France, Spain and Britain. The Spanish government's claim was continued by Argentina after the latter's independence in 1816 and the independence war in 1817. The United Kingdom took control of the islands by force with the 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Luis by the American sloop USS Lexington (28 December 1831). Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and the dispute was used by the military junta as a reason to invade and briefly occupy the islands before being defeated in the two-month-long Falklands War in 1982 by a United Kingdom task force which returned the islands to British control.

When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor at the service of Buenos Aires and captain of the frigate Heroina, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina) at Port Louis. He warned the British and American seal hunting ships present that they did not have authorisation to hunt seals in the area, and then returned to Buenos Aires; the sealers ignored his warning.

Occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warships in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny.

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to assert British sovereignty. The existing settlers were allowed to remain, with an Irish member of Vernet's settlement, William Dickson, appointed as the Islands' governor. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year and was informed that the British had no objections to the continuation of Vernet's business ventures provided there was no interference with British control.

The Royal Navy built a base at Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn. A World War I naval battle, the Battle of Falkland Islands, took place in December 1914, with a British victory over the Germans. During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and serviced ships which took part in the Battle of the River Plate.

Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514, regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

Back to top of page

 
Promoting the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut

The reasoning for the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut is that Nunavut territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) and has a population of only about 30,000 spread over that area. The population density of Nunavut is thus 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The capital and largest town has a population of about 5000. So 1/6 of the entire population is found in an area of about 1000 sq km. The territory of Nunavut hardly qualifies to be a global community. I cannot say it is. The capital may qualify if it satisfies the test of being sustainable, without the federal government help, and the test of having a symbiotical relationship with the Global Community.

Now the territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit people, who make up 85% of the population. This implies the Inuit people controls the government of Nunavut. In order to become a global community the government of Nunavut would have to help with the creation of several new large settlements over the entire area of Nunavut. That is to ask Canadians and people from other nations to move in and help them to settle in Nunavut.

In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.

The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security. Former National Defence Minister Bill Graham has stated that 'Sovereignty is a question of exercising, actively, your responsibilities in an area'.

Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.

Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the pack ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.

Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.

The difficulty for Canada is that many, including the Americans believe insufficient resources and personnel have been dedicated to the Arctic to demonstrate a significant presence thereby weakening its sovereignty claim. Weak resources translate into a weak claim.

During the Cold War, lacking the finances and manpower, Canada had little choice but to turn to the United States for military presence and weapons. These collaborative defence efforts to guard against a common nuclear threat, while maximizing Canada’s security, also maximized Canada’s potential loss of sovereignty. This fact has not been forgotten.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.

This is not an easy call. Many times in the past the Global Community has asked the people of Israel to settle in Nunavut but we never got an answer. It just seemed that they would rather to continue to be at war with the people of the Middle East and surrounding nations whom, we know, dont want them in Palestine, then to move in the richest and most peaceful country in world.


Back to top of page

 
Russia claims North Pole by planting flag on seabed August 2, 2007


Russian expedition Arktika 2007 made the first descent to the ocean bottom below the North Pole, and planted a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed. Submarines have in the past traveled below the Arctic ice cap, but this is the first time man has reached the seabed below the North Pole. The Mir-1 and a second Mir-2 submarine face the challenge of diving 13,980 feet (4,261 metres) deep, and then having to resurface at the exact location where they've submerged, because they are not strong enough to penetrate the ice themselves. The nuclear ice-breaker vessel Rossiya is keeping the ice open for the research ship and the submarines.

The expedition ship Akademik Fyodorov is carrying over 100 scientists to the North Pole. Apart from the purely scientific goal of a comprehensive study of the climate and seabed at the North Pole, this expedition may help Russia to enlarge its territory by more than one million square kilometers, the Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute said. The mini-submarine Mir-1 has successfully reached the Arctic seabed. "Our mission is to remind the whole world that Russia is a great polar and research power," said expedition leader and deputy speaker of the Russian parliament Artur Chilingarov, who has been named presidential envoy to the Arctic by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Some Western politicians have portrayed the planting of Russia's flag on the seabed as Russia's territorial claim. Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark (through Greenland) have an Exclusive Economic Zone 200 miles north of their Arctic coastline, established under international laws. Russia is claiming a larger area, extending to the North Pole, saying that a continental shelf called the Lomonosov Ridge runs from Siberia on the Arctic seabed to the North Pole. As such, it would be an extension of Russian territory.

In 2001, Russia made a case with the United Nations to extend its boundaries to the Arctic, but the U.N. requested more scientific data to strengthen the Russian case. The current mission is collecting evidence to submit another request in 2009, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada and Denmark last year sent out a joint mission to establish whether the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories, and Norway is investigating this possibility too. Last May, U.S. senator Richard Lugar (Rep, Indiana) said that it would be difficult to negotiate about Russia's claims as long as the U.S. has not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any issues about Russia's claims would be resolved "in strict compliance with international law." The claimed territory could contain undiscovered natural resources such as oil and gas.


Back to top of page

 
The Earth, and all its natural resources, are owned by the Global Community, along with all the "global communities" contained therein

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources.We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is the birthright of all life.

The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

The definition of the Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. Let us remind everyone the definition that has been guiding us throughout the years:

"The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below." The Glass Bubble concept  of a Global Community

This is the fundamental definition of the expression "Global Community". The Glass Bubble concept  of a Global Community This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. This is the fundamental definition of the expression Global Communit It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. Evolution, Creation and now, Guiding Souls The land ownership of the Earth means ownership of the land and of all other Earth natural resources.

"A global community" is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical community that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world.

A typical community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people sharing with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or they can be people with totally different backgrounds and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.

Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.

As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources.

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

The Global Community has many expert groups able to begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.

This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups such as:

  • Native and aboriginal people claiming that their ancestors owned the land so now they do


  • God gave it to us so the land is ours


  • Property ownership system of the Roman Empire to today, our social-economic system of land owership


  • The military power of this world forcing ownership of land and of all other Earth natural resources against the will of everyone else

None of the above groups can claim ownership of the land and other Earth natural resources. They never did own the land and of all other Earth natural resources. And they never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth.

In the case of Nunavut, we see land ownership is a significant problem. We have said that the Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.

The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy.

A global symbiotical relationship is created between nations and the Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. And that is the major problem with Nunavut. The Inuit people are trying very hard to keep control over a territory that is much too large and important for other nations. It is not possible to claim ownership of Nunavut when it was never yours except in your dreams. It is like putting a flag on the Moon and say the Moon is all yours. Or going to Mars and say Mars is all yours. No one owns the Moon or Mars, or the Earth. No one ever did! And no one ever will! All you can say is that you put a flag on the Moon. Nothing more, nothing less! It is also like going on top of Mount Everest in the Himalayas. Just by climbing to the top does not give you ownership of the mountain.

Every single human being must deal responsibly with the affairs going on in his (her) own 'global community' ~ when a person takes personal responsibility for his own affairs ~ he becomes empowered as a person. He can then reach beyond his own property and family, and help to work with others living in and around, even a part of the local community he lives in ~ the villages, the town community, the surrounding territory, and so on.

The key is personal responsibility. Therefore the individual is the important element, one who takes responsibility for his community. This individual cares about jobs, homes, streets, the welfare and success of his community.

When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village. They can then find ways to bring these changes for all. There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be used. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, the courage to develop his own life for the better and for the good of all. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet now and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. The reasoning for the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut is that Nunavut territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) and has a population of only about 30,000 spread over that area. The population density of Nunavut is thus 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The capital and largest town has a population of about 5000. So 1/6 of the entire population is found in an area of about 1000 sq km. The territory of Nunavut hardly qualifies to be a global community. I cannot say it is. The capital may qualify if it satisfies the test of being sustainable, without the federal government help, and the test of having a symbiotical relationship with the Global Community.

Now the territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit people, who make up 85% of the population. This implies the Inuit people controls the government of Nunavut. In order to become a global community the government of Nunavut would have to help with the creation of several new large settlements over the entire area of Nunavut. That is to ask Canadians and people from other nations to move in and help them to settle in Nunavut.

In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.

The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.

However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security. Former National Defence Minister Bill Graham has stated that 'Sovereignty is a question of exercising, actively, your responsibilities in an area'.

Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.

Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the pack ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.

Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.

The difficulty for Canada is that many, including the Americans believe insufficient resources and personnel have been dedicated to the Arctic to demonstrate a significant presence thereby weakening its sovereignty claim. Weak resources translate into a weak claim.

During the Cold War, lacking the finances and manpower, Canada had little choice but to turn to the United States for military presence and weapons. These collaborative defence efforts to guard against a common nuclear threat, while maximizing Canada’s security, also maximized Canada’s potential loss of sovereignty. This fact has not been forgotten.

It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.

This is not an easy call. Many times in the past the Global Community has asked the people of Israel to settle in Nunavut but we never got an answer. It just seemed that they would rather to continue to be at war with the people of the Middle East and surrounding nations whom, we know, dont want them in Palestine, then to move in the richest and most peaceful country in world.
Back to top of page

 
To create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources

We will not explain here why we need to have a biodiversity zone in the North because I believe most people know why it is necessary and must be done. But we will how it can be done. The fundamental definition of the "Global Community" includes all people, all life on Earth. The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities of all life-forms. It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. The land ownership of the Earth means ownership of the land and of all other Earth natural resources.

The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?"

We can create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.

The following backgroung information was taken from the Global Constitution. These passages give us the processes by which we can create a biodiversity zone in the North.

As described in the Global Constitution Chapter 6.3.2 Rights, responsibilities and accountabilities, Article 13: Human and Earth Rights

Part 48. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence.

Part 49. All species, humans and cultures have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights.

Part 50. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural.

Part 51. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to sustenance -- to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on earth and are best protected through community rights and commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.

and in

Chapter 10.2 Change our ways of doing things, and our ways of doing business, as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights
Article 3: Scale of Human and Earth Rights

Earth Government found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and  unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern,  a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

Article 3:    Scale of Human and Earth Rights

The Scale of Human and Earth Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on.

Concerning sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Earth Government highest priority to guarantee these rights to Member Nations and to have proper lesgislation and implement and enforce global law as it applies.

Section  1.    Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems

Section  2.    Primordial human rights

It is made clear how little importance was given to Sections 1,2,3, and 4 of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. And it is made clear how urgent it is to replace both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Charters from all nations by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.


  • safety and security
  • have shelter
  • 'clean' energy
  • a 'clean' and healthy environment
  • drink fresh water
  • breath clean air
  • eat a balance diet and
  • basic clothing.

Section  3.    The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

Concerning Sections 4, 5 and 6, it shall be the aim of Earth Government to secure these other rights for all global citizens within the federation of all nations, but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the Earth Government to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.

Section  4.    Community rights, rights of direct democracy, the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically

Section  5.    Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)

Section  6.    Cultural rights and religious rights

Chapter 10.3     Section  1.    Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems
Article 8:    Conservation of natural resources
Conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet Earth.
Article 9:    The rights that the Global Community has in protecting the global life-support systems
Earth rights are ecological rights and the rights that the Global Community has in protecting the global life-support systems. Earth rights are those rights that demonstrate the connection between human well-being and a sound environment. They include individuals and global communities human rights and the rights to a clean environment, and participation in development decisions. We define ecological rights as those rights of the ecosystem of the Earth beyond human purpose. They are those rights that protect and preserve the ecological heritage of the Earth for future generations. The biggest challenge for social democracy today is to articulate coherent policies based on a unifying vision for society.

The major problems to address include:

A.     the enormous worldwide wealth gap and the underlying concentration of land and natural resource ownership and control;
B.     the privatized monetary structures; and
C.     building global governance institutions and financing governance and development in such a way as to divert funds from military industrial profits and into social development and environmental restoration.

We need 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.

Policies for securing earth rights are:

1.     It is better to tax "bads" rather than "goods". Governments have long used selective taxation to discourage use of alcohol and cigarettes, while unprocessed food and children¹s clothing remain tax-free. It is best to continue this tradition with selective "eco-sin taxes" to discourage a wide range of grey products and lifestyles. At the same time, taxes would be eliminated on green products and lifestyles. People should be able to avoid taxation by choosing green products and lifestyles.

