Friday, October 23, 2009

Will Space Exploration Expedite the Unification of Earth?



The less than two hundred human nation-states of Planet Earth appear doomed to endless squabbling and bloodshed despite grand proclamations of international cooperation. And who can blame them? Our problems feel too vast and overwhelming for the average person including our politicians to understand. It is easier to go to war and kill each other. It is easier to pollute our environment. It is easier to bail out our faux economy with made-up money. It is easier to go shopping, buy shoes for the kids, and get drunk while watching the latest celebrity scandals on television. Nuclear disarmament in an age of terrorism? Biological warfare? Global warming and climate change? Global climate disruption? Global warming leading to ice ages? Fundamentalism and extremism on the rise in most religions? Poverty? Disease pandemics, hunger, bigotry and discrimination, pollution, deforestation, desertification, overpopulation and mass extinction of species along with weapons of mass destruction freak us out. What are we to do?

Go to Mars.

Explore the Solar System.

Yes. Launch probes beyond the Kuiper Belt toward the nearest stars. Build colonies out in space, on the Moon, and on Planet Mars. Prepare to study exobiology on Earth-like planets outside our Solar System. The current issue of The Christian Science Monitor: A Weekly Review of Global News & Ideas features on the cover an American rocket blasting off into the title “SPACE: Where Next? Why Now?” followed by the heading of a collective of articles entitled “Star Trek: This Generation.”

Peter Potts, staff writer for the Monitor, wrote “as exploration of space becomes increasingly expensive, many experts around the world think we have reached a hinge moment in history when joint ventures are the best – and perhaps only – way to undertake distant exploration, both manned and unmanned, of the cosmos.” Peter Potts goes on to give voice for many who “now believe it’s time for true collaboration….to push mankind to the next threshold of space exploration and to forge a new spirit of cooperation among nations. In other words, a sort of Star Trek Starfleet Command.”

Packing a doomsday punch, Potts quotes space historians Roger Launius and Howard McCurdy who write “An important bloc of the space community believes that humanity has a finite period of time to colonize other worlds before conditions on Earth no longer sustain human migration.” Folks, we are talking about the survival of our species and perhaps of Earth life itself … as we know it. This ain’t a disaster flick like the upcoming “2012.”

The challenges are many to overcome. National pride, suspicion between the Europeans and the Americans on one side and the Chinese on the other, the militarization of space with to us futuristic weaponry, funding amid roiling economic turmoil and an epic global recession, the spread of atomic weapons and ballistic missile technologies, and incessant warfare on the ground.

It is time, however, past time, to put aside our national, ethnic, and religious differences in the name of planetary unity and integration. Only a world government with world law can successfully address the next stages of world peace with space exploration and colonization. Science fiction including Star Trek is full of interstellar empires. Instead of these tyrannies let us remember the United Federation of Planets. Let us take a stand this world government, our world government shall be a constitutional, democratic republic and not a dictatorship or worse, a dictatorship cloaked as democracy. Vote “Yes!” in the Global Referendum for Democratic World Government at www.voteworldgovernment.org.

Space exploration gives humanity a singularity of purpose we can all grasp amid the magnitude of scientific evidence that our global civilization releasing so much carbon will negatively change the next 100,000 years of Earth’s climate.

The bottom line is world government of one kind or another is likely to be established if humanity survives. Let’s determine this government is a democratic world government. Or survival isn’t worth it.


William Dudley Bass
October 23, 2009

Sources

Archer, David. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing The Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Potts, Peter. “Star Trek: This Generation.” The Christian Science Monitor: A Weekly Review of Global News & Ideas. Volume 101/Issue 113, October 25, 2009: 13 – 18.



© by William Dudley Bass

Monday, October 5, 2009

The Challenges of Global Demilitarization



In a recent interview in Time Magazine, Kofi Anan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, was asked whether or not “the U.N. should be given the authority to intervene militarily in situations like Darfur.”

“I’m not sure the member states are ready to give the U.N. a standing army….It’s a question of will. And I don’t think you will see a U.N. army,” Mr. Anan replied.

As local crises converge into global crises and threaten to overwhelm us, as the movement to create a democratic world government continues to move forward, national and ethnic military forces will remain perhaps the greatest obstacle to such a government. There exist today a number of different global citizens and democratic world government parties, alliances, coalitions, and institutes. One of the most prominent is the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, which was founded in 1947 in Switzerland but is now headquartered in New York City across from the U.N. building. There’s WATUN, the World Alliance to Transform the United Nations. There is even the Global Referendum for Democratic World Government where any citizen on the planet can vote in favor of establishing a representative, democratic world government (click on the link below in “Sources” and vote).

