by Jacopo DeMarinis | Nov 24, 2022 | World Federation
If humanity is to survive in the face of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and international political conflict, we must muster the courage to act with conviction and unity. On every level, starting at the individual and rising to the nation state, we must adopt the mindset with which world leaders approached the enormous task of ensuring global peace following the horrors of World War II. Yet, unfortunately, we are currently lacking that conviction and that unity.
Multilateral institutions have all too often failed to fulfill their mandate. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, publicly acknowledged the failure of the UN Security Council, the organ of the United Nations tasked with ensuring global security and peace, to prevent or end the Ukraine war. The Security Council has been ineffective because it is composed of five permanent members―the United States, China, Russia, France, and Britain―that have veto power that can block any resolution set forth to cope with conflict, as Russia has repeatedly done with respect to the Ukraine war.
Although there is a general consensus that the climate crisis must be addressed internationally, climate accords tend to be legally unenforceable and are easily stymied by disagreement over which countries are most responsible for cutting back on fossil fuel emissions and how to establish a roadmap for emissions reduction. For example, the Paris Accords require countries to set their “national determined contributions,” which can be lax or stringent, and rely mainly on peer pressure to promote compliance. Furthermore, the backing of the largest emissions contributors, the United States and China, is crucial if these agreements are to be effective. International action on climate change was greatly hindered by the U.S. government’s decision against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, just as the Paris Agreement suffered greatly when the Trump administration decided to pull the United States out of it.
Nor do our current global institutions seem capable of securing nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons states (NWS) like Russia, China, and the United States have recently failed to honor their nuclear disarmament commitments, with the Russian government refusing to back the final draft of an updated declaration on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Furthermore, China, the United States, Russia, and the six other NWS have declined to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, an agreement promoted by non-nuclear weapons states frustrated with the failure of the nuclear powers to adhere to the nuclear disarmament commitments laid out in the NPT.
To effectively address these transnational threats, we need to begin strengthening and transforming the United Nations into a democratically-elected world federation. This is a colossal yet imperative task currently promoted by the World Federalist Movement and its U.S. member organization, Citizens for Global Solutions.
Why is a world federation necessary?
As the philosopher Emery Reves argued, the Industrial Revolution ushered in an economically and physically interdependent world while leaving political decision-making power in the hands of individual states. This is a lawless system that gave rise to the world wars. The only way to prevent conflict is to transfer some political authority to a higher source: a world government. Norman Cousins, former editor-in-chief of the Saturday Review, put the need for world federalism in the context of the atomic age, arguing that the advent of the nuclear bomb made national sovereignty “obsolete.” In an unregulated international environment, any country could easily acquire nuclear weapons, thereby threatening the national sovereignty of others, as well as all humankind. Thus, the concession of absolute national sovereignty is essential to secure the stability and survival of all nations in the future.
How can a world government be created?
One key proposal is to strengthen the United Nations by transforming the General Assembly into a world legislature that can pass binding resolutions. Richard Hudson, a world federalist, argued that such a legislature could employ a procedure for decision-making in which binding resolutions would be approved with a two-thirds majority vote of the current member states, countries that represent two-thirds of the total population of the member states, and nations that contribute two-thirds of funds to the world government’s budget. World federalists also advocate reforming the UN Security Council by revoking the veto and increasing the number of permanent members on the Council, key reforms supported by figures like Brazil’s newly-elected president, Lula da Silva. Other key suggestions include creating an “International Disarmament Organization” and strengthening the International Criminal Court.
The newly created world government could be equipped to effectively address climate change, interstate conflict, and nuclear proliferation. Each country’s national military could be reduced to what is required for internal policing, diverting military budgets into domestic infrastructure that would enhance its citizens’ quality of life. An “international peacekeeping force” could be created to enforce world law and prevent interstate conflict as part of an international executive branch. Furthermore, the democratically-elected world legislature could require the complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. As for climate change, the world government could issue binding resolutions guiding the Earth toward a more sustainable future through green technology and climate change mitigation. Furthermore, some world federalists and environmental activists advocate the creation of an International Court for the Environment, which could provide an enforcement mechanism for climate treaties.