2.    Taxes should be designed to conserve resources and energy. Rather than taxing jobs and profits, taxes should be moved to resource use and energy consumption to reward conservation. The community should benefit from the use of commonly held resources. Using resources is a privilege, not a right, and the user should pay for the privilege. Resources must also be shared with future generations and other species.

3.     Taxes should be designed to increase employment. Moving taxes onto resources and land use and off of incomes will make people less expensive to employ. Products produced by green production methods, which tends to use fewer resources and less energy will avoid taxation. As energy costs rise, the price of labour becomes more economical, and green products which tend to encourage value-added processes, will provide more high quality, skilled jobs than resource intensive products.

4.     Distributive taxes are preferable to re-distributive taxes. If wealth is distributed more fairly in the first place less re-distribution will be necessary. Eliminating consumption taxes will eliminate the only tax the poor must pay. By moving taxes on to resource use and land, the poor, who generally own less land and use fewer resources, will avoid taxation, thus requiring less redistribution. Taxing land but not the use of land, will reduce taxation on higher density housing, lowering housing costs for low-income citizens, thus reducing another need for re-distribution.

5.     Resource taxes should be assessed as early as possible. Resources should be taxed before entering the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects of the manufacturing process from extraction to the finished product. Increasing taxes on resource and energy use will encourage resource and energy efficiency, innovation, reuse, repair, recycling, and used material recovery.

6.     Taxing unearned income is preferable to taxing earned income. The tax shift to resource use and community-generated land values will distribute income more fairly without dependence on income and business taxation to redistribute income. Taxing unearned income (resources, and not earned income (jobs, profits) will reduce the rich-poor gap since the rich are always in a better position to capture unearned or windfall income by their ability to hold assets that they do not have to consume.

7.     Green tax shifting is revenue-neutral, not a tax break or tax grab. The taxes paid by businesses and individuals collectively will not change, but greener businesses and consumers will reduce their taxes. Grey businesses and consumers will pay higher taxes. Studies have shown that 50% of businesses and consumers will be unaffected or only slightly affected by tax shifting, roughly one quarter will realize tax reductions one quarter will be taxed more.

8.     Resource use and community-generated land value taxation are fairer. Resource use and land taxes are much simpler to collect and harder to evade than taxes on income and business profits. Since there are far fewer points of taxation than with traditional tax sources, a move to resource use and land taxation will reduce the size of the underground economy. The difficulty of evading these taxes will reduce the problem of overseas tax havens.

9.     Green taxation increases international competitiveness. Eliminating taxes on domestic labour will reduce labour costs in Ontario and therefore reduce out-sourcing by businesses seeking cheap labour in other countries or provinces.

10.     Pay for what you take, not for what you make. Businesses should not be taxed for hiring people or for earning a profit, but should be charged for using resources and polluting the planet. People should not be taxed for earning an income or purchasing products but should be charged for the value of land they own and the resources used in the products they buy. Resource use and polluting are privileges not rights, and businesses and consumers should pay for these privileges.

11.     Taxing community-generated land values is beneficial. Since the community around it, not its owner, creates the value of land, the community should receive the benefits it has created. The owner is entitled to a fair profit but not to a windfall profit that rightfully belongs to the community that generated the wealth in the first place. Under LVT the specific use of the land will not be taxed, only the land itself, within the existing zoning. Community-generated land value taxation encourages the efficient use of land, reduces sprawl, reduces speculation, tends to reduce land prices and improves land use patterns.

12.     Taxes should encourage local, sustainable, value-added production over imports. Culturally unique products and services will be valued by green tax reform over mass production. The sale price should include the true costs of products, services and distances traveled, and should be designed to encourage local, sustainable production.

13.     Taxes should break up monopolies. The most important monopolies are resource monopolies and land monopolies. When a person or a business has control or exclusive rights over large amounts of a resource or large amounts of land, this person or business reaps windfall profits, which is unjust. These resources and this land belong to the community and if individuals are granted access to it they should pay a fair price for this privilege or right. Land Value Taxation aims to ensure that the wealth created by usage of land and resources that rightfully belong to the community accrue back to that community.

14.     Taxes should be applied only once. Rather than taxing the same wealth repeatedly through personal income, business income, sales, re-sale, interest, capital gains, property transfer, inheritance, taxation should only impact the use of a resource and the ownership of land on a sustained basis (ie property tax on site value).

15.     MINIMIZING INCOME TAXES

a)     Moving taxes off of incomes and onto resource use and community-generated land value is critical in order to achieve and maintain a green economy and society.

b)     Traditionally governments tax the component of production in least supply. In the first half of the 20th century labour was scarce and resources and land were plentiful and indeed considered infinite, so it made sense for government to tax incomes and not resource use or land. Now, however, resources and land are scarce and labour is plentiful, so governments should modernize the tax structure by switching the source of taxation away from incomes and onto resources use and land.

c)     Income taxes are a regressive tax since they tax a "good" not a "bad". Since jobs are desirable we should not tax employment. Income taxes are a disincentive to employment since they make people expensive to employ. Employers often avoid taxation by employing fewer people and opting instead for energy-intensive, chemical-intensive and resource-intensive production. Conversely, taxing resource and land lightly sends the message that these community-held resources are unimportant and may be squandered by anyone without consequences.

d)     It is claimed that income taxes help reduce economic inequity among people. This is untrue since employers simply pass on the extra payroll deduction to consumers. The amount of income tax paid is irrelevant to labour negotiations, since bargaining is based on net pay, not gross pay. In determining an employee's worth, the employer simply calculates the gross amount based on take-home pay. Salaries of high worth employees and CEOs are simply raised to the level necessary to ensure net pay reaches the desired level.

e)     In contrast the rich-poor gap will be narrowed more effectively by moving taxes off of incomes and onto resource and land use, since wealthier people who choose to spend their money on grey products and lifestyles will be taxed more while people with lower incomes will be able to avoid taxation by living green. In addition, replacing income taxes with green taxes would help conserve resources, save energy, foster value-added and labour intensive production (ie. more jobs), and reduce pollution.

16.     MINIMIZING BUSINESS TAXES

a)     Neither the right wing call for corporate tax cuts nor the left-wing mantra of increased corporate taxes will engender a transition to a just or green society. Reducing or increasing taxes on corporate profits is green-neutral (taxes which neither encourage nor discourage greening the planet). If the goal is for businesses to succeed and employ people, it makes no sense to apply business taxes or payroll deductions.

b)     Moving taxes off of profits and employment and onto the resources, land and pollution will speed progress toward a green industrial economy. Recourse use and pollution are privileges not rights, and businesses should pay for these privileges. While business people would prefer not to pollute the planet or squander resources, the present tax structure gives them little choice. Businesses usually follow the path of least tax resistance and will readily go green if tax incentives pointed the way.

c)     Green production means more jobs, resource conservation, and less pollution. Ecological fiscal reform and green tax shifting are revenue neutral; the collective tax burden paid by business is unchanged, but it will reward businesses that go green and discourage businesses that remain grey.

17.     PHASE OUT CONSUMPTION TAXES

a)     Sales taxes are unhelpful in moving to a green society since socially useful and ecologically sound products are taxed equally to socially or ecologically detrimental products. To reduce consumption of resources, taxes should be applied early in the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects of the manufacturing process. Taxing early will dramatically reduce the ticket price of green products and raise the price of grey products, positively influencing consumer behaviour. Taxing early will encourage resource and energy efficiency, innovation, reuse, repair, recycling, and used material recovery.

b)     Sales taxes are regressive since they discourage people from making both green and grey purchases, thus damaging the economy and killing jobs. As well sales taxes are often unfairly evaded by the underground economy, while resource use, pollution and land rent levies, by contrast, are simpler to apply and more difficult to evade.

18.     RESOURCE USE TAXATION

a)     Income taxes, consumptions taxes, and taxes on profits are all green-neutral, ie. green jobs, green purchases and green profits are taxed at the same rate as grey jobs, grey purchases and grey profits. By contrast, resources taxes levied early in the production process foster conservation, efficiencies, innovation, value-added production, and labour-intensive production. Local sustainable production, short run niche production, and skilled trades and crafts receive a bias since the full costs of transportation and mass production are internalized.

b)     Taxing resources minimizes waste and pollution thus reducing the load on government for health care costs, waste disposal costs, transportation infrastructure, and pollution cleanup costs. The market will drive resource and energy conservation without government micro-management.

c)     Resource taxation would focus on a small number of key local resources and a small number of imported resources

Article 10:    To build a sustainable global community
In order to build a sustainable global community, each individual, each local community, and national governments of the world must initiate their commitment to the Global Community, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Constitution principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Article 11:    Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance. In order to build a sustainable global community, each individual, each local community, and national governments of the world must initiate their commitment to the Global Community, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Global Constitution principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.


Back to top of page


 
No one could own the Moon, planet Mars, or America just by going there and back

All the technology in the world to get to the Moon, and now Mars, all the hard work, all the sweat and pain endured, and more, much more, to finally put a flag on the Moon. Amazing human achievement! We can really be proud of a team that did it.

Just like the first European explorers who discovered America, they arrived and conquered. Natives did not have a chance. Natives said America was their home. But no longer! The explorers said it is now ours. Most Natives were hot in the USA. More survived in Canada! Explorers were not doing this hard work just for the pleasure of finding something new. Their countries sent them and pay for their expenses. Explorers were expected to find something tangible that could make their countries proud and rich.

How does this relate to Canada's sovereighty in the North?

The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?

Does putting a flag on the Moon gives you ownership of the Moon?

Does putting a flag on Mars gives you ownership of the planet?

Does discovering the Americas by explorers gave them ownership of the Americas?

Does climbing Mount Everest gives ownership of the mountain?

Does Canada own the Northwest Passage or Nunavut?

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

Does Denmark truly owns Greenland? Just because you say you do? Just because the Permanent Court of International Justice say you do? What if the Court was wrong or corrupted?

Canada says it owns the Northwest Passage and Nunavut but how is that possible? Just because Canada says it does? Or because the United Nations say it does? What if the UN is corrupted? or wrong?

Obviously we know the answers to all thes questions. You dont own it. You never did and never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership.

Just like the first European explorers who discovered America, they arrived and conquered. Natives did not have a chance. Natives said America was their home. But no longer! The explorers said it is now ours. Most Natives were shot in the USA. More survived in Canada! Explorers were not doing this hard work just for the pleasure of finding something new. Their countries sent them and pay for their expenses. Explorers were expected to find something tangible that could make their countries proud and rich.

Truly, we are on the threshold of a global revolution, and we need to proceed with the non-violent approach. We need to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.

The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must based in the principle of equal rights to the Earth.

Territorial conflict has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflictsin the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, New Guinea, and Borneo. We have seen conflicts over valuable gems, minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.

Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few.

There is a way to share the Earth? The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

Today we have a situation in the Middle East whereby the USA has been invading the area ever since 1947 when it has coerced the United Nations to create the State of Israel, its Trojan Horse for the invasion. Israel and the USA together have been at war with the people of the Middle East and of surrounding nations ever since.

Osama Bin Laden is actually a prophet in his own ways, a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. He objected to the invasion by Russia during the Cold War. America was quite please to get his help in those days. Actually he was being help by the Americans to get rid of the Russians. It is a question of who help who. He also objected to be invaded by Americans, to our ways of life, our consumer driven society, a 'waste land' found in the West.

Soon the production of oil and gas will decline rapidly. The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has analyzed the total production of oil and gas in the world and found the peak had already been attained and production should decline steadily over the coming 40 years. Humanity will have completely consumed the oil and gas reserves in the world between 50 and 100 years from now. This explain why there is so much rush for those resources by countries such America in Iraq, and India, Russia, China and Europe in Iran. Actually they are all over the Middle East but everyone seems to have chosen a specific territory to invade or exploit: America in Iraq, the others in Iran. What we have here are all the ingredients needed for World War III. Let me invade this nation says America, and I will invade the other ones say Russia and China. They will be there until all the oil and gas reserves have been suck up from the ground. If one of them is not happy then we will have a war. They have all agreed that Iraquis and Iranians are casualities of war.