International laws and courts are in existence and others have been proposed. Constitutions for world governments of one kind or another have been written or proposed. Various debates have gone on for years over what structure should a world democratic government take. For example, would a European-style parliament or an American-style tripartite system of checks and balances be best for a united Earth? Would the global legislature be bicameral or tricameral? What role would a Supreme World Court have? Would each current nation-state become a state or province of the world, or would boundaries be redrawn to better reflect regional geography and local ethnicity? Would a democratic world government be a world federation of separate republics or a single federated world republic? These are important questions, but perhaps we put the cart before the horse here.

A number of leaders from around the world have recognized the benefits of democratic world government from scientists such as Albert Einstein to former U.S. presidents such as Harry Truman to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. The latest world leader calling for global cooperation to address planet-wide crises is U.S. President Barack Obama. But not even Kofi Anan believes humanity is ready for standing U.N. armed forces. Even in an age of squabbling co-dependent nation-states and stateless-nations, the concept of national sovereignty, regardless of how archaic and obsolete it has become, still reigns supreme. It is a supreme illusion made even more ironic as so many groups of people who are dependent upon each other are so quick to kill and maim each other as global catastrophes loom.

To go further than Mr. Anan’s observation, how will we the citizens of Earth disarm our various militaries? What steps shall we take? There are almost two hundred armed forces from the various nation-states in addition to many thousands of armed gangs, paramilitaries, ethnic militias, religious militias, private militias, private security contract (mercenary) companies, militarized police and intelligence forces, rebel armies, secessionist armies, and terrorist groups. It will take a tremendous, almost unimaginable level of trust for a nation-state to stand down and demobilize their armed forces. A small nation may feel gobbled up by the larger ones, and the larger ones gobbled up by a swarm of smaller ones. For world powers with de facto empires such as the United States, the European Union, Russia, and China it will require a leap of faith of not just their leaders but also their citizens.

Certainly over long periods of time as the forces of globalization and unification continue to move forward with both positive and negative results, the many different nations of Earth will learn to cooperate together, work out disputes peacefully, and grow accustomed to living together in a federated world republic. The 13 original British colonies in America did, and eventually after several wars with themselves and their neighbors also learned to live peacefully with Canada, Mexico, and even Cuba despite many differences. Even more remarkably is the rise of the European Union after centuries of barbaric warfare.

Today the international focus is on the spread of nuclear weapons. The current nuclear powers struggle with the temptation to produce more weapons while attempting to gradually destroy their stockpiles without sacrificing a sense of security. Challenges arise with developing nations with unstable regimes acquiring atomic weapons such as North Korea and Iran. Serious concerns exist regarding India and Pakistan and the fact by sharing a common border negates any chance of stopping a nuclear launch. Israel has a stable government, unlike Iran, but keeps its nuclear weapons secret. Israel feels its very existence so at stake it is feared it may be prone to use those weapons. Other nations feel the need to catch up and hold their neighbors at bay, if not with nuclear weapons then certainly with mass chemical and biological weapons. A corresponding development is the spread of ballistic missile technologies and the beginnings of robotic and space-based weapons. And, of course, terrorists from the right and the left seem eager to get their hands on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

In addition to weapons of mass destruction, we have the mass proliferation of guns, bombs, and ammunition. We have naval, amphibious, and air forces as well with massive arsenals of weapons. Our armies have tanks, artillery and batteries of rockets. So with the advocacy for global referendums with talk of world federalist meetings and world constitutions what else can we do? What do we really want? And what is our next step?

First, local, regional, national, and world-wide education is necessary to bring people’s awareness to the necessity for a democratic world government to 1) address our converging global challenges that threaten us with extinction, and 2) preempt a global dictatorship and empire in the making with the additional challenge of realizing that the so-called “One World Government” or “New World Order” would most likely be a neo-fascist, corporatocratic regime cloaked in the trappings of democracy, such as we saw happening in America under Bush-Cheney.

As part of this educational process people can be engaged as citizens in the Global Referendum for a Democratic World Government. Yes, we need a Constitution for We the People of Earth. We can have global referendums on that issue, too. We can vote yes, we want such a Constitution, and yes, we want to send delegates there to represent the many nations of Earth and design the architecture of a constitutional world democracy. We want to vote on accepting that Constitution. Engaging the average men and women around the planet in this manner furthers their education on the issue and awareness of the necessity for planetary unification and democracy. It instills civic pride and a sense of we are really all one people on one planet.

When the time comes for actual integration of the nation-states into a democratic world federation, two principles must be reiterated: 1) civilian control of the military and 2) public control of the money power.

Integration and unification will take time even after a world democratic regime is established. We will advance in stages. Perhaps not every nation-state will join right away or they may join in different degrees if we allow a wait-and-see approach. For example, there can be a mutual, simultaneous surrender of arms and demobilization of personnel by percentages among all the member nation-states. Perhaps the first reduction of military forces is by 10% to demonstrate good faith then by another 25% across the board. Smaller militaries will be phased out faster than larger militaries.

