Ronald Glossop

Guest Blogger

Ronald J. Glossop is Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois University- Edwardsville (SIUE), member of the national board of Citizens for Global Solutions Education Fund, Chair of Citizens for Global Solutions of Greater St. Louis, Vice-President of UNA of Greater St. Louis, Coordinator of the St. Louis Coalition for the ICC, President of the American Association of Teachers of Esperanto, and Director of Infanoy chirkaw la Mondo [Esperanto for "Children around the World"]. Previously, Dr. Glossop held positions as Chair of the World Federalist Association of Greater St. Louis (1970-2004), Vice-President of the National World Federalist Association (1994-2003), and Coordinator of the Peace Studies Program at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville (1974-1998). Dr. Glossop earned his B.A. from Carthage College (summa cum laude) and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Washington University in St. Louis.

Of's core issues, Dr. Glossop is interested mainly in Peace and Security through expanding democracy and restricting national sovereignty. In particular, he supports the International Criminal Court, the Responsibility to Protect principle, creation of a force of individually recruited U.N. peacekeepers, and education for world citizenship. He emphasizes the need to substitute democracy for violence as the way to resolve social conflicts, both within and between nations. He addresses these issues in his books World Federation? (1994) and Confronting War (4th ed., 2001).

Ronald previously served on the board and chaired the organization's World Federalist Institute.

Nuclear Zero: Let’s Think out of the Box

Many thanks to President Obama and the 50+ world leaders who came to Washington for the international nuclear summit on how to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. Efforts to accomplish that goal are certainly to be lauded.

Nevertheless, I wish that all our world leaders could do more "out-of-the-box" thinking. Why do these nuclear weapons and materials even exist? I think that it is rather evident that like all the weapons of war, they have been created by national governments in order to dominate other national governments or to protect their own nation against possible attacks by other nations.

Why is the situation so different within our country? Why don't some states have to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves against a possible attack from another state? When we put the issue this way, it becomes evident that the problem is not really nuclear weapons or cruise missiles or drones or cyber warfare or any other kind of weapons. Rather, it is the need of national governments to be ready to use military actions and war because of the absence of another, better way of resolving international conflicts.

A July Holiday for the Whole World

Courtesy of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court
There are two important dates in July for globally minded Americans.  The 4th of July is an important date for our country, and the 17th of July is an important day for our whole world community.
The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted on July 17, 1998.   Five years ago the UN designated July 17th as "International Criminal Justice Day." The day will be celebrated by advocates for justice around the world, many of whom will post on social media using a hashtag #JusticeMatters to draw attention to this rather new world holiday. 
The International Criminal Court is a permanent court with jurisdiction over individuals who commit genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity (enumerated in the Rome Statute) when they are not held accountable by their own government.  The word "criminal" in the name of the Court and the holiday is crucial.  In contrast to the International Court of Justice (or “World Court”), the International Criminal Court focuses on holding individuals accountable for violating international law. The ICJ deals only with national governments.  Its rulings are non-binding. Furthermore trying to punish a country requires fighting a war such as the Korean War in 1950-1953 and First Gulf War in 1991.

How to Deal with the Islamic State

President Obama and Vice President Biden Meet with National Security Council to Discuss ISIL.

Almost the whole world community agrees that the barbaric Islamic State (ISIL) terrorists should be resisted by everyone. Even the often veto-plagued UN Security Council has unanimously passed two relevant resolutions. Resolution 2170 (Aug. 15) aims to cut off financial assistance to that group and sanctions its leaders. Resolution 2171 (Sep. 19) expresses outrage at ISIL's brutal activities and urges international support for the Iraqi government's efforts against ISIL.

The UN Security Council could also help to deal with the civil war in Syria by resolving to send humanitarian aid to the nations sheltering Syrian refugees; putting Assad’s chemical weapons under UN control; and referring the situation to the International Criminal Court to hold accountable those who have committed atrocities. 

To confront ISIL in Syria, however, the view of the US Administration and others is that more support must be given to the moderate rebels in that country. But precisely which rebel groups should be helped, and can we be sure that they won't become enemies in the future?

How will the various national governments in the area which are on opposite sides be encouraged to participate in the international effort against ISIL? Will any national governments provide the needed "boots on the ground" and might they eventually start fighting one another?