Is a world republic is unattainable?
What country would agree to limit its absolute sovereignty? And yes, a country whose political leaders are held captive by special interests like military contractors and the fossil fuel industry might not agree to such an arrangement. Yet if the people unite with conviction to claim their right to live in a peaceful world, free from nuclear weapons, and to enjoy an economically and environmentally sustainable future―birthrights a world federal government is uniquely positioned to protect―this seemingly unattainable dream could become our reality.
by Nicola Vallinoto | Nov 7, 2022 | Climate Justice
On the last weekend of October 2022, Brazil elected a new president: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who defeated Jair Bolsonaro in a closely-fought second-round vote. Lula secured 50.8 percent of the vote compared to Bolsonaro, who garnered 49.2 percent.
On the last weekend of October 2022, Brazil elected a new president: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who defeated Jair Bolsonaro in a closely-fought second-round vote. Lula secured 50.8 percent of the vote compared to Bolsonaro, who garnered 49.2 percent .
The return to office for Lula, who led the country from 2003 to 2010, would mark an extraordinary political change from a nationalist government to a government better inclined towards international democracy.
“Today the only winner is the Brazilian people,” Lula da Silva told the crowds gathered at a Sao Paulo hotel. “This isn’t a victory of mine or the Workers’ Party, nor the parties that supported me in campaign. It’s the victory of a democratic movement that formed above political parties, personal interests and ideologies so that democracy came out victorious.”
We can say that in addition to the Brazilian people, the world has also gained victory from da Silva’s victory because the proposals of the new president concern us all. Indeed, point of views of Lula and Bolsonaro deeply differ on various issues. The two politicians diverging views on these issues are subsequently outlined.
On the Amazon and climate change
Speaking during the annual debate in the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24 2019, Mr. Bolsonaro, who negates climate change, stressed that “the Amazon is not now destroyed by the flames, as the media would like to believe.” Bolsonaro underlined that “It is a fallacy to say that the Amazon is the heritage of humankind, and a misconception, as confirmed by scientists, to say that our Amazonian forests are the lungs of world. Using these fallacies, certain countries instead of helping, embarked on the media lies and behaved in a disrespectful manner and with a colonialist spirit. They even called into question that which we hold as the most sacred value: our own sovereignty.”(1) He also thanked Donald Trump who shares his approach to national sovereignty.
But reality says than since Bolsonaro took office since January 2019, deforestation has almost doubled compared to the previous year. During 2020 and 2021, Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions increased by 9.5%. Of all emissions, 46% were due to deforestation, mainly driven by illegal mining and livestock expansion.
Preliminary reports indicate that in 2022, deforestation will reach record levels in the Amazon region. Izabella Teixeira, Brazil’s former environment minister from 2010 to 2016, promised to update the country’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement, which outlines its plans to cut emissions. Brazil proposed its first NDC in September 2015 and has since updated it twice, the first time being in 2020 and the second in 2022. In both updates, made under Bolsonaro’s term as president, the country used accounting tricks to weaken its climate goals.
Conversely, according to Teixeira, Lula’s priority is to curb deforestation, the country’s main source of emissions, which has surged to a decade high under Bolsonaro (2).
In an article published by Le Monde (3) Lula da Silva affirmed that “today, the climate emergency, rising inequality and geopolitical tensions reveal the seriousness of the crisis affecting our planet. Unfortunately, Jair Bolsonaro has continued to make this situation worse by practicing climate revisionism, undermining the institutions of our democracy and promoting intolerance. Brazil, under my presidency, will again benefit from public policies aimed at improving the lives of our people and inspiring strong initiatives in favor of the protection of the environment, in particular the Amazon, and the fight against poverty in the world.”