Integration of individuals from the armed forces of many nations into unified units will also facilitate this process. An issue here will be language and location of bases with ethnic sensitivity. For example one would not place a unit composed predominantly of Indian Hindus in a predominantly Pakistani Muslim area, but one could put Swedish or Brazilian or Kenyan forces there. Eventually troops may be so mixed around the planet that over time such issues become non-issues.

After a democratic world government is established with the acknowledgement that actual integration and unification will take time, years even, will we even want or need planetary military forces? Crime and terrorism may well persist indefinitely, and that can be handled by police forces and intelligence agencies working in concert. There may well be rebellions. It is widely believed, however, that under a democratic world government where all people are equally represented and disputes peacefully arbited in courts of law two things are likely to occur. One is that wars between nation-states with corresponding use (waste) of resources toward military build-ups will cease and become nonexistent. The other is that ethnic wars and secessionist wars for autonomy or independence will also cease as all people will be represented upon an interdependent and unified democratic world. There will be no longer any point as all ethnic groups and stateless-nations will be free within a constitutional democratic federation subject to representative republican government, local-global cooperation, and the rule of law.

So after a legally established and defined period of time after planetary unification begins, say 5, 10 or even 25 years after reunification all military forces are to be disbanded or converted to police and peacekeeping forces or perhaps pioneering space exploration and settlement. Demobilizing an integrated global military force will also take time and may well be best to accomplish in phases. Perhaps a small core volunteer force would be maintained.

The risk, of course, in getting rid of our military is it leaves all humanity defenseless in the face of any military assault from extraterrestrial alien forces from other worlds. At first this seems laughable as we have not experienced such an invasion in our known history. Yet, let’s face reality here, folks. Our scientific knowledge of the Multiverse continues to expand with vast numbers of galaxies, stars, and planets including Earth-like planets coming into our observable and measurable awareness. We now realize the probability of life existing elsewhere other than on Earth is well over 100% and that the probability of intelligent life developing civilizations is also quite high. Some may be so far advanced beyond us here on Earth that we would be to them as ants to us. And we may also encounter civilizations not as advanced as ours that we may end up destroying as the Spanish Empire destroyed the Aztec and Incan Empires. Note the use of the term probability not possibility. The unresolved issue of UFOs is also not to be dismissed as all hoaxes and nonsense as there have been too many anomalous events involving too many people and credible people at that. It would be dangerous and foolish to assume that simply because an alien civilization would be both highly advanced and non-human that it would automatically be peaceful even pacifist. Obviously, let’s hope interplanetary and interstellar wars remain the realm of science fiction, and…how wise would it be for humanity to be prepared for hostile encounters with intelligent beings from other worlds? In distinguishing probability from speculation what best serves the interests of humanity here on Earth?

Perhaps one of the biggest concerns I have for global democracy, a concern I’ve heard echoed elsewhere, is while world government of any kind is probably going to happen like it or not, a democratic world government will take even longer to establish. Even worse, people have trouble conceptualizing global issues and grasping how urgent matters actually are. We are in a serious situation. No one really wants to confront all of our problems as they merge together. We can barely handle one of these challenges. We may be overwhelmed into a breakdown of civilization worldwide or worse, a mass die-off or even extinction. We may be forced to accept a one world dictatorship imposed upon us in the wake of one crisis after another, or wait too long till the worst arrives and then it will be too late.

Debating a deliberate phased drawdown of armed forces and their weapons that would in turn allow the nations of the world to peacefully integrate themselves into a united republic may end up being nothing more than a rearranging of chairs upon the deck of a sinking ship. With all due respect my fellow citizens, let’s get moving!


William Dudley Bass
October 5, 2009


Sources

Editors. “10 Questions. Kofi Anan will now take your questions.” Time. October 12, 2009: 4.

The World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/ .

Vote World Government, http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ .

World Alliance to Transform the United Nations (WATUN), http://www.transformun.org/home .




© by William Dudley Bass

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

At the United Nations: Awareness of the Need for Global Unity…but will that unity be democratic?


The majority of New York’s citizens are frazzled by the traffic jams caused by the gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, wishing it would all go away to another country. People in other cities and other countries are probably glad the UN is not in their town. We all need to remember, however, we may be many countries but one world, many ethnicities but one species. Our finite resources are being consumed by wars and competition between peoples rather than cooperation to address the global crises of our time.

American President Barack Obama, on September 23, 2009, in his first address to the UN General Assembly noted the serious challenges confronting us these days. He listed some of them, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, poverty, protracted wars, pandemic disease, the pursuit of peace, and the global economic recession.

