Hi Harold,
Thanks for this. I met Gideon R in Brussels when he was here and he may be
here for the Summit this week. The push to globalization is unstoppable.
Global government of one type or another is already here, open or hidden.
The main leverage is oil. Then other minerals, and information systems. The
big question is how does the individual deal with it. That depends on the
means and the existing systems.
The Community system was going to be the most democratic system ever
conceived. It had the support of Churchill, Macmillan and many British in
the late 1940s and 1950s. Then came along de Gaulle and re-orientated it
and blocked some systems. But he did not destroy it. He couldn't according
to the plan of Schuman. It is based on moral principles to deal with evil.
That's why there is a crisis of legitimacy now.
Rachman is right in one regard: the EU system is already worldwide. I wrote
the enclosed article some time ago.
The other piece is an open letter I sent to all the Member State
delegations here in Brussels and all 27 members of the Commission. It shows
how de Gaulle blocked the system, especially aimed at the independence and
the working values of the Commission. It is dangerous because this key post
is in the hands of prime ministers and party political officisls acting
behind closed doors. Not what was supposed to happen! Now we might be
heading for a crisis with the Irish and the new Commission. Big demos this
week!
If we have an Obama legitimacy blockage and an EU problem at the same time
then the West will be in a state of paralysis for some while. That's what I
wrote to the heads of government. The enemies of the West will make the
most of it and Israel will be at the heart of the storm -- as usual.
Best regards,
David
Subject: Britannia Radio: And now for a world government....AHAAAA..WE'VE
BEEN TELLING YOU THIS FOR YEARS; AND THEY'RE CATCHING UP???????
ITS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FLOATING THIS IN THE F.T..DONT MISS THAT POINT
HH
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2008/12/and-now-for-world-government-by-g
ideon.html#links
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
I have been the FT's chief foreign affairs columnist since July 2006, after
spending 15 years at The Economist. This blog covers a wide range of
topics, from US foreign policy to the European Union and the "war on
terror". You can read more about me and this blog in my first post.
And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman
Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take
over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above
Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some
sort of world government is plausible.
A "world government" would involve much more than co-operation between
nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a
body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental
government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme
court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the
ability to deploy military force.
So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking
that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing
national governments are international in nature: there is global warming,
a global financial crisis and a "global war on terror".
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have
shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian
historian, has written: "For the first time in human history, world
government of some sort is now possible." Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to
form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is
an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But - the third point - a change in the political atmosphere suggests that
"global governance" could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis
and climate change are pushing national governments towards global
solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are
traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
Barack Obama, America's president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush
administration's disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his
book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: "When the world's sole
superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally
agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules
worth following." The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown
by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as
America's ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.
A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a
recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US
advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama's transition
team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from
which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for
counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement
negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong
UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve
army, the UN would have first call upon them.
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in
America's talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its
ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need
for American leadership and uses the term, "responsible sovereignty" - when
calling for international co-operation - rather than the more
radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, "shared sovereignty". It also
talks about "global governance" rather than world government.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on.
Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues
that: "Global governance is just a euphemism for global government." As far
as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr
Attali believes that the "core of the international financial crisis is
that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law".
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens
began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a
means to make serious steps towards a world government.
But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of
world government might emerge over the next century, any push for "global
governance" in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.
There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will
and determination on the part of national, political leaders who - while
they might like to talk about "a planet in peril" - are ultimately still
much more focused on their next election, at home.
But this "problem" also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress
on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU - the heartland
of law-based international government - the idea remains unpopular. The EU
has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for
"ever closer union" have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union
has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by
technocrats and politicians - and then pushed through without direct
reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective,
only when it is anti-democratic.
The world's most pressing political problems may indeed be international in
nature, but the average citizen's political identity remains stubbornly
local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government
may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
What Schuman said about Globalization
What is the real essence of globalization?
"The law of solidarity of peoples is asserting itself on our conscience today. We feel shoulder to shoulder in the preservation of peace, in our defence against aggression, in our fight against famine, in the respect of treaties and in the safeguarding of justice and human dignity."
Can nations escape the effect of globalization?
"We have gained the conviction, by the demonstration of facts, that nations, far from being able to be self-sufficient, have become partners with each other; that the best way to serve one's own country is to assure the cooperation of others by reciprocal efforts and by sharing our resources."
Are people the central issue in globalization?
"Continents and peoples depend more and more than ever on each other, either for the production of goods and their sale, or for the exchange of scientific research results as well as for the necessary work force and the means of production. The political economy is becoming inevitably a global economy."
The considered European attitude to globalization respects fellow humans
"The consequence of this interdependence is that the fate- whether for happiness or misery - of one people cannot leave others indifferent. For a thinking European it is no longer possible to rejoice with Machiavellian malice at the misfortune of a neighbour; all of us are united for the better or the worse in a community of destiny."
Can Schuman's supranational method be applied to problems of globalization?
"Europe has procured for all mankind the means to arrive at its full potential. It is up to her to show a new direction, quite different from that which leads to dominating others. This way accepts the plurality of civilizations where each can be practiced with the same respect for each of the others."
Is the United Nations the answer to a world community ?