On a Multipolar world
Lula da Silva explained his view on international affairs in the Tribune of Le Monde asserting that: “my goal now is to do more and better. For this, it is necessary for Brazil to be present at major international debates. We will develop a sovereign and active foreign policy. We will work for peace, dialogue and international cooperation. We believe in a multipolar world, and unlike some members of the Bolsonaro government, we do not believe that the Earth is flat and that the climate change does not exist. My Government will work with other countries to rebuild the Amazon Fund and thus take care of the Amazon rainforest and biodiversity.
In Latin America, we will strengthen Mercosur [Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay] and relaunch regional integration. We no longer want Latin America to limit itself to the sole export of raw materials. In this sense, we will work so that our countries can once again industrialize and technologically progress.
Faced with the growing rivalries between China and the United States, we want to dialogue with everyone, and build a strategic partnership with the European Union (EU). Improving the terms of the agreement Mercosur-EU will allow us to increase our trade, deepen our bonds of trust and strengthen the defense of our common values.
On the other hand, the priority of my government will be to restore the relationship with the African continent. Brasil will be present to help and expand political, economic and social cooperation with its countries. We believe – and, in winning, we will work – for a multipolar world united around values such as solidarity, cooperation, humanism and social justice. Faced with the challenges of civilizations that we live, we believe in a new global governance that must begin with the expansion of the UN Security Council and the establishment of new forms of cooperation between countries. We believe that another Brazil is possible, and that another world is possible because, in a past not so far away, we had started building it.”
In 2020, Lula published(4) a call “For a Multipolar World.” The call’s goal is “the creation of a multipolar world, free from unilateral hegemony and from sterile bipolar confrontation,” that “would permit a true re-founding of the multilateral order, based on principles of real multilateralism, in which international cooperation can truly flourish.” The call continues affirming that: “There seems to be an almost universal consensus that the world system will have to be rebuilt in a very fundamental way. It is not impossible, indeed it is imperative, that a certain number of states or supranational entities — such as a reborn European Union and the institutions dedicated to the integration of developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia (which will have to be reinforced or recreated) — shall look for alliances and partnerships, in a way that contributes to the creation of a multipolar world, free from unilateral hegemony and from sterile bipolar confrontation.”
On Latin American integration and Sur
In a speech at a rally on May 2nd 2022 Lula said, “We are going to create a currency in Latin America, because we can’t keep depending on the dollar”. He revealed that the currency would be called the Sur, which means “South” in Spanish. Lula explained that countries in Latin America could still keep their sovereign domestic currency, but they could use the Sur to do bilateral trade with each other, instead of having to exchange for US dollars. The Sur could also help to contain inflation in the region, Lula argued. He said the goal of the currency would be to deepen Latin American integration and strengthen the region’s economic sovereignty, weakening its dependence on the United States. Under Brazil’s current government, led by far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro, the South American giant has subordinated itself to Washington(5).
On the UN Security Council
Concerning global governance, Lula da Silva defends a new world governance, which would include the enlargement of the UN Security Council, and the creation of new institutions that “act differently from the IMF.” At a press conference with foreign media in Sao Paulo on August 22nd, Lula said that more countries need to become permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, so that the United Nations can better deal with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and growing tensions between China and Taiwan. Noting that the geopolitical landscape is changing, Lula said that the Security Council needs more and more nations and that the right to veto, held by its current five permanent members must be abolished. He asked why Brazil and countries such as Mexico, Egypt, Germany, South Africa and Japan cannot become permanent members, calling for Security Council reform based on geopolitics of the 21st century (6).
Contrary to what Lula said about the UN reform, the enlargement of the Security Council should follow a different and more representative composition. The federalists think that a regional representation (European Union, African Union, Mercosur, etc.) is more inclusive than a national one as proposed by new Brazilian President. Instead the proposal to abolish the anachronistic veto right of the five permanent members of Security Council is fully shareable. Even still, da Silva’s proposals point us in the right direction towards much needed reform in the international global governance system, and the hope here is that this will build some momentum and discourse around this issue.