So what is the Canadian military doing in Afghanistan in a war-like mission?

In its own way, our military is telling President Bush we are supporting the American effort of wanting a democratic Middle East. At least this is the lie to the American people. President Bush, the Commander in Chief of the United States of America has been telling so many lies to the American people that no one knows who is telling the truth. Even our military does not know. So our military follows the big guys with more muscles and more guns, the mother of the biggest guns, the USA.

So now why would we need to have our military back home?

In two generations from now most civilizations on the planet will be facing terrible problems: the end of the oil and gas production, the end of our consumer driven society as no oil and gas means no plastic base products, which also implies no jobs and chaos everywhere in the wolrd. We will literally be invaded by Americans. Poverty and diseases will be widespread. The environment will be completely out of control. Global warming will cause tremendous environmental and climate change problems. Nothing we could ever imagine will happen. Gangs in Canada will be controlling cities much like warlords in Afghanistan. Not even the military could stop them from committing crimes. Government will be corrupted. Somewhat like the situation we see in Iraq today but 100 times worst. And the world will never get any better. I will show here that our so called 'modern civilizations' will collapse. Our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the products we get from the oil and gas, mainly plastics, and not on principles and values.

So why do we need our military back home?

We need our military back home because we need to prepare for what is coming in about 40 years. Our own grand-children will become terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, the prophet, was a civilian at first who could see the arm of an invasion, and he fought back. Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' are mostly young civilians who are ready to fight back by becoming suicide bombers. I believe their are other ways to fight back, at least for us here in Canada. We must find our own brand of solutions. We have time to prepare for what is coming sooner or later in a few generations. We need politicians that can see at least two generations ahead of us. We need to start now, today. Bring back our military from Afghanistan. Let us plan ahead together. Let us build our own Global Community of North America. Let us use our tax dollars in education, research for alternative energy solutions. Workable technologies are available today but left on shelves. Let us use them to make up for the lack of oil and gas. If nothing else works enough, let us build nuclear power plants. Several of them! Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) is certaily a good start but needs to be upgraded to handle large crowds in need of help right here in Canada, in North America, Welcome to the Portal of the Global Community of North America (GCNA) and elsewhere in the world if we can.

I dont want Canada to have anything to do with the Americans stand in the Middle East and have to side with them in a World War. I want Canada out of NATO now.

But now we have made ourselves a target by those who dont want Americans to be in the Middle East. We thought about the Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' as suicide bombers and truly hated Americans. The Al Qua'ida 'terrorits' want Americans out of the region. The reality is that Osama Bin Laden fought along with the American in Afghanistan to force the Russians out of the region. The question is what were Americans doing over there in the first place? Why would Americans be on the other side of the world to fight the Russians? After the Cold War, Americans left Afghanistan in a terrible state. Destruction every where. They left the people of Afghanistan living with a nightmare. But they were free of the Russians. Today, no wonder civilians objected to be treated as 'non-human beings' by Americans. They wanted Americans out of their country. Suicide bombers are actually civilians who cannot see any other way to fight back. We call them 'terrorists' here in the West. The word 'terrorists' was invented by President Bush and the American Congress.

Instead of caring for the Iraqi people, Americans have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government, by Americans. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.

Suicide bombers may as well be Canadian civilians defending Canada on Canadian soil against Americans invading Canada. "Terrorists' can actually be anyone in any place on the planet. They may even be Canadians not wanting WW III. WW III is going on right now in the Middle East region, at least its beginning.

Other than America, who else wants the oil and gas of the Middle East?

India, Russia, Europe Union nations, and China! They want the oil and gas of the Middle East very badly. How else could they become the biggest growing economies of the world? Without the oil and gas they have no energy and no plastic base products. That means they cannot manufacture anything. Nothing! More than half of the world population out of a job. Starving and dying! No medicinal products because you need a plastic container to hold them. Hospitals have no plastic tubes to feed you with whatever fluids your body needs. All civilizations on the planet would come to a halt without the oil and gas. Yet it is the oil and gas that is creating global warming and forcing the climate to change around the globe. This of course shows that our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the base products we can get from the oil and gas, manly plastics. Our civilization is, therefore, not based on principles and values as it would fall completely without oil and gas.

As far as India, Russia, Europe, and China are concerned, there is an absolute need to obtain the oil and gas of the Middle East to survive. No other ways! So now that we have understood the problem so far, what are Americans truly doing in the Middle East? Are they in the Middle East because of their dislike of Saddam Hussain? Not likely! Saddam Hussain was never important, just an excuse for the invasion. But then they never had a reason to invade Vietnam. So what is different today? The Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' threatening their way of life? We know the 'terrorist' and suicide bombers are often civilians who have got so disgusted of being invaded, their homes destroyed, and their relatives killed, that the only way to fight back was by being suicide bombers. They are soldiers in their own way defending their country from the invaders and thieves who just want to steal their resources.

So obviously Americans are in the Middle East to steal the oil and gas. Their thinking is simple: better us having the oil and gas then them, 'them' being the Iragis, or any Muslims or Arabs for that matters. But the people from the Middle East are not so stupid. They know India, Russia, European nations and China are willing to pay for their resources. So now what situation do we have here? We have Americans who want to steal the oil and gas and treat the people of the Middle East like dirt, "non human beings', and we have the people from India, Russia, European nations and China willing to pay the price and to agree that the people from the Middle East have human rights. They are 'persons' just like we are.

What we have here are the ingredients needed for World War III.

Simple as that! Nothing less!

Now our Government has changed Canada stands in the world from a peace-keeping mission to that of a war-type action as we are seeing in Afghanistan. First of all, being and showing that we are 'the very good friends of the US' was not a good thing to do. I am a Canadian, and I am not a very good friend of the Americans. I totally disagree with the invasion of the Middle East. And I dont want Canada to be thrown into a situation that has all the ingredients of WW III at the end of the tunnel. We dont actually need to steal the oil and gas. Being with the Americans will imply we are just as much thieves and invaders as they are. Not a good scenario!

What is Canada doing in Afghanistan?

Up until now Canada was on a peace-keeping mission but this was changed to a war-like stand. It looks like we want to show Americans we can be as they are: big guys with big guns, and ready to kill. Why? What are we really doing in Afghanistan? Why are we in Afghanistan when right here in Canada we need all the help we can get? We sure dont need to steal the oil and gas. Even if we had no oil and gas reserves, no resources, I would not agree of stealing anything. So why are we, Canadians, in Afghanistan? Afghans want all foreigners out of Afghanistan so what will it take to understand what they are telling us?

In order to help their political parties win the next elections, the United States and Canada have obtained surveys conducted in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They asked questions to villagers such as
"Do you like the military from Canada and the US?"
If I was one of the villagers I would say:
"YES! I love the military. The military should stay much longer. There is one or two more bridges to destroy, more oil and gas to steal, more children, women and men to kill. Please stay!"


Gosh! What else can anyone say when you have tanks and bombers over your head, and people being shot at everyday. The NATO invaders have practically destroyed everything.

The White House and the Government of Canada are going to use their surveys to benefit their invasion of Afghanistan and the Middle East. How strange! I thought we were civilized.

The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of Global Law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.

President Bush has been elected for a second term as President of the worst polluters on the planet, and of a predator nation. During his campaign he has used religion, his religion, and its membership or supporters, to elect him. Ever since 9/11 the Global Community has fought his policies at home and abroad, and how his daily lies and brain-washing exercises which have changed the American people to follow his lead. The use of the military has been abused to the detriment of human and Earth rights.

Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The Global Community and its membership are conscientious objectors, "nonresistants". That word comes from Jesus, opposing the use of violence:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

We, Global Citizens, therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:
1.     That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;

2.     That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;

3.     That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under Global Law; the Earth Court of Justice will prosecute the offenders;

4.     That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation; the amount to be paid should be no less than 8 trillion US dollars coming from the governments involved, and not from the resources of Iraq;

5.     That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;

6.     That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately;

7.     That our military be coming back home as this is the place it is needed most to prepare for Canada's future;

8.     That Canada's military be used for peace-keeping mission and not war-like stand;

9.     That our military be used for the protection of the global-life support systems.

10.     That tax money not be used on the military, instead, tax money be used to prepare for the future: research and development on new ways to replace oil and gas, and plastics; alternative energy technologies be used now; the development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution and to make the most of North America's resource strengths.

11.     That our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol be made a real commitment, with real tangible, meaningful actions. Status quo is not an option! It was never an option. Those who dont do anything about the global warming of the planet are criminals. Those who dont help protecting the global life-support systems are criminals of the worst kind, they are 'terrorists' threatening all life on the planet.


War is not sustainable. It never was. The military option, war, is against global sustainability and global peace in a big way. The worst environmental degradation happens in wars. Farm products in fields and livestock are abandoned, there is no more control on toxic wastes, and water, air, and land are polluted. People are displaced and feel no longer responsible for the quality of life in their communities. Historically, the industrialized nations have caused the most damage to the environment, with their careless technology and policies. Emissions from factories and vehicles have caused ozone depletion, acid rain, and dangerous greenhouse gases have forced the global warming of the planet and the climate to change dangerously, the worst threat to humanity and all life. Leaders of the wealthier nations must be willing to accept responsibility for past mistakes and to help pay the financial burden for environmental protection of the developing nations. This is the most damaging conflict of interests between the rich industrialized countries and those that are poor and struggling just for existence. The Global Community helps wealthy and poorer nations reach a better understanding of each other's needs. All aspects are interrelated: global peace, global sustainability, human and Earth rights and the environment. The poor is more concerned with ending starvation, finding a proper shelter and employment, and helping their children to survive. Environmental issues become meaningless to the poor. In reality, all concerns are interrelated. As soon as the environment is destroyed beyond repair, human suffering is next. Ecology has no boundaries. All nations suffer the effects of air pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, acid rain, ozone depletion, silting of streams, and countless of other environmental problems. This was the reason for developing the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

Now, a short while ago, the Government of Canada has followed into the same steps of this culture of violence that orginated from the USA and the U.N., and that was accomplished without asking Canadians permission, not even a public debate on the issue. Our democracy has been demoted, devalued to that of a dictatorship. And yet our government wants to teach to the people of Afghanistan the benefits of democracy. Another Busk-like lie to the world but this time by ricochet to the Canadian people.

During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel were the countries that sold arms to the people of the Middle East and to Afghanistan. They have shown no ethical and moral values in the activities of their trade. They have made trade a despicable act of dealing with one another between human beings and between nations. No laws! No regulations! No ethics! No moral responsibility and accountability! Everyone has the "freedom" of destroying the global life-support systems! Everyone has the "freedom" of human rights abuses! Now pollution, diseases, terrorism, poverty, social and economic injustice have no boundaries.

The Global Community requires that those six nations to provide massive financial aid to the amount of eight trillion US dollars to the countries of the Middle East and to Afghanistan to help them overcome the ravages of war they have brought to them by the selling of war product and equipment. The money has to come directly from the six nations listed here and not from stealing the oil and gas resources of the Middle East. The financial aid will be administered by Earth Government . The first priority of the Global Community will be to build sustainable communities in all of the Muslim nations of the Middle East, including Afghanistan.

Several times in the past the Global Community has requested of the United Nations to restructure and reform its organization to be in touch with the problems humanity is facing in this millennium. They have never replied. Four of the five UN Permanent Members, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, are those countries that, not only control the UN, but they are the same countries that have brought disgrace to humanity by their selfish, immoral, unethical, incoherent, inconsistent, dishonnest, erratic, and mostly aimed at making money behavior in the Middle East and towards Afghanistan. They have given to trade a bad name. Because of them free trade has become a danger to the extinction of life on Earth. They even got China, the fifth Permanent Member of the UN, to vote YES to invade Afghanistan (without that vote the UN could not have approved), in exchange of China got its membership into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Global Community will do everything possible to give trade the proper guidance for humanity. Trade will become a global co-operation between all nations. The kind of behaviour that happened in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world will not be allowed again. That is Earth Government ’s commitment to the Global Community to make government and global citizens responsible and accountable. This commitment was defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act.