Echoing similar themes of global cooperation from his Berlin Speech in May of 2008 and his Inauguration Speech in January 2009, he declared “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in world and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

President Obama went on to say to thunderous applause “The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.” He concluded with a challenge for all there to be “honest” with each other, declaring “If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility.”

After receiving widespread applause, the American president puzzled many by leaving the room rather than taking his place among the other leaders of nations. It was commented on by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi who followed Obama to the podium. In a long, wacky speech noted for pent-up buffoonery, Gadhafi did make certain noteworthy points. He pointed out the inequalities inherent in the U.N. Security Council, the lack of representation by the majority of nations, and the failure of the Security Council to stop war. Gadhafi mentioned “65 wars,” although they’re more than that. Nor did he mention among the few wars he listed those that had involved Libya.

On the following day, September 24, President Obama presided over a historic session of the U.N. Security Council. This was the fifth time the Security Council met since the founding of the United Nations Organization back in 1945. Despite his criticisms of the day before, dictator Gadhafi was supposed to attend as a sitting member of the 15-chair Council. He no-showed, however, being the only head-of-state that was absent. Libya’s ambassador to the U.N. took Gadhafi instead. It was, however the first time an American president actually presided over the Security Council, as the U.S. holds its rotating presidency.

In an equally historic vote, the Council members unanimously approved an American-sponsored resolution that committed all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free planet and affirmed a world-wide effort to “lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.” The resolution combined many similar and earlier international agreements into one consolidated resolution that was in turn backed by China and Russia. Many developing nations also supported this resolution, which gave it the very global clout and strong political backing necessary to tackle this serious problem. Nuclear weapons are devices for mass murder.

President Obama, gaveling the meeting around the horseshoe-shaped table, announced after the unanimous vote that this “historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.”

Obama went on to announce plans for a summit in April 2010 addressing issues of compliance and assistance for all nations.

The fifth U.N. Security Council gathering was unique in at least two ways. It advances the cause of world government. The U.N., however, is not itself a democratic regime. It represents nation-states, of which there are less than two hundred, while there remain many thousands of stateless-nations. A large number of those nation-states are not democratic, and of those that are, many were empires or retain remnants of empire. Not to mention the imperial and quasi-imperial nature of some of the non-democratic states. While the U.N. is part of the greater, informal Euro-American Global Empire, the leader of this quasi-imperium is the democratically elected President of the United States. As the good emperor, he is light years ahead of his peers in the movement toward global nuclear disarmament and realizing the need for unified global action.

The Soviet-American Cold War is over. Yet nuclear weapons remain and even grow in number as a threat as they seem to proliferate. Local conflicts such as between India and Pakistan, on the Korean Peninsula, and involving Israel and Iran threaten not just mass regional slaughter but the sucking in of more countries in a nuclear bloodbath. Other countries are considering joining in the nuclear arms race, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda seek to get their hands on such WMD. Militarization drains resources away from resolving other serious challenges.

The quicker we move our planet to representative, democratic world government the better. We all assume creating democratic world government is going to be a long, slow, tedious slog. Politicians and diplomats can make historic agreements and momentous speeches, but the real work lies in action.

An arc of chronic war stretches from Central and East Africa across the Middle East, the Balkans, Caucasia, and South Asia, skipping over to the Koreas. Potentially explosive “volcanoes” such as Kosovo, Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, and Pakistan rumble and sputter with threats, alarms, and fears. Any eruption of all-out war in the Middle East and South Asia would most likely expand into a true world war. With such final unleashing of long pent-up hostilities the possibility of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction remain high. Such violence will delay the establishment of a democratic world government. In fact, it may well speed up the development of a one world dictatorship to suppress such mass destruction by force.

Democratic world government will negate this threat of war and tyranny. And as I’ve pointed out in earlier articles our choice is not between reclaiming national sovereignty versus world government but what kind of world government will we choose? World government is coming, like it or not, but will it be democratic? Not only do we have the challenges of nuclear weapons, regional and world wars, but the additional challenges of global climate disruption and a global economic recession. Both are serious challenges not well understood and, in the case of global warming, even believed by many people. It will take a united planetary response to resolve these challenges successfully. But will it be a democratic one? My stand is that we help make it so.

One pragmatic way to advance the grass roots stand for democratic world government is to vote in and vote “Yes!” in the Global Referendum for Democratic World Government. It simply asks “Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative, and democratic world government?”

American President Barack Obama, as current head of the U.N. Security Council, concluded that “This is not about singling out an individual nation. International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced.”

Let’s take this evolution of world law to the next step and help transform the United Nations into a truly democratic world body that represents all humanity among all the nations, including the stateless-nations, of Planet Earth.