The Lula da Silva’s victory in Brazil’s recent presidential election could represent a new start for international democracy. Let’s continue to watch the new government’s first steps on foreign policy, and see whether Lula’s electoral commitments will become reality.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1047192
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/10/07/lula-campaign-update-brazil-climate-plan-ndc-new/
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/10/29/luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva-another-brazil-is-possible_6002211_23.html
https://progressive.international/blueprint/8c4c685c-7ac6-4bbb-8b0b-5fc91fcc68f0-lula-da-silva-celso-amorim-for-a-multipolar-world/en
https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/04/brazil-lula-latin-america-currency-us-dollar/
https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2022082300559/
This article originally appeared here: https://www.wfm-igp.org/federalist-paper/lulas-victory-in-brazils-presidential-election-a-potential-new-start-for-international-democracy-and-climate-change/
by Lawrence Wittner | Oct 23, 2022 | Disarmament
It’s been a long time since the atomic bombings of August 1945, when people around the planet first realized that world civilization stood on the brink of doom. This apocalyptic ending to the Second World War revealed to all that, with the advent of nuclear weapons, violent conflict among nations had finally reached the stage where it could terminate life on earth. Addressing a CBS radio audience in early 1946, Robert Hutchins, chancellor of the University of Chicago, summed up the new situation with a blunt warning: “War means atomic bombs. And atomic bombs mean suicide.”
The Public Uprising Against Nuclear War
With millions of people jolted awake by the atomic bombings and anxious to stave off worldwide catastrophe, calls for banning nuclear weapons and for building a federation of nations strong enough to keep the peace were widespread. Organizations among antinuclear scientists, world government advocates, and peace proponents emerged and flourished in the United States, as well as in much of the world. Often working together in the same peace and disarmament campaigns, activists in these organizations frequently adopted a common rallying cry: “One World or None!”
For a time, these activists had public opinion on their side. In August 1946, a Gallup poll found 54 percent of American respondents favored (and only 24 percent opposed) turning the United Nations into “a world government with power to control the armed forces of all nations.” Similar polls in other nations during the late 1940s reported comparable results.
In practice, the efforts of activists went toward transforming the new United Nations into an institution that had the power to rid the world of nuclear weapons and to end the ancient practice of war. Thus, in the United States, where, by 1949, United World Federalists had some 47,000 members, it managed to get 111 members of the House of Representatives and 21 Senators to co-sponsor a resolution to turn the United Nations into “a world federation” with enough power “to preserve peace and prevent aggression.”
The Response of the “Great Powers”
Even so, while giving lip service to nuclear disarmament and peace, the world’s governments―and particularly those of the “great powers”―weren’t ready for this dramatic a departure from their traditional practices. After all, for thousands of years, competing territories, and later, nations, had been accustomed to waging wars and using the most powerful weapons available to them in these conflicts.
Yes, at times, the governments of the great powers were forced by popular pressure to curb their nuclear ambitions. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, public protest campaigns against nuclear weapons testing led to the world’s first nuclear arms control agreement (the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963), to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970, and to the beginning of Soviet-American détente. Similarly, public protest campaigns in the early 1980s against the revived nuclear arms race led to major nuclear disarmament agreements (the INF Treaty and the Start I and II treaties) and to the end of the Cold War.
But, despite these concessions, the governments of the major powers weren’t ready to dispense with nuclear weapons or, for that matter, with war. Consequently, as popular protest ebbed, they gradually returned to their customary behavior. Starting about a decade ago, they ceased signing nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements. Instead, they began scrapping them, including the INF Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and the Iran nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, they commenced a race to “modernize” their nuclear arsenals with the production of new nuclear weapons possessing greater speed, maneuverability, and accuracy. Also, to intimidate other nations, their leaders—most notably Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, who commanded the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals―openly threatened to attack these nations with nuclear weapons.
Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the hands of their famed “Doomsday Clock” at 100 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous setting since the clock’s appearance in 1947.