Governance of the Earth will make the rule of arbitrary power--economic (WTO, FTAA, EU), political (UN), or military (U.S.A. and NATO)-- subjected to the rule of Global Law within the global civil society, the human family. Justice is for everyone and is everywhere, a universal constant. Earth governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government can exists within the framework of an effective Global Community Earth Government Global Community Earth Government 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 Member Nations.

The U.N. and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels:

1.    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
2.    corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance;
3.    promotion of the military option, war;
4.    allowing the genocides of several peoples;
5.    the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community;
6.    the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment;
7.    the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; and
8.    the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations.


Back to top of page

 
No one can own Mount Everest in the Himalayas just by climbing to the top

Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth, as measured by the height of its summit above sea level. The mountain, which is part of the Himalaya range, is located on the border between Nepal and Tibet, China. As of the end of the 2006 climbing season, there have been 3,050 ascents to the summit, by 2,062 individuals, and 203 people have died on the mountain. There have been more than 630 further ascents in 2007. The conditions on the mountain are so difficult that most of the corpses have been left where they fell; some of them are easily visible from the standard climbing routes. Climbers are a significant source of tourist revenue for Nepal; they range from experienced mountaineers to relative novices who count on their paid guides to get them to the top. The Nepalese government also requires a permit from all prospective climbers; this carries a heavy fee, often more than $25,000 (USD) per person.

How does this relate to Canada's sovereighty in the North?

The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?

Does climbing Mount Everest gives ownership of the mountain?

How does this relate to Canada's sovereighty in the North?

The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?

Does putting a flag on the Moon gives you ownership of the Moon?

Does putting a flag on Mars gives you ownership of the planet?

Does discovering the Americas by explorers gave them ownership of the Americas?

Does Canada own the Northwest Passage or Nunavut?

In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.

Does Denmark truly owns Greenland? Just because you say you do? Just because the Permanent Court of International Justice say you do? What if the Court was wrong or corrupted?

Canada says it owns the Northwest Passage and Nunavut but how is that possible? Just because Canada says it does? Or because the United Nations say it does? What if the UN is corrupted? or wrong?

Obviously we know the answers to all thes questions. You dont own it. You never did and never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership.

All the climbing techniques in the world to get to the top of Mount Everest, all the hard work, all the sweat and pain endured, and more, much more, to finally put a flag on top of the mountain. Amazing human achievement! We can really be proud of a team that did it.

But you dont own the mountain.

Just like the first European explorers who discovered America, they arrived and conquered. Natives did not have a chance. Natives said America was their home. But no longer! The explorers said it is now ours. Most Natives were shot in the USA. More survived in Canada! Explorers were not doing this hard work just for the pleasure of finding something new. Their countries sent them and pay for their expenses. Explorers were expected to find something tangible that could make their countries proud and rich.

Today we have a situation in the Middle East whereby the USA has been invading the area ever since 1947 when it has coerced the United Nations to create the State of Israel, its Trojan Horse for the invasion. Israel and the USA together have been at war with the people of the Middle East and of surrounding nations ever since.

Truly, we are on the threshold of a global revolution, and we need to proceed with the non-violent approach. We need to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.

The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must based in the principle of equal rights to the Earth.

Territorial conflict has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflictsin the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, New Guinea, and Borneo. We have seen conflicts over valuable gems, minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.

Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few.

There is a way to share the Earth? The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

Back to top of page

 
Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia

Perhaps we could reflect on how things are done in the Middle East, say for example Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Prince is second in line to the throne.

The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet. Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as foreign affairs, education and finance.

The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing ones. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year terms that can be renewed.

The country is divided into 13 provinces, with a governor and deputy governor in each one. Each province has its own council that advises the governor and deals with the development of the province.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons. There are also courts in the Kingdom. The largest are the Shari’ah Courts, which hear most cases in the Saudi legal system.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Prince is second in line to the throne.

The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet. Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as foreign affairs, education and finance.

The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing ones. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year terms that can be renewed.

The country is divided into 13 provinces, with a governor and deputy governor in each one. Each province has its own council that advises the governor and deals with the development of the province.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons. There are also courts in the Kingdom. The largest are the Shari’ah Courts, which hear most cases in the Saudi legal system.

Since the beginning of the first Saudi state in the 18th century through the founding of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the late King Abdulaziz bin Abdelrahman Al-Saud on September 23, 1932, Shari'ah (Islamic law) has been the pillar and source of Saudi Arabia's basic system of government. It identifies the nature of the state and its goals and responsibilities, as well as the relationship between the government and its citizens.

Recognizing that his young nation would need to adapt to the changing times in order to thrive and prosper, King Abdulaziz built the foundation for a constitutional regime, thus establishing a modern government where once tribal rulers had reigned.

A royal decree in 1953 by his son King Saud established Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers. During the 1950s and 1960s, twenty government ministries were founded. The Council of Ministers, in conjunction with the King, formed the executive and legislative branches of the government.

This was the first step taken towards formalizing the long-established Islamic system of popular consultation, which has always been practiced by Saudi rulers. In the Majlis, weekly meetings that are open to all, members of the general public can approach the King and leaders at the local, provincial and national levels to discuss issues and raise grievances.

Beginning in the early 1970s, Saudi Arabia launched highly successful five-year development plans to set up a modern physical, social and human infrastructure. The rapid modernization of Saudi Arabia led to a re-evaluation of the country's political and administrative system.

By the 1990s, just as had his father before him, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd bin Abdulaziz felt the need to revitalize the existing political system. The primary goal was to streamline the system to deal with the requirements of the nation on the verge of the 21st century. Taking into consideration the Kingdom's role in the Islamic world as well as its traditions and social fabric, the changes were made in total adherence to the Islamic religion.

In 1992, King Fahd introduced a new Basic Law for the System of Government, and regulations for the Provincial System and Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative Council). The following year, he announced bylaws for the Council of Ministers System. In October 2003, the cabinet approved procedures for the election of half of the members of the municipal councils, as a start towards greater participation of the citizens in the governing of their country.

10/17/2007
Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz has highlighted the importance of the Kingdom’s recent judicial reforms and stressed that Islam guarantees justice for all people.

The Crown Prince made the remarks while opening an international conference on engineering arbitration organized by the Saudi Council of Engineers in Al-Khobar yesterday.

He pointed out that Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz’s allocation of $1.87 billion [SR 7 billion] to upgrade judicial facilities and train judges shows how important the sector is to the Saudi government.

The new Judiciary and Court of Grievances Laws provide for the establishment of a Supreme Court and the formation of special commercial, labor and administrative courts. In the new system, the Court of Grievances will operate as an independent body and will report directly to the King. The new laws were announced in a royal decree October 2.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz issued a royal decree October 8 detailing rules for implementing the Kingdom’s new succession law.

The law, which was announced in October 2006, formalizes the royal succession and aims to ensure a smooth transfer of power. Previously, the King had the sole right to select the Crown Prince. Under the new system, the King will nominate a Crown Prince, and the Allegiance Commission will vote on the candidate.

The new bylaw outlines who can become a member of the Allegiance Commission, which chooses future kings and crown princes. It also stipulates what should be done if a member of the Commission dies and how the crown prince should be selected.

As per the succession law, the Commission consists of the sons of King Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the founder of the modern Kingdom. According to the new bylaw, if a son is deceased, incapacitated or disinterested in serving on the Commission, then the membership passes to one of his sons. The potential member must be at least 22 years old and be a man of good reputation.

The bylaw stipulates that members of the Commission will serve fixed four-year terms that can only be renewed with the agreement the other Commission members and approval of the King.

If a member of the Commission fails to perform his duties, then a panel of three fellow members will investigate the violation and submit a report to the Commission. In the event that two-thirds of the members decide that the violation merits dismissal, then the matter will be submitted to the King.

Upon the death of the King, the Allegiance Committee will meet immediately to name the Crown Prince as King. The new King then has 10 days to submit a letter to the chairman of the Allegiance Commission naming his choice for Crown Prince or asking the Commission to nominate someone to the office. The Commission then has 10 days from receipt of the King’s letter to choose a nominee.

Referring to the appointment of a medical panel to report on the health of the King, Crown Prince or Commission member, the new bylaw states that the panel’s meetings would be secret. Medical reports are to be prepared at the Commission’s venue and signed by all members of the medical panel.

The Secretary-General of the Allegiance Commission will be responsible for all of its financial and administrative affairs. The Secretary-General will hold the rank of Minister, while his deputy will hold the rank of Excellent.

10/16/2007
Supreme Council of Petroleum and Mineral Affairs renewed

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz issued a royal order today renewing the Supreme Council of Petroleum and Mineral Affairs (SCPM) for four years, effective October 26, 2007.

The newly re-formed SCPM will be chaired by King Abdullah, with Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz serving as deputy president. Minister of State Dr. Muttlab Al-Nafissa will serve as member and secretary general. Other members include Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Labor Ghazi Al-Qusaibi, Minister of Commerce and Industry Hashim Yamani, Minister of Petroleum Ali Al-Naimi, Minister of Finance Ibrahim Al-Assaf, Minister of Economy and Planning Khalid Al-Qusaibi, President of the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology Dr. Muhammad Al-Sowayel, and Saudi Aramco President and CEO Abdullah Juma’ah.

Established in 2000, the SCPM is responsible for policymaking on the exploitation of petroleum, gas and other hydrocarbon materials.



Back to top of page

 
Who owns the Earth? Movement for taxation of all Earth natural resources

In today's affairs a very powerful few are in possession of the land and the Earth's resources. These few people operate practically without taxation. Is that what we want as a global democracy? Who should own the Earth?

Soveveignty is the status of a person or group of persons having supreme and independent political authority. The concept of sovereignty is related to the concept of power: power over a territory, land and water, oil and minerals, as well as life on Earth. The United Nations (UN) cannot have normal attributes of sovereignty, which has been defined around a territory and population.

The Global Community has in fact been defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The issue here is not that of populations and boundary lines, but of the demarcation of power and control over the Earth that is the foremost formal attribute of sovereignty.

To speak of enforceable global law is to speak of world power. Global Parliament has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.

Today our democracy is not based on equal rights to the Earth and its natural resources. Conservation, restoration, and protection of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is conected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. This causes a fundamental threat to democracy. What has become of democracy? What has become " we the people? "

We need to take a giant step forward to a new form of democracy. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a new democratic mandate recognizing that the land, the air, oil and natural gas, minerals, all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is our birthright and our common heritage. What we make from our mental and physical labor can rightfully be held as individual property but the profit of the Earth should be shared by all life. The unjust and inequitable ownership of the land and of all other natural resources has caused the great majority of local-to-global conflicts and wars.

The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

Let us remind everyone the definition that has been guiding us throughout the previous dialogues: The Global Dialogue


"The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below." The Glass Bubble concept  of a Global Community

This is the fundamental definition of the expression "Global Community". This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. This is the fundamental definition of the expression Global Communit It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity. Evolution, Creation and now, Guiding Souls Throughout this paper the land ownership of the Earth means ownership of the land and of all other Earth natural resources.

"A global community" is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical community that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.

The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world.

A typical community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people sharing with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or they can be people with totally different backgrounds and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.

Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. We will see in the Preview how this new system can work.

As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources.

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a ground rent basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and conserved for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

The Global Community should set up expert groups and begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.

This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups such as:

  • Native and aboriginal people claiming that their ancestors owned the land so now they do


  • God gave it to us so the land is ours


  • Property ownership system of the Roman Empire to today, our social-economic system of land owership


  • The military power of this world forcing ownership of land and of all other Earth natural resources against the will of everyone else

None of the above groups can claim ownership of the land and other Earth natural resources. They never did own the land and of all other Earth natural resources. And they never will.

Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth.

However, we have reached the deplorable circumstance where in large measure a very powerful few are in possession of the Earth's resources, the land and all its riches, and all the franchises and other privileges that yield a return. These monopolistic positions are kept by a handful of men who are maintained virtually without taxation.