William Dudley Bass
September 29, 2009



© by William Dudley Bass

Sunday, September 20, 2009

WATUN: Another Step Forward for Humanity on Earth



Momentum is beginning to develop for the DWG (Democratic World Government) movements. Some individuals and organizations desire to bypass or even abolish the current United Nations. This is understandable as one considers the undemocratic structure of a large bureaucracy that continues to prop up legions of squabbling nation-state regimes. Others, however, seek a more pragmatic approach that involves working with what already exists and reform the UN. Another group combines vision and pragmatism to go even further: 1) to not just reform the UN but transform the United Nations, and 2) couple this with the Global Referendum on Democratic World Government, a grass roots effort poised to go “viral” planet-wide.

Recently people from across Planet Earth formed WATUN, the World Alliance to Transform the United Nations. It was founded by lawyer-activist Francisco Plancarte of Planetafilia Ferderacion Federale headquartered in Guadalajara, Mexico. The first International Congress of WATUN was held in Mexico City and was chaired by global democracy activist Rob Wheeler. This founding congress piggybacked onto the September 9-11, 2006 annual conference of the UN Department of Public Information and Non-Government Organizations to host its own gathering on September 12.

Some accounts, including the newsletter of the Democratic World Federalists, declared over 1,300 people participated in the UN DPI/NGO conference. Rob Wheeler estimates somewhere between 75 and 100 activists attended a WATUN Workshop held during the UN conference and the WATUN Congress held afterwards. At least 29 member organizations joined WATUN. Many more are expected to join. Those in attendance defined the Mission Statement for WATUN and established a Council to continue the work inaugurated in Mexico City.

Together the attendees hammered out a Mission Statement for the World Alliance to Transform the United Nations. It is long for a mission statement, yet detailed and to the point. The new WATUN Mission Statement, quoted from the WATUN website, follows as:

"The Mission of the World Alliance for Transforming the United Nations is to urge and promote a Review of the UN Charter as a first step in reforming or transforming the United Nations, starting with a UN Parliamentary Assembly and moving towards a World Parliament that truly represents the people, including via nation-states and world civil society. We'll work for the establishment of an effective system of global governance that is able to deal adequately with such global issues as peace and security, disarmament, sustainable development, adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law, and the protection and restoration of the natural environment. It should be based on the principles of justice, freedom, democracy, rule of law, equity, self-determination, mutual cultural respect and religious diversity, international fellowship and cooperation."

VWG (Vote World Government), the pioneering NGO founded by Canadian activist Jim Stark that launched the Global Referendum for Democratic World Government joined WATUN. VWG and the Global Referendum were represented at the first WATUN Congress by Francisco Plancarte, who recently joined VWG and sits on its Board.

The new WATUN Council planned to focus on eight upcoming campaigns to further the cause of planetary democracy. One of those campaigns is to work to support, educate, and publicize the Global Referendum. Rob Wheeler and Jim Stark crafted a resolution adopted by the Council for consideration. The Council intends to address the Global Referendum at its next meeting, scheduled for October 2009 in New York City. The resolution reads as follows:

"GLOBAL REFERENDUM ON DEMOCRATIC WORLD GOVERNMENT

In order to transform the UN into an institution that represents the genuine interests of humankind, we must surely use democratic means to achieve our goal. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government [and that] this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which … shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” A global referendum is feasible today, using the Internet, and a world vote on democratic world government is now underway at www.voteworldgovernment.org.

If the online voting goes “viral” and the ballot passes by a good margin, that mandate would be accepted by many people as legally binding under international law, and would be politically compelling no matter what its legal status. In such an emerging situation, we will surely be able to transfer ownership of the global referendum to the UN. A global referendum on democratic world government is a very powerful new idea, and it has already been supported by 119 cosmopolitan authors.

WATUN thus agrees to:

1) endorse the global referendum (as presented at
www.voteworldgovernment.org);

2) encourage each member organization, and all other civil society organizations, to collect ballots however possible and as fast as possible, to be tabulated by Vote World Government (the NGO that developed this initiative);

3) support the idea of moving the global referendum from an online vote to a formal procedure by means of a resolution in the UN General Assembly (a draft UN resolution for this has been
prepared, and is posted at www.voteworldgovernment.org/draftUNresolution.pdf)."


As a reminder the wording of the Global Referendum is simple and straightforward. It reads thus: “Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative and democratic world government?”
These are powerful steps. Building democratic world government is a massive undertaking, more massive than landing men on the Moon. It is time. It is time men and women come together from across the planet to craft a constitutional planetary democracy that advances liberty, justice, equality, peace, and community. It goes hand in hand with the necessity to reform our global economic system and abolish war between not only nations but different ethnic and religious groups. This movement is a preventative stand for the survival of the human species so that we may resolve a historically unique convergence of global crises. There will be no individual liberty, nor financial prosperity, no journeys to the planets and stars, no world peace, no inner peace until we get our own planetary house in order as one united species.

