World
problems require
world order reforms
Interview
about federalism, a world constitution, the EU, nuclear
abolition, a UN People's Assembly, and more - with
references to Dag Hammarskjöld and Albert Einstein.
The interview marks the 100th anniversary of
Hammarskjölds birthday on July 29, 1905
By
Vicky
Rossi, TFF Peace Antenna
Vicky Rossi's
conversations with peace visionairies around the
world
are listed at her CV page here
and collected here.
July 28, 2005
TFF's Vicky Rossi interviews Mr
James Ranney who is chair of the Philadelphia Chapter of
Citizens for Global Solutions. It is organizing a
four-day Global Constitution Forum to be held in
Philadelphia on 14-17 September 2006 (with a preliminary,
preparatory session in September 2005).
Participants at this conference
will focus on issues surrounding the creation of a
Constitution for Earth. Given the current controversy
surrounding ratification of the European Constitution, I
thought it would be a timely opportunity to request an
interview with Mr Ranney.*
Vicky Rossi:
There is currently a great deal
of controversy in the European Union with regards the
proposed European Constitution. What similarities and
differences do you see between what is being proposed by
the EU and the concepts underlying the idea of a global
constitution?
James
Ranney: The EU has been very
successful in setting up a common European market and it
is a great model despite its current problems. According
to my understanding, those voters who are against the EU
Constitution in the Netherlands and France, for example,
are expressing their "hostility to a remote, bureaucratic
and intrusive EU" to quote "The Economist" [June 9th
edition]. Those of us who aspire to the creation of a
global constitution can learn a great deal from what is
going on right now within the EU. The rejection by
European citizens of the EU Constitution is a good
reminder that any regional or global initiatives must
take great care not to be too intrusive and to allow
individual countries to make their own decisions where
that is appropriate. Of course, the difficulty is then to
know where to draw the line e.g. with regards the
creation of a level playing field in the realms of
economics. In short, a balance needs to be found in the
distribution of decision-making capacities. A global
constitution would be in favour of fewer monolithic
structures, less bureaucracy and a move away from the
military security state through a redistribution of
related taxation and military expenditure.
Vicky
Rossi: Could you clarify which
main areas would be governed by a Constitution for Earth?
Is it just security policy and disarmament?
James Ranney:
There has always been a great
deal of debate on that question between world
federalists. Some are in favour of a minimalist approach
i.e. they would like to focus solely on security issues
and aspire to put an end to the $1 trillion spent each
year on military activities. Others, however, would like
to see a broader maximalist approach adopted; one of
their main arguments being that the environment could end
up becoming a more urgent priority than disarmament. I
myself am of the opinion that if we succeed in putting an
end to the $1 trillion spend on military expenditure, we
could free up ample funds for social and environmental
needs. A famous proposal for a global constitution, which
advocates a mid-way position between the minimalists and
the maximalists, came in the 1920s from Grenville Clark
and Louis Sohn. They pinpointed 3 main areas which should
be governed by a global constitution, namely, security,
global poverty and anything else that all countries could
agree on!
Vicky Rossi:
What is your definition of
world federalism?
James
Ranney: I do not have a
"scholarly" definition of world federalism; however, I
see it to mean replacing the use of force to resolve
international conflicts with the rule of law. In my mind
this would imply the elimination of "separate" armed
forces for the resolution of international conflicts,
although each country would retain its own police force
for the regulation of internal law and order. "Global
Action to Prevent War" has a good proposal on this issue.
[P.A. It can be downloaded at www.globalactionpw.org]
Although it makes no reference to the term world
federalism, the aims are the same.