Whoever owns the land and all other natural resources exerts power over those who are landless and no resources. The Global Community proposes to extend democratic principles to include the ownership and control of the Earth. The Global Economic Model was created for all the people on the planet. The model makes sure that the rights of all people and the rights of the planet are one and the same.

The Global Economic Model stipulates as well that we, as human beings, are trustees and caretakers of all other life forms on Earth.

The Global Economic Model is global, as people are freed to move beyond borders and boundaries and claim the whole Earth as their birthplace.

How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned not just by the people living in it but by all life on Earth and the Soul of Life, the Soul of Humanity.

Unless a reformed or empowered Global Parliament is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for the Global Community, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests.

Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labor. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property.

The model eliminates subsidies that are environmentally or socially harmful, and inequitable.

The ownership of natural resources ultimately determines the social, the political and consequently the mental and physical condition of a people. Attaining an ethic of wise and careful stewardship of the Earth is likewise inseparable from the task of securing the well-being of individuals. The health of a person and the health of the Earth are interrelated.

The Earth is our birthright and our common heritage. What we make from our mental and physical labor can rightfully be held as individual property but the profit of the Earth should be shared by all life. and for all.The unjust and inequitable ownership and control of vast amounts of the land and of other natural resources has caused many global conflicts and wars.

Every national government must show a commitment to making available enough land in the context of sustainable land-use policies. This policy applies as well to the Inuit people, and to all Native communities in Canada. Governments at all levels, including all Native communities, should remove all possible obstacles that may hamper equitable access to land and ensure that equal rights of women and men related to land and property are protected under the law. When there are no Canadians wanting the land then the Global Community will have people from other countries in need of land to settle with their families.



Truly, we are on the threshold of a global revolution, and we need to proceed with the non-violent approach. We need to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.

The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must based in the principle of equal rights to the Earth.

Territorial conflict has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflictsin the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, New Guinea, and Borneo. We have seen conflicts over valuable gems, minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.

Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few.

There is a way to share the Earth? The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world.

A global economic model is based on respect and value all life on Earth. It recognizes that we as human beings are trustees and caretakers of the many life forms that dwell here with us. A global economic model extends the democratic mandate to solve the land problem by affirming the equal right of all people to the Earth. It will have a balanced and just relationship of citizenry to government with enlightened public finance policy based on land and land rent for the people. Money will be issued and circulated as a service for the people as a whole rather than used as a mechanism for the exploitation of the many by the few.

A global economic model is global, as people are freed to move beyond borders and boundaries and claim the whole Earth as their birthplace. It is highly decentralized as well, with people living and producing for their basic human needs within the constraints and parameters of local ecological systems. A global economic model is about a world that works for everyone, with plenty of time to expand our minds and elevate our spirits.

How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned by the people living in it. The Earth itself is the bottom line. The land is the source of all life and wealth. To survive, we must have somewhere to stand and to rest. But this absolute necessity for our very existence is nowhere guaranteed in our constitutional laws. Our Bill of Rights did not proclaim the human right to the Earth.

We must grasp the injustice at the core of our present economic system. We need to understand how far we have strayed from reality and how we have been led into illusionary games of finance. Our treatment of the Earth as a market commodity, just like a car or television, is the basic flaw in our economic ground rules.

When land became a 'commodity' and lost its status as provider and sustainer of life, Western civilization began its history of subjugation and exploitation of the Earth and Earth based cultures.

A global economic model can achieve fairness by giving the equal right of all people to the land and to all other natural resources, and the right of the individual to the products of labor.

A condition of "ownership" of any particular landsite or natural resource is payment of the fee back to the community as a whole. This fee is the proper source of public finance for the needs of the community.

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a fee collected basis for public needs as it means that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions.

In order to democratize land rights, we can make land available to individuals and groups who wish to live in ecologically sustainable villages and farms. Community land trusts can hold title to such lands. The buildings and improvements can be privately owned. This process is a strong incentive for the creation of employment.

The global economic model also allows for an increase of taxes and fees on natural resources:

Emissions into air, water, or soil
Land sites according to land value
Lands used for timber, grazing, mining
Ocean and freshwater resources
Electromagnetic or radio-frequency spectrum
Satellite orbital zones
Oil and minerals
Hydropower

Most issues and aspects of global governance and Earth management  Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person. are already being applied by the Global Community. But there is no agency Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth. powerful enough to protect life on Earth from those who care not about it. At best what we have is the Global Justice Movement for all life The Global Community Global Justice Movement has many inter-related components: monetary, social, economic, environmental, democracy, and peace. The Global Community Global Justice Movement
promotes new thinking to benefit all economies and societies – the true, fair, democratic and efficient solution to poverty. The Global Community has the productive resources to eliminate poverty and
injustice. Humanity is now in the process of developing the democratic and transparent communications infrastructure which can bring this about. which has found a process for the establishment of justice amongst us all. What we have not done is the actual governing and managing of the planet as per the Global Constitution The Global Constitution and Global Law. God Law, Nature Law, the teaching of the Soul of Humanity with
                                                                                                  the teaching of the prophet are fundamental pillars of our Global
                                                                                                  Law. The work of the Global Community, the global civil society,
                                                                                                  and the determination of government worldwide, make it possible
                                                                                                  for everyone to comply with the law. The Global Protection
                                                                                                  Agency (GPA) enforces the law. And that is our first priority now.

The planet and all its resources of land, water, forests, minerals, the atmosphere, electro-magnetic frequencies, and even satellite orbits belong to the Global Community. The Global Economic Model makes sure that the profits of the Earth will benefit the people and all life, and secure an age of peace and fairness for all.

Properly managed small farms along with ecological villages can produce a diverse range of food, fiber, livestock, and energy products for local markets. Bio methods of farming depending on renewable energy sources can yield both social and environmental stability. Tax policies that remove taxes on labor and productive capital will be the sustainable pillar that makes the global economic model works for all.

This Global Movement for land value taxation and natural resource rent for revenue can provide the basis for worldwide economic democracy. Freedom to live or work in any part of the globe would also further equality of entitlement to the planet, and provide a basis for the resolution of resource wars and territorial conflicts. There would be no more private profit as unearned income from Earth natural resources. Instead, transparent and accountable resource agencies would collect resource rents and distribute those funds in public services or as direct citizen dividends. With fundamental democracy in rights to the Earth firmly established through legal means and mandates, basic needs would be secured for all and the militarized national security state and its bloated budgets could wither away.


Back to top of page

 
Agency of Global Police (AGP)

Building global communities require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars, no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, human activities, as population increases the respect and value of a human life is in decline, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, deforestation, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities for all life on the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of the above problems.

Results from previous Global Dialogues have showed us that the governance of Earth through global cooperation and symbiotical relationships was the only possible option for a large population such as the Earth's population, and so, to help achieve this goal we have developed the Global Constitution and the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act to govern ourselves as member nations of Earth Govewrnment.

Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth.

Earth Government Agency of Global Police will train and lead a global police force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. This is a great opportunity for globallateralism.

The Agency of Global Police (AGP) is leading a group of people in the world who participate in:

a)     peacekeeping and peacemaking mission;

b)     creating global ministries for:
1.     the policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and
2.     the development of strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

c)     enforcing global law;

d)     saving the Earth's genetic heritage;

e)     keeping the world healthy and at peace;

f)     protecting the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet;

g)     dealing with the impacts of: global poverty, lack of drinking water and food, global warming and the global climate change, threat to security, conflicts and wars, lack of good quality soil for agriculture, polluted air, water and land, overcrownded cities, more new and old diseases out of control, widespread drugs, human and Earth rights abuses, world overpopulation, and lack of resources;

h)     broadening the traditional focus of the security of states to include both the security of people as well as that of the planet. Global security policies include:

*     every person on Earth has a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights
*     prevention of conflicts and wars; identification, anticipation, and resolving conflicts before they become armed confrontations. The Earth Court of Justice will help here.
*     military force is not a legitimate political instrument
*     weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence
*     eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from all nations and have inspectors verifying progress to that effect
*     all nations should sign and ratify the conventions to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
*     the production and trade in arms should be listed as a criminal act against humanity; this global ministry will introduce a Convention on the curtailment of the arms trade, a provision for a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of the financing or subsidy of arms exports by governments
*     the development of military capabilities is a potential threat to the security of people and all life on Earth; the ministry will make the demilitarization of global politics a high priority.
*     anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts and wars
*     maintaining the integrity of the environment and global life-support systems
*     managing the environmental, economic, social, political and military conditions that threatened the security of people and all life on the planet
*     over the past decades and even now today, all Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (mostly the United States, Russia and Britain) were responsible for selling weapons and war equipment. These three nations are required to give back to the Global Community an amount of 8 trillion dollars (American) as a payment for the immense damage they have caused in the world. They have created a culture of violence throughout the world. They are nation bullies, nation predators. They are responsible for economic mismanagement, ethnic tensions, crimes, drug abuse, high unemployment, urban stress, worldwide poverty, and pressures on natural resources. Most conflicts in the world are direct legacies of cold war power politics, senseless politics. Other conflicts were caused by the end of the cold war and the collapse of old regimes. Other factors have combined to increase tension: religious, economical, political, and ethnic aspects.

In the past, security was thought as better accomplished through military means. Expanding the military capabilities and forming alliances with other nations were the only way to 'win'. Today wars are unlikely to produce winners. The Global Community is all over the planet. Ethnic groups are everywhere. Some say there are more Italians in Montreal, Canada that there are in Italy. So we would fight our own people? Wars truly make no sense! The world is too crowded and too small nowadays! And weapons too lethal! So security cannot be achieved through the military. The only job the military should be asked to do today is to protect the global life-support systems. These systems have the highest priority on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and are certainly more important than any of the other rights on the Scale including security. Simply because without life there is no other right possible. Without Oxygen there is no life! Without clean water there is no life! So protect life on Earth at all costs. Wars are the biggest threat to life and the ecosystem of the planet. Primordial human rights come next on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. Without a shelter life will still exist in some places but is not possible in cold place. There are many related aspects of the global life-support systems:
*     global warming
*     Ozone layer
*     wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation
*     climate change
*     species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
*     losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
*     the capacity for photosynthesis
*     the water cycle
*     food production systems
*     genetic resources
*     chemicals produced for human use and not found in nature and, eventually, reaching the environment with impacts on Earth's waters, soils, air, and ecology

So security must be achieved by other means than wars. We might as well shelved the war industry from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. No waiting! That also means having inspectors verifying the phasing out in all nations of the world, and not just in the Middle East region and North Korea. The nature of global security has changed since the rise of the Global Community. Security used to be about the protection of the state and its boundaries, people, institutions and values from an outside threat. The Global Community emphasizes as a priority the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Today the security of people within the Global Community is just as important as the security of states. Citizens must be secure. The Global Community is just as important as the security and life of citizens and states.

There are many threats to security other than the threats to the global life-support systems and threat caused by weapons of mass destruction and the threats to the sovereignty of a state, and they include:

*     the proliferation of conventional small arms
*     the terrorizing of civilian populations by domestic groups
*     gross violations of human and Earth rights

Global security can only be achieved if it can be shared by all peoples and through global co-operation, based on principles as explained in the Global Constitution such as justice, human dignity, and equity for all and for the good of all. All people and states are protected by the Global Community.

The Agency of Global Police provides leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping and Earth security ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications that they can work with each other.

The overall size of the force, or who would pay for it, have not been discussed, but the idea has been raised with countries in Europe and Asia.

To act as a global policing force, as the AGP aspires to do, many foundations must be laid, especially regarding the move from wielding power derived from the Global Community to legitimate global leadership. There are many required characteristics that are prerequisite for legitimate leadership:
1.     Legitimate leadership is built upon trust. Those who are led must largely believe that the leader is committed to integrity, honesty, and transparent inquiry into problems. The leader’s actions must align with his words

2.     Legitimate leadership rests upon checks and balances, which are necessary to ensure power is not corrupted.

3.     Legitimate leadership is an act of service. Those in power must show a primary interest in the good of the collective ahead of their self-interest. In this way, true leaders are mission-centered rather than self-centered.