See also:

1) World Alliance to Transform the UN @ http://www.transformun.org/home

2) Democratic World Government through a Global Referendum @ http://voteworldgovernment.org/

3) “The World Voter: The Newsletter of Vote World Government, Issue # 19, September 2009” with article on WANTUN & VWG @ http://www.rescueplanforplanetearth.com/WorldVoterNewsletter19.pdf

William Dudley Bass
September 20, 2009

© by William Dudley Bass

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Vote Yes! For Democratic World Government



As humanity continues to blunder toward global collapse where worse case scenarios are fast becoming the most likely scenarios, good people around the world wonder what they can do if anything. Many struggle alone or in small groups in the cause of their choices, large organizations have gone deep to stay alive but focus upon only one cause, while the rest of us feel resigned, cynical perhaps, apathetic, demoralized, even depressed. I call this the “whatever syndrome,” as in when you tell someone that this time the sky really is falling or the wolves are actually killing and eating the sheep they just shrug their shoulders, mumble “Whatever,” and go back to doing whatever they happen to be doing.

Folks, there IS something positive each one of us can do.

Vote “Yes!” for Democratic World Government. And do it now. I voted “Yes.” Tell others to do it, too. Go to the website http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ and vote.

This is a worldwide internet-based voting via global referendum. You can find out more about it at its companion website http://www.rescueplanforplanetearth.com/.

I recently had the pleasure of reading a new book called Rescue Plan for Planet Earth: Democratic World Government through a Global Referendum. The author is Jim Stark of Canada. He lives in rural Quebec and served as a global anti-nuclear weapons activist during the Cold War.

His is a brilliant book. I have long struggled without success over what we can do to work with nation-state regimes, stateless nations, the UN and the Bretton Woods Three, or bypass all of them in some local-global grassroots initiative. Established institutions are inherently resistant to overtly surrendering power. The answer is to leverage telecommunications technology including the Internet as well as mail-in paper ballots from across Earth to launch, maintain, and sustain a Global Referendum for planetary democracy.

Jim Stark throws down a challenge for all of us, and it is a challenge any one of us capable adults can answer. His Global Referendum is a way to involve all of us, even if we disagree with it.

Vote World Government is an NGO, a non-governmental organization, active in the pursuit and creation of transparent, democratic world government. While some people quibble over the wording of its ballot proposition as it currently exists, it is simple and direct. The ballot proposition asks:

“Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative and democratic world government?”

That is it: “Yes” or “No.”

There are things I like and don’t like about Mr. Stark’s book. It is short, and I love that. Short books are the way to go in today’s busy, hectic world. Our “24/7/365” pace leaves us with less time to read and contemplate, not more. The book is direct, to the point, and combines deep vision with direct action. Many similar books are either visionary or pragmatic. Few are both. Jim Stark's book is one of those few.

The language of the book is a bit shrill for me, and the author makes no apologies for it as we approach the tipping point of planetary catastrophe including the real possibility of what he calls “omnicide,” the killing of everything. In fact he seems proud of the word “shrill.” From a marketing standpoint I would have avoided shrillness as a psychological turn-off to any clarion call.

I also take issue with assuming the best form of democratic government is going to be a European-style parliamentary form vs. the American three-way checks and balances system. I myself have not made up my mind which would be best for humanity. Both systems have their pros and cons. It would be best to leave that up to wisdom councils to sort out and a planetary constitutional convention followed by another referendum on that. I would imagine the best and brightest among us to evolve something even more evolved than what we have now. This is especially pertinent as we have experienced the paralysis and fragmentation inherent in parliamentary systems and the abuses and creeping “stealth” despotism that mar the American system. Jim Stark is upfront, of course, as favoring the Canadian system, which is indeed among the better ones on Earth, as he is Canadian and thus more familiar with it. The fundamental issue of the people taking public control of the Money Power is not addressed in the book. Such an important economic and financial issue must be addressed. For now, however, let’s vote in this referendum!

These are all mere quibbles, however, quibbles. The greater priority is to get this referendum going worldwide. And that means starting locally.

Many will oppose us from all directions. There are those who desire world government alright, but are working hard to create a financial and political planetary dictatorship. It is a fascist regime disguised as "democracy." There are racists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and those in the Corporatocracy and the military-industrial-intelligence complex who will oppose democratic world government as a threat to their power. There are the quasi-libertarian conspiracy theory kooks who recognize the above menaces as real, which they are, but collapse every move toward a democratic world federation as part of the One World Government conspiracy. These me-firsters make no distinction between the forces of what author/activist David Korten calls Global Empire and Earth Community. Instead these freedom-without-responsibility types denigrate concepts of universal human rights and universal social responsibility.