The Alternative to Nuclear Destruction
Of course, the world could yet be saved by what Albert Einstein termed “a new type of thinking” and, decades later, by what Mikhail Gorbachev called “the new thinking.” Based on the threat nuclear weapons pose to human survival, this approach entails abolishing nuclear weapons and enhancing global governance to end their motor force, war. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, snubbed by the nine nuclear powers but now signed by 91 nations and ratified by 68 of them, would, if enforced, finally lift the nightmare of nuclear destruction from the people of the world. And a strengthening of the United Nations as the guarantor of international security would help to end the long-term practice of powerful nations waging war whenever their governments felt like it.
As things now stand, however, we’re once more enmeshed in the dire situation so starkly revealed in August 1945: While nuclear weapons exist, any war can turn into a nuclear holocaust. Unless the people of all nations, recognizing the peril of universal death, demand the establishment of an international organization capable of enforcing policies of disarmament and peace, then, sooner or later, the time will come to say “bye-bye world.”
by Lawrence Wittner | Oct 13, 2022 | Peace, UN Reform
The war in Ukraine provides us with yet another opportunity to consider what might be done about the wars that continue to ravage the world.
The current Russian war of aggression is particularly horrific, featuring a massive military invasion of a smaller, weaker nation, threats of nuclear war, widespread war crimes, and imperial annexation. But, alas, this terrible war is but one small part of a history of violent conflict that has characterized thousands of years of human existence.
Is there really no alternative to this primitive and immensely destructive behavior?
Failed Alternatives
One alternative, which has long been embraced by governments, is to build up a nation’s military might to such an extent that it secures what its proponents call “Peace through Strength.” But this policy has severe limitations. A military buildup by one nation is perceived by other nations as a danger to their security. As a result, they usually respond to the perceived threat by strengthening their own armed forces and forming military alliances. In this situation, an escalating atmosphere of fear develops that often leads to war.
Actually, governments are not entirely wrong about their perception of danger, for nations with great military power really do bully and invade weaker countries. Furthermore, they wage wars against one another. These sad facts are not only demonstrated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but by the past behavior of other “great powers,” including Spain, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, and the United States.
If military strength brought peace, war would not have raged over the centuries or, for that matter, be raging today.
Another war-avoidance policy that governments have turned to on occasion is isolation, or, as its proponents sometimes say, “minding one’s own business.” Sometimes, of course, isolationism does keep an individual nation free from the horrors of a war engaged in by other nations. But, of course, it does nothing to stop the war—a war that, ironically, might end up engulfing that nation anyway. Also, of course, if the war is won by an aggressive, expansionist power or one grown arrogant thanks to its military victory, the isolated nation might be next on the victor’s agenda. In this fashion, short-term safety is purchased at the price of longer-term insecurity and conquest.
The More Promising Alternative
Fortunately, there is a third alternative―one that major thinkers and even, at times, national governments have promoted. And that is strengthened global governance. The great advantage of global governance is its replacement of international anarchy with international law. What this means is that, instead of a world in which each nation looks exclusively after its own interests―and thus, inevitably, ends up in competition and, eventually, conflict with other nations―there would be a world structured around international cooperation, presided over by a government chosen by the people of all nations. If this sounds a bit like the United Nations, that is because, in 1945, toward the end of the most destructive war in human history, the world organization was created with something like that in mind.
Unlike “peace through strength” and isolationism, the jury is still out when it comes to the usefulness of the United Nations along these lines. Yes, it has managed to pull the nations of the world together to discuss global issues and to create global treaties and rules, as well to avert or end many international conflicts and to use UN peacekeeping forces to separate groups engaged in violent conflict. It has also sparked global action for social justice, environmental sustainability, world health, and economic advance. On the other hand, the United Nations has not been as effective as it should be, especially when it comes to fostering disarmament and ending war. All too often the international organization remains no more than a lonely voice for global sanity in a world dominated by powerful, war-making nations.
The logical conclusion is that, if we want the development of a more peaceful world, the United Nations should be strengthened.
How the United Nations Could Be Strengthened
One of the most useful measures that could be taken would be to reform the UN Security Council. As things now stand, any one of its five permanent members (the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France) can veto UN action for peace. And this is often what they do, enabling Russia, for example, to block Security Council action to end to its invasion of Ukraine. Wouldn’t it make sense to scrap the veto, or change the permanent members, or develop a rotating membership, or simply abolish the Security Council and turn over action for peace to the UN General Assembly―an entity that, unlike the Security Council, represents virtually all nations of the world?