4.     Legitimate leadership empowers others appropriately rather than concentrating power disproportionately. In other words, true leaders produce more leaders and empower them as situations demand.

5.     Legitimate leadership is visionary, carrying the torch of a possible future.

6.     Legitimate leadership is willing to lead by example, including following a foundation of ethics, performing more than one’s share of work, and making sacrifices where appropriate.

7.     Legitimate leadership is compassionately fierce when something undermines the good of the whole. In a company this might mean the CEO fires a slacking employee. In a city, the police may jail a murderer. On a global level, this might even mean arresting those breaking global law.

The defence function of a leader requires that he safeguard the good of the whole by whatever the most skillful means are to accomplish that defence.

While that is not a comprehensive catalog of leadership prerequisites, I do think those few requirements are foundational and relatively unquestionable. Without at least a solid foundation of those requirements, the AGP’s actions among nation-states will remain those of a unilateralist leader rather than a global leader. We will be, and should be, legitimated in the role of a global leader among nation-states and validated as police enforcer. The Global Community offers a few recommendations for actions that would strengthen and legitimate the AGP’s role as a true global leader by gradually creating an international structure that better safeguards the whole than we can ever do now as a unilateralist leader.

The AGP recommendations:

1.     Ban military action in all parts of the world;

2.     Lead the way in creating legitimate power for Global Parliament, subjecting ourselves and multinational corporations to taxation that generates money for programs that are focused on world betterment and world problems. As a mark of our global leadership, we should commit a greater percentage of our resources to this effort than any other organization.

3.     Hold ourselves to a high standard of compliance around global treaties that aim for collective benefit and the redress of economic, environmental, military, and political problems. Our adherence should be exemplary. Or, if we truly question the merit of a global accord, we should lead the way in creating agreements that even better serve the global interest rather than simply ignoring or undermining the existing attempts.

4.     Exert strong global leadership on multinational solutions to pressing health, environmental, and other problems. We should propose innovative new solutions and show leadership in carrying them out, especially in areas such as clean energy development.

5.     Take seriously the process of coming clean by exposing corporate interests in politics, lobbying by powerful organizations, subsidies of fringe military groups, etc. When our global government officials commit to be honest and transparent, a much deeper foundation of international trust will be built.

As we enact global law, we will begin to take on a much deeper kind of global leadership, one that earns more respect than envy and more gratitude than hatred, one that can catapult the whole planet forward into a future where war is no longer thinkable between nation-states and a legitimate and beneficial global government is able to cope with global problems.

I believe that there is no greater task in the world today than for the Global Community to proceed through the maturation of its leadership, emerging from a more self-interested adolescence as a global leader into a nobler adulthood. We have the potential to act as a torchbearer for a better tomorrow. Do we heed the call? I hope this message has convinced at least a few people that the question of how to proceed with that maturation is of far deeper significance than the reforming of the United Nations. I thus pray that we move with wisdom, grace, clarity, and love in the days, years, and even decades ahead.

The Earth Court of Justice has made clear that the new global law legislation has been enacted, the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act, will be enforced by the AGP. Global Law is now the law of the land on the planet. No one is excuse! Everyone is included! Those breaking Global Law will be prosecuted. For now, those committing crimes against humanity and all life on Earth will be arrested. There are Global Community Arrest Warrants against all world leaders of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council.

The Global Community blames the actions of the Five Permanent Members for not having put hard sanctions against the USA for having unilaterally invaded Iraq and letting Americans plundering the oil and gas resources of the Iraquis. That in itself is a crime against humanity and all life on the planet. That goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. Through the manipulation of the world media, it now seems OK to prepare for the invasion of Iran. That also is a crime.

It is a crime against humanity to promote the military option, war, as a solution to the world problems.

The USA have given Israel enough WMDs, including nuclear war heads, capable to destroy the entire Middle East region and no sanctions were ever enforced against Israel and the USA. They were given to Israel by the United States. Israel was made the Trojan Horse of the USA for the invasion of the Middle East and surrounding nations, including China. Back in 1947, the creation of the State of Israel was a strategic military move by the USA military aiming at the invasion of the Middle East and securing for themselves the oil and gas reserves in the region. Where was the leadership of the Un Security Council? What have you done to stop the invasion? Nothing! You have never done anything to help humanity and all life on the planet.

Certainly we ought to disarm all nations from all weapons of mass destruction.

The leadership of the United Nations has failed to enforce disarmement. It is a tragedy that such a failure is now seen as the source of other nations, such as Iran and others, wanting to defend themselves against an invasion by the USA.

And that is a crime against humanity and all life. The Earth Court of Justice has now a Global Community Arrest Warrant against world leaders of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council for crimes against humanity. The following table shows their names and one kind of WMDs they possess.

The Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are all declared nuclear weapons states
Country leader Warheads active/total Year of first test
United States President George Walker Bush 40,000 1945
Russia President Vladimir Putin 10,000 1949
United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair <200 1952
President of the French Republic Jacques Chirac 350 1960
President of the People's Republic of China Hu Jintao 130 1964


With their nuclear war heads and other WMDs, the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are holding the world and all life on Earth hostage. We are being threatened by their warheads. All life on the planet is being threatened. That makes them terrorists. The Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are terrorists, criminals and ought to be stopped. The Global Community will disarm you, like it or not. No waiting! There has been enough wasted time during the Cold War. The AGP will come to your country and disarm you. Right now!

The North Korea crisis is just another example of the lack of proper leadership of the United Nations. Everyone saw the problem coming from the time President Bush insulted:
Kim Jong-il, the leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Remember the now famous 'axe of evil' expression?!

The world knew America was invading the Middle East. Why has the UN not enforced hard sanctions against the USA for its bullying tactics at the UN to get what it wants? Proper UN leadership could have avoided the situation we have today. The UN did nothing at a critical time and just watched things happening. The UN is the organization where bullying takes place by those with nuclear war heads. The world is threatened by nuclear war heads. The Five Permanent Members of the UN are allowed to bully any other nations. They are holding the world hostage with the threat of their nuclear war heads. They are all terrorist governments. There are Global Community Arrest Warrants against all Five Permanent Members leaders. They are terrorists, dangerous criminals, and must be stopped. We will disarm you, like or not! Life on Earth has no need of all you with nuclear war heads and other WMDs. If you refuse to disarm it will be because you are very much like those others you accuse of being terrorists: you are the worst terrorists on the planet.

The USA is invading the world, and the UN can do nothing to stop them. The USA was allowed to invade other nations, change their governments, and has often made lies in speeches to the UN, to the world. Remember what the US representatives told the world at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq? Lies! All lies! And the leadership of the UN never did anything to reprimand the US representatives and implement hard sanctions for the invasion of Iraq. Ever since its creation in 1947, the USA have given Israel enough WMDs, including nuclear war heads, to destroy the entire Middle East region and no sanctions were ever enforced against Israel and the USA. Where was the UN leadership? What has the UN done to stop the invasion? Nothing! The UN has never done anything to help humanity. And that is a crime against humanity. There is now a Global Community Arrest Warrant against Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General. Many reasons! He is a criminal because he had the power and was able to show leadership as per the Charter of the UN but never did anything to follow those principles in the Charter he was supposed to be standing for. To do nothing is a crime against humanity and all life on Earth. It is pure disgrace that we now have the UN organization allowing the USA break the friendship between North Korea and China. The USA invaded the Middle East in a similar way: breaking frienships between the different communities of the Middle East, creating hate between communities. The USA is responsible and accountable for the civil war in Iraq.

In conclusion, the eventual invasion of China is the reason why the United States dont want North Korea and other Middle East nations to have nuclear weapons. What else could it be? Americans are all over the Middle East creating hate between the different communities, invading, stealing oil and gas reserves, and spreading the false belief that democracy is the best political system. Democracy got us to where we are today: the worst polluters on the planet and threatening the existence of all life. Our consumer driver political system is wrong. Our ways of life are wrong! We know it, and we still try to impose them to other Peoples. America would like the Peoples of North Korea, China and of the Middle East nations to be like us consumers, the worst polluters and on a planetary destructive path. In this way, Americans back home would not be feeling so guilty of being so bad. They would rather let others take the blame for their failure as a society.

Have you ever flown over North Korea at night? Almost no light above cities! Why? No electricity! That makes them environmentally friendly and non-polluters. What about plastics!? To have no electricity implies no consumer products made of plastics. No fridges! No freezers, which also means that they do not destroy the Ozone layer around the planet, a global life-support system to all life. Fridges and freezers use refrigerants which eventually are released to the atmosphere and destroy the Ozone layer. We could go on listing the implications of no light at night. Yet the people of North Korea live happy lives. Well! That was until Americans got into the picture. The people of North Korea are the most environmentally friendly people on the planet and Americans are jealous of that. Americans want everyone on the planet to be just like they are in America: the worst polluters on a planetary destructive path.

And guess who is next: China. Americans want the people of China to be just like they are: a consumer driven society and the worst polluters. And the invasion of China is their long term economic and military plan. If the United States can destroy North Korea, and its friendship with China, they can destroy China. North Korea is just a strategic military test to see how far and how well Americans can do invading the region without being told off. And what will be China's reaction...? If China does nothing meaningful to stop the invasion then America will continue further its progressive 'democratisation' of the world. But the United States would rather make money in the process, and that means letting rich American corporations getting richer by having the people of China working for them and so, polluting the planet even more on their behalf. The Global Community has developed and implemented the 'New Way of Doing Business'. Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of the Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally 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). This product may be anything and everything from oil and gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! Som when America sells technology, or anything at all, to China, America becomes responsible and accountable of its trade from beginning to end. If the technology is a car, and car manufacturing, then America is responsible and accountable of the pollution coming out of it. The pollution coming out of the car manufactured in China is to be added to the USA pollution. A political border does not take away your responsibility and accountability. Selling something does not take away your responsibility and accountability. Nuclear war heads and other WMDs given to Israel is the same idea. America is responsible and accountable of its doing.

That is the idea!

First the economic and military invasion of the Middle East nations using Israel as a Trojan Horse, then China is next. The American Congress has already begun this economic and military invasion by passing legislation allowing rich corporations doing 'business' in China.

Prosecuting criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction regardless of a territorial or nationality nexus required a solid commitment of political will from national governments and the Global Community.

The Global Community has now implemented a total embargo on all U.S., France, United Kingdom, China and Russia consumer products, goods and services including mass destruction chemicals, small arms, nuclear war heads, weapons of mass destruction, , war products and war equipment. 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 their products and services, and never supply them with the same.


Back to top of page

 
Global Protection Agency

Building global communities require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars, no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, human activities, as population increases the respect and value of a human life is in decline, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, deforestation, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities for all life on the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of the above problems.

Global Law
Read about the three pillars


God Law, Nature Law, the teaching of the Soul of Humanity with the teaching of the prophet are fundamental pillars of our Global Law. The work of the Global Community, the global civil society, and the determination of government worldwide, make it possible for everyone to comply with the law. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) enforces the law.

Results from previous Global Dialogues have showed us that the governance of Earth through global cooperation and symbiotical relationships was the only possible option for a large population such as the Earth's population, and so, to help achieve this goal we have developed the Global Constitution and the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act to govern ourselves as member nations of Earth Govewrnment.

Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth.

Global Protection Agency will train and lead a global force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. This is a great opportunity for globallateralism.