There are also the capitalists who still cling to illusions of a free and unregulated marketplace and the communists who cling to the dictatorship of the proletariat as central state control who will oppose this. And there are the Anarchists who naively believe in no government or hierarchy at all but loose networks of individuals and neighborhoods cooperating together without competition and violence. I would imagine, however, that Jim Stark is right in his statistics-based assumption the majority of human beings would prefer a transparent, democracy world government of liberty, peace, health, and prosperity. And if the chance to vote in favor of such occurred most would vote “Yes.”

The one significant move I wished Jim Stark and his colleagues could have done differently is insert the word “democratic” into the name of his organization and website, as in “Vote Democratic World Government.” So many people, even if they laugh at the far-right wing conspiracy kooks, are still leery of the term “world government,” fear global tyranny, and view the term “One World Government” as scary and ominous. Maybe Mr. Stark tried and the term was already copyrighted, the domain name taken, or it was viewed as too lengthy to effectively market. And we set aside differences to work together now. One step at a time, breathing as we go.

And this Global Referendum to vote for a democratic world government is hands-down the best, most effective tool we have to leverage people and technology around the world in service of Earth and humanity. So go vote, and I encourage all of you to vote “Yes!”

Again, go here and vote: http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ .

Declare yourself for Democratic World Government. And join me in thanking Jim Stark and his team for such a great book, a brilliant concept, and a hands-on nuts-and-bolts approach to implement their vision. Jim Stark and all of you at Vote World Government, thank you.

Bibliography

Stark, Jim. Rescue Plan for Planet Earth: Democratic World Government through a Global Referendum. Toronto, Canada: The Key Publishing House, 2008.


William Dudley Bass
March 8, 2009



© by William Dudley Bass

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama: First World President



Barack Hussein Obama is now President of the United States of America. His elevation to the Presidency is historic for a number of reasons, many of them obvious and oft commented on. What is not so obvious is that unofficially and energetically he is the President of Earth. This became clear during his Berlin speech in the Spring of 2008. There he addressed the throngs as a citizen of the world to point out nations of the world must work together to resolve the numerous challenges facing all humanity. We ARE one people. Today in his Inauguration speech he again alluded to the need for our community of nations to work together. Obama is energetically the unofficial President of the World. Take note. This is a historic first. And it is to be celebrated.

National sovereignty is as obsolete as the divine right of kings. An integration of personal and global sovereignty may well evolve to replace this outmoded and violent concept. We today have a planet of co-dependent nation-states and dependent stateless-nations. Yet nations still exist and their institutions can be leveraged in mass collaboration. We all must learn to work together to resolve a convergence of severe global crises unique in human history. President Obama clearly sees the United States as the leader in our march toward global harmony and prosperity. It has been noted not only do we have the technology to make institutions of democratic world government possible, but if there had been a planetary election campaign Obama would have won it. This psychological and cultural shift is a first in human history.

Barack Obama's global popularity became apparent during his campaign. Obama's hold on the world's imagination and his gift to inspire people across Earth has been noted in more than one publication. For the first time in history we now have the technology to hold global elections and operate planetary institutions. And it is uplifting that of all people to be celebrated as an unofficial president of the world it is Obama, a complex, inspiring and brilliant man of integrity and ethics who honors his body as a temple as much as his intellect. We could have a dynamic orator galvanizing people with fear, hate, violence, and misplaced glory as many have done in the past, and we don't. We have Obama with a clarion call not just for hope, change, and love, lots of love, but for sacrifice, responsibility, cooperation, and immediate action.

Of course, we do not yet have institutions for democratic world government. Obama's title of President of the World does not exist. I made it up. America is, for a number of reasons, the one nation most though not all look to as a beacon of freedom and opportunity. American history is a deeply flawed one, many terrible things happened, yet this nation-state continues to climb it's metaphorical mountain, learning and growing as it did in the past. Obama referred to "the bitter swill of civil war and segregation" and how Americans overcame that. Many around the world look to America renewing itself and taking the lead in a new era of truly global cooperation. Obama's message was at times blunt. Basically he was telling us that although "America is a young nation" it is time to "set aside childish things" and grow up.

In the midst of our global celebration let us not forget the reality we face around the planet. World institutions exist but are not democratic. We can shift from rocking upon an unconscious tipping point to a deliberate and intentional Great Turning. We can choose world dictatorship and the global collapse that would surely follow or we can choose democratic world government with the freedom, peace, and prosperity that must follow. We can continue to choose the failed systems of either finance capitalism or socialism or move toward a healthier new dynamic capitalism that integrates our economy with the environment and puts people before profits. Instead of tipping ourselves in the abyss of chaos and neverending war and poverty we can choose to turn away from Empire toward Earth Community and eventually transparent, democratic world government.