Other measures to strengthen the United Nations are not hard to imagine. The world organization could be provided with taxing power, thus freeing it from the necessity for begging nations to cover its expenses. It could be democratized with a world parliament representing people rather than their governments. It could be bolstered with the tools to go beyond creating international law to actually enforcing it. Overall, the United Nations could be transformed from the weak confederation of nations that currently exists into a more cohesive federation of nations―a federation that would deal with international issues while individual nations would deal with their own domestic issues.
Against a backdrop of thousands of years of bloody wars and the ever-present danger of a nuclear holocaust, hasn’t the time arrived to dispense with international anarchy and create a governed world?
by Donna Park | Oct 9, 2022 | World Federation
I am a grandmother, and I have a dream that grandparents will work with their grandchildren to unite the world and build a better future.
But first we need to have a vision of how the world could be improved.
Many global problems face the world today
There are many problems facing the world today, including war and the threat of nuclear destruction, climate change, human rights abuses, hunger, extreme poverty, growing income inequality, and global pandemics. One central source of our global problems is that we have put nations above people. I think we should put people first. National sovereignty and security should not be more important that the sovereignty and security of individuals. Governments should be protecting the rights and freedoms of their people, not sacrificing them.
War is one way in which nations sacrifice their people rather than protect them. War kills and injures people. War destroys the environment. War robs us of our financial and natural resources War does not bring peace, although it does make a lot of money for some.
Think creatively to eliminate war
Surely it is time to think creatively about eliminating war. Here in the United States, we can look to our own history for a way to accomplish that. When Americans decided to transform the confederation of 13 colonies into a federation of states, they agreed to resolve their differences in a court of law rather than on the battlefield. The original 13 states were able to eliminate or transform their militias. With no need any longer to fight one another, they could rely on the rule of law to settle disputes. Although the rule of law is not perfect, it is the best method we have found. And it is preferable to war.
We need a similar transformation at the global level. Why not transform the confederation of nations known as the United Nations into a United Federation of Nations? Under this strengthened UN system, all nations could agree to resolve their differences using the rule of law rather than weapons of destruction. Nations could be required to disarm and to transform their armed forces into peacekeeping forces that would respond to natural disasters and other domestic crises.
Unite the World
To implement this program, we could start by creating a World Parliament at the United Nations to give a voice to the people of the world, rather than just their governments. We also need a world constitution to define a democratic federation of nations with a universal declaration of human rights and the ability to create and enforce world law that outlaws war and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we will need international courts (such as the International Criminal Court) and international police to arrest those who break the law. Fortunately, much work has been done defining these components over the past 75 years.
All these components will cost much less than the vast amounts spent on the current war systems. Furthermore, a United Federation of Nations could be employed to deal effectively with other global problems, such as climate change.
This vision is shared by the Young World Federalists. Their tag line is “Unite the World.” As their website explains, they are “a global movement to unite humanity through the creation of a democratic world federation.” They believe that the current system of competitive sovereign countries fails to tackle the global challenges that impact us all. Accordingly, they advocate a new form of global governance, one in which people cooperate to secure their common interest through a democratic world federation. They envision a sustainable, just, and peaceful world through a democratic world federation. It would be a world run by humanity, for humanity, providing equal opportunity to all on a thriving planet.
Work across the generations
The Young World Federalists (YWF) are building on the work of well-established organizations such as Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS). CGS was founded 75 years ago, and many of its supporters, like me, are grandparents of the Young World Federalists’ generation. We are delighted to be working with these young people and, in fact, have a lot to learn from them in this modern era of social media and technology. We also have a lot to share with them, including our knowledge, experience, and funding. One of their programs that we are co-sponsoring is the Week for World Parliament, which includes an event in New York City on October 22-23.
Working together, young and old, we are committed to building a united world and a better future for all.