The Global Protection Agency (GPA) is leading a group of people in the world who participate in:

a)     peacekeeping or peacemaking mission;

b)     creating global ministries for:
1.     the policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and
2.     the development of strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

c)     enforcing global law;

d)     saving the Earth's genetic heritage;

e)     keeping the world healthy and at peace;

f)     protecting the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet;

g)     dealing with the impacts of: global poverty, lack of drinking water and food, global warming and the global climate change, threat to security, conflicts and wars, lack of good quality soil for agriculture, polluted air, water and land, overcrownded cities, more new and old diseases out of control, widespread drugs, human and Earth rights abuses, world overpopulation, and lack of resources;

h)     broadening the traditional focus of the security of states to include both the security of people as well as that of the planet. Global security policies include:

*     every person on Earth has a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights
*     prevention of conflicts and wars; identification, anticipation, and resolving conflicts before they become armed confrontations. The Earth Court of Justice will help here.
*     military force is not a legitimate political instrument
*     weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence
*     eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from all nations and have inspectors verifying progress to that effect
*     all nations should sign and ratify the conventions to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
*     the production and trade in arms should be listed as a criminal act against humanity; this global ministry will introduce a Convention on the curtailment of the arms trade, a provision for a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of the financing or subsidy of arms exports by governments
*     the development of military capabilities is a potential threat to the security of people and all life on Earth; the ministry will make the demilitarization of global politics a high priority.
*     anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts and wars
*     maintaining the integrity of the environment and global life-support systems
*     managing the environmental, economic, social, political and military conditions that threatened the security of people and all life on the planet
*     over the past decades and even now today, all Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (mostly the United States, Russia and Britain) were responsible for selling weapons and war equipment. These three nations are required to give back to the Global Community an amount of 8 trillion dollars (American) as a payment for the immense damage they have caused in the world. They have created a culture of violence throughout the world. They are nation bullies, nation predators. They are responsible for economic mismanagement, ethnic tensions, crimes, drug abuse, high unemployment, urban stress, worldwide poverty, and pressures on natural resources. Most conflicts in the world are direct legacies of cold war power politics, senseless politics. Other conflicts were caused by the end of the cold war and the collapse of old regimes. Other factors have combined to increase tension: religious, economical, political, and ethnic aspects. The dollar fine is to be administered by Global Parliament.

In the past, security was thought as better accomplished through military means. Expanding the military capabilities and forming alliances with other nations were the only way to 'win'. Today wars are unlikely to produce winners. The Global Community is all over the planet. Ethnic groups are everywhere. Some say there are more Italians in Montreal, Canada that there are in Italy. So we would fight our own people? Wars truly make no sense! The world is too crowded and too small nowadays! And weapons too lethal! So security cannot be achieved through the military. The only job the military should be asked to do today is to protect the global life-support systems. These systems have the highest priority on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and are certainly more important than any of the other rights on the Scale including security. Simply because without life there is no other right possible. Without Oxygen there is no life! Without clean water there is no life! So protect life on Earth at all costs. Wars are the biggest threat to life and the ecosystem of the planet. Primordial human rights come next on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. Without a shelter life will still exist in some places but is not possible in cold place. There are many related aspects of the global life-support systems:
*     global warming
*     Ozone layer
*     wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation
*     climate change
*     species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
*     losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
*     the capacity for photosynthesis
*     the water cycle
*     food production systems
*     genetic resources
*     chemicals produced for human use and not found in nature and, eventually, reaching the environment with impacts on Earth's waters, soils, air, and ecology

So security must be achieved by other means than wars. We might as well shelved the war industry from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. No waiting! That also means having inspectors verifying the phasing out in all nations of the world, and not just in some Middle East country. The nature of global security has changed since the rise of the Global Community. Security used to be about the protection of the state and its boundaries, people, institutions and values from an outside threat. The Global Community emphasizes as a priority the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Today the security of people within the Global Community is just as important as the security of states. Citizens must be secure. The Global Community is just as important as the security and life of citizens and states.

There are many threats to security other than the threats to the global life-support systems and threat caused by weapons of mass destruction and the threats to the sovereignty of a state, and they include:

*     the proliferation of conventional small arms
*     the terrorizing of civilian populations by domestic groups
*     gross violations of human and Earth rights

Global security can only be achieved if it can be shared by all peoples and through global co-operation, based on principles as explained in the Global Constitution such as justice, human dignity, and equity for all and for the good of all. All people and states are protected by the Global Community.

In connection between human well-being and a sound environment, Earth rights are ecological rights and the rights that human beings have in protecting their global life-support systems. Earth rights are those rights that demonstrate the connection between human well-being and a sound environment. They include individuals and global communities human rights and the rights to a clean environment, and participation in development decisions. We define ecological rights as those rights of the ecosystem of the Earth beyond human purpose. They are those rights that protect and preserve the ecological heritage of the Earth for future generations. The Earth Court of Justice guarantees ecological rights in its Statute. The Court guarantees also the rights to a safe environment and an environment free from environmental degradation.

Earth rights are the rights to life on Earth.

The Global Protection Agency provides leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping and Earth security ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications that they can work with each other.

The overall size of the force, or who would pay for it, have not been discussed, but the idea has been raised with countries in Europe and Asia.

As well, there are questions about how many nations would sign up if such a force were under the control of Earth Government .

To act as a global policing force, as the GPA aspires to do, many foundations must be laid, especially regarding the move from wielding power derived from Earth Government to legitimate global leadership. There are many required characteristics that are prerequisite for legitimate leadership:
1.     Legitimate leadership is built upon trust. Those who are led must largely believe that the leader is committed to integrity, honesty, and transparent inquiry into problems. The leader’s actions must align with his words

2.     Legitimate leadership rests upon checks and balances, which are necessary to ensure power is not corrupted.

3.     Legitimate leadership is an act of service. Those in power must show a primary interest in the good of the collective ahead of their self-interest. In this way, true leaders are mission-centered rather than self-centered.

4.     Legitimate leadership empowers others appropriately rather than concentrating power disproportionately. In other words, true leaders produce more leaders and empower them as situations demand.

5.     Legitimate leadership is visionary, carrying the torch of a possible future.

6.     Legitimate leadership is willing to lead by example, including following a foundation of ethics, performing more than one’s share of work, and making sacrifices where appropriate.

7.     Legitimate leadership is compassionately fierce when something undermines the good of the whole. In a company this might mean the CEO fires a slacking employee. In a city, the police may jail a murderer. On a global level, this might even mean arresting those breaking global law.

The defence function of a leader requires that he safeguard the good of the whole by whatever the most skillful means are to accomplish that defence.

While that is not a comprehensive catalog of leadership prerequisites, I do think those few requirements are foundational and relatively unquestionable. Without at least a solid foundation of those requirements, the GPA’s actions among nation-states will remain those of a unilateralist leader rather than a global leader. We will be, and should be, legitimated in the role of a global leader among nation-states and validated as an enforcer of global law. Earth Government offers a few recommendations for actions that would strengthen and legitimate the GPA’s role as a true global leader by gradually creating an international structure that better safeguards the whole than we can ever do now as a unilateralist leader.

The GPA recommendations:

1.     Ban military action in all parts of the world;

2.     Lead the way in creating legitimate power for Global Parliament, subjecting ourselves and multinational corporations to taxation that generates money for programs that are focused on world betterment and world problems. As a mark of our global leadership, we should commit a greater percentage of our resources to this effort than any other organization.

3.     Hold ourselves to a high standard of compliance around global treaties that aim for collective benefit and the redress of economic, environmental, military, and political problems. Our adherence should be exemplary. Or, if we truly question the merit of a global accord, we should lead the way in creating agreements that even better serve the global interest rather than simply ignoring or undermining the existing attempts.

4.     Exert strong global leadership on multinational solutions to pressing health, environmental, and other problems. We should propose innovative new solutions and show leadership in carrying them out, especially in areas such as clean energy development.

5.     Take seriously the process of coming clean by exposing corporate interests in politics, lobbying by powerful organizations, subsidies of fringe military groups, etc. When our global government officials commit to be honest and transparent, a much deeper foundation of international trust will be built.

As we enact global law, we will begin to take on a much deeper kind of global leadership, one that earns more respect than envy and more gratitude than hatred, one that can catapult the whole planet forward into a future where war is no longer thinkable between nation-states and a legitimate and beneficial global government is able to cope with global problems.

I believe that there is no greater task in the world today than for Earth Government to proceed through the maturation of its leadership, emerging from a more self-interested adolescence as a global leader into a nobler adulthood. We have the potential to act as a torchbearer for a better tomorrow. Do we heed the call? I hope this message has convinced at least a few people that the question of how to proceed with that maturation is of far deeper significance than the reforming of the United Nations. I thus pray that we move with wisdom, grace, clarity, and love in the days, years, and even decades ahead.


Back to top of page

 
To shut down the war industry


Let us have a glimpse of our Canadian society and way of life two generations down the road. What will happen about 40 years from now? You might think our ways of life would improve, our values getting more human and compassionate, and human rights more protected to more people on the planet. No! That wont happen except in our dreams. The opposite is starting to happen. Look at our Canadian peace-keeping mission in the world being changed to a war-like mission. What has just happened? The military and its industry have re-established themselves as the most powerful force and as a solution to all problems. In less than one generation from now, we are going to need the military at home, right here in Canada. That's right! Terrorism in Canada! Our own home brand of terrorists has already surfaced here in Canada. Our grand-children will become terrorists. Osama Bin Laden is actually a prophet in his own ways, not a terrorist. He objected to the invasion by Russia during the Cold War. America was quite please to get his help in those days. Actually he was being help by the Americans to get rid of the Russians. It is a question of who help who. He also objected to be invaded by Americans, to our ways of life, our consumer driven society, our ' waste land ' found in the West. The only reason why Osama Bin Laden was never successful in getting ride of the Americans from his homeland was because he is a good guy. He cannot think like a predator. Americans are predators. America is a 'nation predator'. Americans got to be a very powerful military nation by pure instincts, not by intelligence. If you want to kill a predator you have to think like it does and be ready to use every opportunity, use every situation as a new opportunity to kill the beast. Osama Bin Laden is too nice to think that way. He is a bit of a ' Don Quixote ' character, a man who has read so many bad stories about brave errant knights that he decides to become one himself, and to fight giants and save maidens. Quixote's adventures tend to involve situations in which he attempts to apply a knight's sure, simple morality to situations in which much more complex issues are at hand. He is on his horse figthing a fully armed twenty-first century nation of predators who would not hesitate to put a bullet in his head. You could think of Osama Bin Laden as riding a skinny old horse at sunrise on the hills of Afghanistan with wind, sand and American bullets blowing in his hair and beard. By now he probably dont even have a horse to ride on, broken and totally helpless to stop the invaders. He cannot figure that the global thinking has nothing much to do about him and his worthy cause but rather is about highly motivated Peoples such as America, Russia, India and China, who would crush the Middle East, Afghanistan and the entire global life-support systems of the planet to obtain what they want: oil and gas (for now). Other than Osama Bin Laden, Don Quixote has another image of himself in those who fight to protect life on Earth for this generation and the next ones. They are the defenders of the environment and the global life-support systems. They know who the beasts are, and how they destroy the living on our planet. They have rallied together all over the world to protect our home, Earth. But this time Don Quixote is not alone. We know it all! We know how everything works. And we will do whatever it takes to protect life on Earth. "We the Peoples", the Global Community, the Global Community, are the Earth revolutionaries, and we will protect life on Earth at all costs.

Don Quixote (Osama Bin Laden) riding his horse on the hills of  Afghanistan with wind and sand blowing in his hair and beard
Osama Bin Laden is not a terrorist. He is actually a Prophet in his own ways, a freedom fighter, to free his country from invaders the most recent ones being such as Russia, the USA, and now Canada.

We must find our own brand of solutions.

We need our military back home because we need to prepare for what is coming in about 40 years. Our own grand-children will become terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, the prophet, was a civilian at first who could see the arm of an invasion, and he fought back. Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' are mostly young civilians who are ready to fight back by becoming suicide bombers. I believe their are other ways to fight back, at least for us here in Canada. We must find our own brand of solutions. We have time to prepare for what is coming sooner or later on a large scale in a few generations. We need politicians that can see at least two generations ahead of us. We need to start now, today. Bring back our military from Afghanistan. Let us plan ahead together. Let us build our own Global Community of North America. Let us use our tax dollars in education, research for alternative energy solutions. Workable technologies are available today but left on shelves. Let us use them to make up for the lack of oil and gas. If nothing else works enough, let us build nuclear power plants. Several of them! Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) is certaily a good start but needs to be upgraded to handle large crowds in need of help right here in Canada, in North America, Welcome to the Portal of the Global Community of North America (GCNA) and elsewhere in the world if we can.