"The question must be asked whether a world community is realizable and in what measure. We have seen up to now partial initiatives. Can we conceive of having a universal organization with sufficient effectiveness and including practically all the countries of the world? Here we should look at the facts very frankly and realistically, not only in the light of ideas that we may have but also in that of the experiences that we have already had with the League of Nations and the United Nations Organization. The existence of such a world community up till now has been more symbolic than real. The links that unite different countries are often fictitious, the divergencies striking.... The Security Council is paralyzed by the right of veto, which is a fault in its structure but difficult as such to renounce: no-one can submit to the law of numbers in an assembly of over a hundred such divergent countries."
What are more realistic bases for a world community?
"A real community requires at least common interests and affinities. Countries don't come together as a group unless they feel they have something in common. Above all what they hold in common must include a minimum of trust. There should be also a minimum of identical interests, without which they would revert to simple coexistence but not cooperation. To understand each other and construct a close union, we cannot rule out the drawing of distinctions in certain areas, but there must be a sufficient number of bonds and common ideas."
How can unifying sectors and interests be distinguished for a world community as happened in Europe?
"To serve mankind is a duty equal to that which demands our loyalty to the nation. And it is thus that we will proceed towards a concept of a world where we discern more and more the vision and the identity of that which unites nations, for what they hold in common, and where conciliation can be made in areas that distinguish our nations or brings them into opposition."
What is the world's priority problem and therefore the source of one world supranational action today?
- Our environmental crisis and climate change?
Nuclear, chemical and biological war?
World Poverty?
Population crisis and resources?
Planetary threats?
World terrorism?
Theory and practice of supranational method for Russia and Near East
The supranational approach to post-Soviet globalization
Scenarios for healing the continental European economy
A mathematical approach to supranationalism
Go back to Welcome page
European Commissioners
Directed by David H Price.Further information Tel/Fax: +322 230 7621. email: info@schuman.info ©Bron 1999- 2008
News and Research on Europe highlighting Robert Schuman's political, economic, philosophical contribution from the independent SCHUMAN PROJECT
Europe's democratic institutions
FIVE institutions for Europe
What is the difference between a federation or a supranational Community?
ROBERT SCHUMAN
What contemporaries thought of Schuman
Robert Schuman's Proposal of 9 May 1950
Was the Proposal the start of a European Federation?
EUROPE'S HISTORY
WARNING! Counterfeiters of European History OFFICIALLY at Work!
What did Schuman say about post-Soviet Europe?
POLICY
How to manage disastrous CLIMATE CHANGE
ENLARGEMENT
Europe's Geography already extends worldwide!
Is Turkey European? Is Cyprus? Is Russia?
Enlargement: long awaited! Collect EU's 5 keys
Schuman Project
Brussels
Tel : +322 230 7621
7 December 2008
David Heilbron Price
Editor
Dear Member State Delegations and Commission Members,
A lingering legal dispute can paralyze any presidency. For the United States the Constitution is the touchstone against which the eligibility of any would-be president is judged. The candidate has to be a natural–born citizen over 35 years of age.
In Europe, legality is judged against the Treaties. Europe’s most important presidency is that of the Commission. I write to pose one question: Why has the Council of Ministers in its 56 years of existence not introduced a fair, just and democratic system to elect a Commission? This procedure should be accomplished in conjunction with the Commission itself. According to the treaties, impartiality remains the main criterion for the choice of its members. Originally the Commission also had powers to designate members known for their impartiality and experience. It could also co-opt a recognized, experienced European as a replacement member.
All Candidates for the Commission have by treaty law to be independent of governments and other interests such as lobbies and political parties. This requirement is in legal opposition to the recent trend to make the Commission a domain held exclusively for national politicians, not only retired (or disgraced) but often active politicians. As for one national per country, the Treaty of Nice makes it clear that each State can only have one nationally nominated member in the Commission for the transitory period of the great enlargement. After that it must return to its duty articulated in the founding treaty to reduce whenever possible the number of members of the Commission.
The proposals of the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties would make the present illegalities even worse. Only candidates supported by political parties would be eligible. This would exclude 98 per cent of European citizens who are not card-carrying members of a political party. The secret selection of a Commission President behind the closed doors of political party headquarters would be an act of gross discrimination against non-political candidates of other professions. Previous Commission Presidents like Jean Monnet, Walter Hallstein and Etienne Hirsch would be excluded. These were among the greatest defenders of European democracy and the rule of law.
Another important — and often forgotten -- factor is that the Commission must also conform to another of Schuman’s great innovations, the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The present system does not conform to equal opportunity legislation. No advertisement about the vacancies are published in the Official Journal, nor is an impartial jury provided for judging all suitable candidates among 500 million citizens, as in all other publicly funded posts.
By law all mature citizens have a right to stand for the Commission as much as the treaties ensure all citizens have the right to stand as Members of the European Parliament or vote. The same goes for all members of the Consultative Committees. How should the Council proceed?
The Jury to choose the Commission should be the equivalent in impartiality and acumen to the Nobel Prize Committee. After full public discussion, Member States governments would nominate jury members. The Jury’s task would be to discern the most valuable personalities with potential for active service to Europe and to deal with world challenges. Schuman said the goal of the Community is peace and works of peace. A Jury having full public confidence would be able to receive nominations from the public or seek out competent but valued, non-egotistical candidates with a record of selfless service.
For a further discussion about how the selection of a Commission should be fulfilled within the spirit and letter of the treaties, please refer to www.schuman.info. I would appreciate any comment about how the present untenable trends can be improved in the direction of treaty legitimacy and democracy.
Yours sincerely,
David Heilbron Price
Schuman Project
Posts