With regard the elimination of
nuclear weapons, the much maligned treaty system could be
used in a similar way to the Convention on the Law of the
Sea. Nuclear disarmament could be achieved through the
signing of a treaty plus the creation of an international
peacekeeping force. The international community could
move in small steps towards this goal. Currently in the
U.S. for example there are discussions on the setting up
of an "emergency rapid deployment force". If created,
this could be the fore-runner to such an international
peacekeeping force. [Vicky Rossi note: In a similar
direction, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges
and Change, appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,
has recommended the creation of a "strategic reserve
capacity", which could be called up on short notice to
provide support to a peacekeeping mission that is facing
an unexpected crisis.]
Vicky
Rossi: Which body would be
responsible for overseeing such an international
peacekeeping force? Would it be the United
Nations?
James
Ranney: The United Nations
Security Council is currently seriously handicapped
because of the veto power of its five permanent members.
As such a new or modified global governance mechanism is
needed to oversee this international peacekeeping
force.
Vicky
Rossi: Where does global
citizenship fit into this idea of world federalism i.e.
how would you define global citizenship?
James
Ranney: World federalism is not
likely to be a millennial moment i.e. it is more likely
to be a plodding thing which evolves slowly and with it
too the idea of global citizenship. To become a global
citizen does not mean loosing your cultural identity. We
have seen this in the EU where, for example, countries
like France and Great Britain are no longer fighting on
the battlefield, but nevertheless they are still not
talking the same language. In order to understand these
concepts properly, education is the answer. There will
not be a peace revolution unless each one of us makes a
contribution. World peace requires an attitudinal change
and this can only come about through
education.
Vicky Rossi:
Do you think it is more
difficult for US citizens to contemplate concepts such as
world federalism and a global constitution given the
USA's current position as the world's sole super
power?
James
Ranney: According to a survey
carried out in 1946, 50-70% of US citizens believed that
world federalism would lead to world peace.
Unfortunately, now that may be as low as 1%. [Rossi:
The polls mentioned were run by Roper & Gallup and
the results were reported in the August and September,
1946, editions of "World Government
News".]
Vicky
Rossi: Earlier we touched
briefly on the topic of the Security Council, but where
exactly does the United Nations fit into this whole
discussion?
James Ranney:
There has been much debate over
the years amongst world federalists with regard to the
role of the UN. On the one hand, some world federalists
would like to see an amended UN Charter; others, however,
are of the opinion that the UN is the creation of
individual nation states and that change will, therefore,
have to come from the outside. I myself am in favour of
both these approaches i.e. an amended UN Charter and a
People's Parliament. Senator Douglas
Roche has posted an interesting document
on the Global Security
Institute website discussing the idea also proposed by
Prof. Andrew Strauss and Prof.
Richard Falk - who is a TFF
Associate - for a People's Assembly, which would be
"independent and parallel" to the UN and which, perhaps,
over time, could be incorporated as a 2nd
Assembly.
Vicky Rossi:
How would a global constitution
be ratified? By public referendum? By UN Member States?
By individual national governments?
James Ranney:
A global constitution could be
ratified in various ways, but unless there is serious
reform within the UN, it could not be ratified there. UN
reform needs to be carried out in a step-wise fashion
i.e. progress is needed on numerous fronts
simultaneously. Although many established thinkers
despair at ever getting veto reform in the UN Security
Council, some people like Benjamin Freeman firmly believe
that although prior efforts in this direction were not
acceptable to the Big 5, a series of proposals does exist
which could prove successful. Benjamin Freeman's
proposals for UN reform can be found here.
Vicky
Rossi: Why do we need a global
constitution at this point in human history i.e. why did
we not need it before and why can we not do without it
all together?
James Ranney:
The question is how can we
reach "absolute, general and complete" disarmament of
nuclear weapons? World federalists are of the opinion
that nuclear disarmament isn't likely without some global
political solution to the problem of peace because
individual nuclear arms possessing countries are not
prepared to give up their weapons until an alternative
security system is in place. If, however, world
federalists are wrong in their predictions as to how
people and nations act and it is possible to secure some
kind of lasting peace without world federalism, we should
not get our noses out of joint but rather be overjoyed.