In less than two generations from now, people from all over the world will be burning all their trees to just heat their homes. Forests will disappear completely from the Earth surface. No more Oxygen can be produced without our green forests so eventually we will be lacking Oxygen in the air we breathe. Most life on the planet will be affected by the lack of Oxygen. Our species will certainly disappear. Why is this happening? Why are we in the Middle East and Afghanistan fighting for the leftover oil and gas, which we will burn one way or the other, and which will also burn the Oxygen of the air in the process. And you know what comes next! Having World War III in fighting for the oil and gas will only cut our survival as a species by a decade or two.

I want Canada out of NATO now.

I dont want Canada to have anything to do with the Americans stand in the Middle East and in Afghanistan and have to side with them in a World War. I want Canada out of NATO now. NATO is an organization promoting war as a solution to world problems. It is heavily subsidized by government and glorified by the war industry. In America alone no less than one-third of the American population works directly for the war industry, which makes them all soldiers and not civilians. They claim doing what they are doing for freedoms and democracy. They depend heavily on tax dollars. They have practically destroyed their own economy and got America in an astronomically high debt, a black hole Americans will never get out of except by invading other nations for the purpose of stealing other people resources. It is how they pay their bills, buy SUVs, and destroy everything including the environment and the global life-support systems. Soon the American dollar will be worth no more than the Mexican pesos. When there is no more oil and gas to suck-up out of the ground and no one stupid enough to buy arms from the US, the American dollar will plunge into the black hole Americans have so skillfully created for themselves over the time span of their history as a civilization.

The war industry has to be shelved from humanity forever. They are not defending "We the Peoples". The war industry and the government military are people in the business of killing. They are there for themselves and for protecting their wealthy friends.

But now we have made ourselves a target by those who dont want Americans to be in the Middle East. We thought about the Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' as suicide bombers and truly hated Americans. The Al Qua'ida 'terrorits' want Americans out of the region. The reality is that Osama Bin Laden fought along with the American in Afghanistan to force the Russians out of the region. The question is what were Americans doing over there in the first place? Why would Americans be on the other side of the world to fight the Russians? Americans were there to protect their own oil and gas shipments so needed to propel warships and war planes, and to keep the entire war industry going. That is also the reason why Americans and other NATO nations are in the the region today. After the Cold War, Americans left Afghanistan in a terrible state. Destruction every where. They left the people of Afghanistan living with a nightmare. You might think the situation is better today. Not even close. It is much worst than back then. Ask the women of Afghanistan and Iraq. Read articles No wonder civilians objected to be treated as 'non-human beings' by Americans. They wanted Americans out of their country. Suicide bombers are actually civilians who cannot see any other way to fight back. We call them 'terrorists' here in the West. The word 'terrorist' was invented by President Bush and the American Congress.

In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq, the US government fabricated a web of lies.

We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qua'ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have no weapons of mass destruction been found? Bush has been lying to the American people concerning the reason for invading Iraq. He is still lying today to the entire world. Now his excuse is to change the entire Middle East nations into a democracy. He will see that friendly government officials are elected. The reality is that 'friendly' means that Americans have easy access to the oil and gas reserves until they use it all. At such a time they will leave Iraq. Well no! Americans are in Iraq and will stay in Iraq for as long as there is money to make selling arms and oil and gas to have. Truly they are there for the long haul. But they said they were there to build a democracy. Well! Ya! That too! Have I missed something?! Gees! No, the idea of building democracy in the Middle East is for the good souls back home in America, you know those people back home who don't have a clue about what is going on, or pretend that they dont. Americans are in the Middle East for the long haul. The war industry in America needs to be in the Middle East, that is where the money is. The war industry in America gives jobs to about one third of the American population. So it is a matter of survival. Now, being in Iraq, Americans will have the opportunity to invade China. Invade China...!! Who said that?! Now, now! I did not say bombing China with thousand of nuclear war heads, which they might do anyway eventually. That would be stupid! No, it will not happen that way. What have I said, money. Ya! Americans will get the Chinese people to work for them. Let the big cow (China) gives all its milk. How is that possible?? Very simple! And Americans have got very good at that. Get them to buy arms and make sure they kill each others in the process. Americans have mastered the arts of war from way back when. They have already made trillions of dollars in the Middle East. Everyone has been buying their arms. So China is the biggies. Lots of money to make. First, they will allow China to get their oil and gas from Iran. The chinese economy will be good because they have energy and the base products, oil and gas, from which they can make plastics. And with plastics they can manufacture all kinds of toys such as computers. Thousands of different products make use of plastics. Now the American Congress has passed legislation to allow rich, powerful, American corporations to invest in China. Why?! Because of cheap labour! No environmental costs! Why give a 'real job' to an American when they can give the same job to someone in China who is highly motivated to produce, a 'bee-type of producers'? Many reasons. The facts are that China now is working for American corporations. Now this is when the American war industry gets into the picture. They have to sell arms to the Chinese people. And how are they going to do that?! The war industry has had plenty of learning in the Middle East. They will make sure that a Chinese province or community is at war against another Chinese community. You know, there has to be a reason why people hate each other. So creating hate between the Chinese people will be a priority. Create a chaos! Remember the Iran-Iraq war... So easy! So well masterminded! Actually this has nothing to do with intelligence. Americans have done this by pure instinct, that of a predator instinct. Like a bird would fly at high speed between the branches of a tree does not need intelligence. It is an instinctive maneuver a bird has learned to do naturally throughout its evolution as a species. Same thing here when the American and British people create ' hate ' to make money. You only need to listen to your own basic instincts to be successful at making money in our society. But they would need intelligence to create peace. To create peace is a much more difficult thing to do! Why!? Because peace goes against our survival instinct as a people and, as world population increases to 10 billion people, things will get much more difficult to manage. To create peace by 'destroying and killing' is basic instincts, not intelligence. Intelligence seems to be what is missing most from our world leaders. Even the leadership at the United Nations (UN) is bad, corrupted and subjected to powerful lobbying groups and nations and, guess which nations are doing most of the bullying: America, and Great Britain. For those reasons and others, the Global Community and the Global Community have asked for the resignation of Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations (UN). And there are now Global Community Arrest Warrants against Kofi Annan, President Bush, and John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia. In the Middle East, during the the Iran-Iraq war, Americans along with the Israelis and the British people sold arms to both sides. Trillions of dollars changed hands in those days. The military strategy that was used to force Iran and Iraq to be at war with one another is also the same strategy to be used to make the Chinese communities to be at war with one another. Create a chaos! If they hate one another then they will want to kill each other. You only need to put in the 'hate factor' in both people to get them to buy arms from you. This is when the American (and British) war industry will sell their arms to the Chinese. So in effect, they all work for America. Yep! Cheap labour! And they all can go to kingdom come! And then America will bring up the flags of fighting for the establishment of democracy, freedoms, and ' whatnots '. Americans back home will love it! It is so pathetic that one would want to cry. People used to look up to America. But now Americans are just killers, criminals, invaders, predators, and arms dealers. It is not about survival. It is about a civilization, America, gone so bad that its people would do anything for money.

Instead of caring for the Iraqi and Afghan people, or even giving them jobs, Americans have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi and Afghan people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq and Afghanistan out from under the Iraqi and Afghan people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi and Afghan people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government, by Americans. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.

Suicide bombers may as well be Canadian civilians defending Canada on Canadian soil against Americans invading Canada. "Terrorists' can actually be anyone in any place on the planet. They may even be Canadians not wanting WW III. WW III is going on right now in the Middle East region, at least its beginning.

Now our Government has changed Canada stands in the world from a peace-keeping mission to that of a war-type action as we are seeing in Afghanistan. First of all, being and showing that we are 'the very good friends of the US' was not a good thing to do. I am a Canadian, and I am not a very good friend of the Americans. I totally disagree with the invasion of the Middle East. And I dont want Canada to be thrown into a situation that has all the ingredients of WW III at the end of the tunnel. We dont actually need to steal the oil and gas. Being with the Americans will imply we are just as much thieves and invaders as they are. Not a good scenario!

What is Canada doing in Afghanistan?

Up until now Canada was on a peace-keeping mission but this was changed to a war-like stand. It looks like we want to show Americans we can be as they are: big guys with big guns, and ready to kill. Why? What are we really doing in Afghanistan? Why are we in Afghanistan when right here in Canada we need all the help we can get? We sure dont need to steal the oil and gas. Even if we had no oil and gas reserves, no resources, I would not agree of stealing anything. So why are we, Canadians, in Afghanistan? Afghans want all foreigners out of Afghanistan so what will it take to understand what they are telling us?

The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of Global Law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.

President Bush has been elected for a second term as President of the worst polluters on the planet, and of a predator nation. During his campaign he has used religion, his religion, and its membership or supporters, to elect him. Ever since 9/11 the Global Community has fought his policies at home and abroad, and how his daily lies and brain-washing exercises which have changed the American people to follow his lead. The use of the military has been abused to the detriment of human and Earth rights.

Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The Global Community and its membership are conscientious objectors, "nonresistants". That word comes from Jesus, opposing the use of violence:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

We, Global Citizens, therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:
1.     That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq and of Afghanistan;

2.     That the military occupation of Iraq and of Afghanistan be immediately ended;

3.     That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi and Afghan people be brought to justice under Global Law; the Earth Court of Justice will prosecute the offenders;

4.     That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq and of Afghanistan for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation; the amount to be paid should be no less than 8 trillion US dollars coming from the governments involved, and not from the resources of Iraq and of Afghanistan;

5.     That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;

6.     That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately;

7.     That our military be coming back home as this is the place it is needed most to prepare for Canada's future;

8.     That Canada's military be used for peace-keeping mission and not war-like stand;

9.     That our military be used for the protection of the global-life support systems.

10.     That tax money not be used on the military, instead, tax money be used to prepare for the future: research and development on new ways to replace oil and gas, and plastics; alternative energy technologies be used now; the development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution and to make the most of North America's resource strengths.

11.     That our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol be made a real commitment, with real tangible, meaningful actions. Status quo is not an option! It was never an option. Those who dont do anything about the global warming of the planet are criminals. Those who dont help protecting the global life-support systems are criminals of the worst kind, they are 'terrorists' threatening all life on the planet.

There are several reasons for objecting to war: religious, moral and political. People have different degrees of refusal to go to war. Absolute pacifists such as Global Citizens will not cooperate with any preparation for war as decided by the war industry, let alone war itself. Others will accept some kinds of service so long as they are not forced to fight. And others are willing to fight in "just wars." The idea of the "just war" began with St. Augustine. Late in the fourth century he argued that the good Christian, barred from doing violence on his own behalf, could take arms in a war that was just. Several theologians now say that the standards for a just war are:

a)     War must be the last resort and used only after other means have failed.
b)     War must be declared to redress rights actually violated or for defense against unjust demands backed by the threat of force. It must not be fought simply to satisfy national pride or to further economic or territorial gain.
c)     The war must be openly and legally declared by a legal government.
d)     There must be a reasonable chance of winning.
e)     The means used must be in proportion to the ends sought.
f)     Soldiers must distinguish between armies and civilians and not killed civilians in purpose.
g)     The winner must not required the utter humiliation of the loser.

It can be debated whether any war has ever satisfied all these reasonable conditions. There were always Christians who rejected violence. They believed Christ's way was the pursuit of peace. During the Crusades, from the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, Christians fought to recover the Holy Land from Islam, and the Church plunged into extreme violence and cruelty. Even then there were some who had the courage to criticize the theory and practice of their time. They were like the early Christians in denouncing war. Only now they were not rebelling against a heathen empire but against the wordly Church. In their opposition they formed sects, separate from the official Church. Their pacifist convictions found their source in a return to the Bible. These awakened Christians went back to the fundamental ideas of Christianity, to the New Testament, and took the Sermon on the Mount as their ideal.



Back to top of page

 
Maps











Back to top of page

Portal of the Global Community Global Proceedings


Back to top of page

Contact Information
Telephone: 250-754-0778
Postal address: 186 Bowlsby Street, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9R 5K1
Electronic mail: globalcommunity@telus.net
globalcommunity@telus.net
Website: http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/
Webmaster: gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com

Copyright © 2007 Global Community WebNet Ltd.Global Community WebNet Ltd