In other words, whatever it takes.
Vicky Rossi:
You intend to hold a Global
Constitution Forum on 14-17 September 2006 in
Philadelphia to consider all these issues we are
discussing here. Could you briefly explain how this
conference will be run, who will be invited and what you
expect to be the outcome of this event?
James Ranney:
I think it is important to say
from the start that we are not trying to draft a
document. There have already been 4-5 dozen drafts and
nothing came of any of them. It is our aim, firstly, to
educate ourselves by meeting face to face - with top
flight speakers and in-depth analysis sessions; and
secondly, to raise public awareness of the concept of a
global constitution through the publicity engendered by
the participation in this conference of high profile
celebrities.
Vicky Rossi:
Beyond formal education and the
holding of the Global Constitution Forum, do you see any
other key players in this process of raising public
awareness on world federalism?
James
Ranney: Our goals require that
we collaborate and network with other peace groups.
Currently we have strong links with the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom, the United
Nations Associations and Global Education Motivators, but
we hope to strengthen our links with many other such
peace organisations in the future.
For more
information on the Global Constitution Forum please
contact:
James T. Ranney, 1018 West Cliveden
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19119, USA.
Tel: 00-1-215-849-9165
ranney@att.net
www.globalconstitutionforum.org
*This
transcript represents an accurate but non-verbatim
representation of the original interview.
Vicky
Rossi
July 29 2005 marks the 100th
anniversary of the birth of former UN Secretary General
Dag
Hammarskjold, who also
believed in an empowered civil society and the concept of
a world federation - in the form of a strengthened United
Nations with a strong legislative and executive
capability.
On 30 October 1954 Dag Hammarskjold
in a speech at Columbia University in New York declared,
"We also hear of mutual
dependencies and interdependencies, that make our
world into one, whether we like it or not. In the
light of this new situation many would plead for a
world organisation headed by a world government. We
may sympathise with their idealism, but the main issue
is being avoided with that sort of constitutional
magic. The variety of nations and systems makes it
impossible to establish a world government, whilst our
inter-dependence by necessity demands an organisation
for the world. Our knowledge of the past urges us to
adopt a middle course on which slowly but surely we
move towards a world community which constitutes the
only alternative to self-destruction." ("Dag
Hammarskjold - Visionary for the Future of Humanity",
Stephan Mogle-Stadel, Novalis Press, Cape Town, July
2002, p.144.)
The year 2005 also marks the 50th
anniversary of the death of Albert Einstein, who died on
18 April 1955. Einstein, who was as well known for his
political activism as for his scientific discoveries,
declared in an "Open Letter to the General Assembly of
the United Nations" in 1947:
"If (…) every
citizen realizes that the only guarantee for security
and peace in this atomic age is the constant
development of a supranational government, then he
will do everything in his power to strengthen the
United Nations.
But Einstein goes on to warn
that
"(…) the method of
representation at the United Nations should be
considerably modified. The present method of selection
by government appointment does not leave any real
freedom to the appointee. Furthermore, selection by
governments cannot give the peoples of the world the
feeling of being fairly and proportionately
represented. The moral authority of the United Nations
would be considerably enhanced if the delegates were
elected by the people. Were they responsible to an
electorate, they would have much more freedom to
follow their consciences." ("Albert Einstein - Rebel
Lives", Ocean Press, Melbourne/New York, 2003,
p.39-40.)
Some additional Internet Links on
the Topic of a "People's Assembly":
TFF
Mini Forum: World Order Reforms - July 29,
2005
Club
of Budapest
Club
of Budapest World Wisdom Council
The
Global Community
Empower
the UN
The
Club of Rome
"A
Practical Proposal for a Creating a Global Parliament",
paper prepared by Andrew Strauss
Citizens
for a United Nations Peoples
Assembly
United
Nations Association Orange County
Chapter
Get
free articles &
updates
©
TFF & the author 2005
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|