Let us not forget the unofficial, informal and very real Euro-American Global Empire exists. Ejecting the Bush-Cheney Regime and its Neo-Conservative Cabal and even the Neo-Liberal Cabal does not change the fact the United States with the European Union and all their complex alliances and control over international bodies constitute a de facto if messy imperium. The Americans have elected a "good emperor." And this "good emperor" has his work cut out for him as he rallies the world to stand with him as we face challenges severe and many and lead us toward more, better, deeper, and richer democracy. Part of our challenge is not to "spread democracy" but to turn together as one people and one planet toward global cooperation and world democracy.

This may be the beginning of a historic transition far more enormous than any of us can truly imagine.

President Obama has the last word. From his Inaugural Address today:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

William Dudley Bass
January 20, 2009




(C) by William Dudley Bass

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Frankensteins and Blowback in the Middle East and South Asia



Frankenstein monsters of humanity's own creation stalk the bloodsoaked Middle East. In the midst of heated emotions and bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, we often loose sight of the origins of such conflicts and end up taking sides. Instead of taking sides the world should unite and go in as a massive planetary police action to stamp out wars, arrest the perpetrators on both sides, and try them in a world court of law that recognizes war itself as a crime. We don't have such firm institutions yet, unfortunately, and the ones we do have are not necessarily democratic or transparent.

The bloodshed in Gaza, Congo, Iraq, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Somalia and elsewhere drives urgency for us to create a democratic planetary republic. We witnessed political fragmentation, ethnic strife, and economic manipulation in the name of “democracy” and “independence” during the breakup of the Soviet Empire and the shattering of Yugoslavia. We see it again in the bloody turmoil all across Africa and many other places as well from Nepal to Indonesia to the Amazon. But let us regress to the horrors nationalism and superpower plays have created in the cauldrons of the Middle East.

This is the most complex superpower mess. We will consider the hypocrisy and consequences of the Global War on Terror and how it grew out of the Byzantine power plays and insidious manipulations of the Cold War. The most damaging, complex, confusing, and dangerous area for which the whole world continues to pay a bloody price is the Middle East, that historic crossroads of humanity that stretches from North and East Africa into South and Central Asia and intrudes into the European Balkans and Caucasus. The greatest concentration of the world’s oldest civilizations lay in this region as well as the origins of many of the planet’s dominant religions. So let us look at the labyrinthine Middle East from the perspective of the Soviet-American Cold War and its consequences.

As a reminder, it must be noted that during the following series of local and global conflicts spinning out of the Middle East, at the same time the Rockefeller family and others of the financial elite were strangling the US and global economies. Their primary intent was two-fold. First, to keep the US dollar solvent and thus the dominant currency worldwide at great cost to Americans. Secondly, to dismantle under both Democrat and Republican presidents (Carter and Reagan followed by the Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations) the earlier anti-monopoly trust-busting reforms of Republican Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal revolution of his cousin Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Rockefellers forced Democrat President Jimmy Carter to appoint their protégé Paul Volker Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who was eventually followed by Republican Ronald Reagan appointing Alan Greenspan before Ben Benanke took over under Republican President George W. Bush. The Volker-Greenspan “dynasties” engineered significant financial perturbations in the marketplace that enriched the superwealthy and fostered the illusion of wealth and prosperity while creating havoc and destruction in the economy locally and globally. This occurred during significant proxy wars between the Soviet and American empires in Latin America, Africa, and Asia with the most severe erupting in East Asia and the Middle East and Central Asia.

In Afghanistan, the Soviet Union was provoked to invade and occupy that country by the United States. The American-Soviet superpower rivalry in Central and South Asia was in many ways an extension of the Nineteenth Century Anglo-Russian “Great Game” of imperial brinkmanship. The period of European imperialism and colonialism left a legacy of artificial nation-states with unstable regimes and warring ethnic groups across the planet. One of the most volatile regions on Earth, especially in the wake of both World Wars proved to be the Middle East and neighboring South Asia. The United States and the Soviet Union moved to fill the Great Power void after the end of the Second World War left Europe, including much of the western USSR itself, devastated. And Afghanistan is the bridge between the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. It has been ever since Ancient times when the Persians under Cyrus II the Great, his son Cambyses II, and Darius II the Great and then the Macedonians and Greeks under Alexander the Great carved vast empires from Egypt, Greece and the Balkans across Mesopotamia and Iran into India and Afghanistan.

Even in the latter half of the Twentieth Century Afghanistan proved a bridge. It remains a bridge between regions, although now terms such as “highway” and “pipeline” are now in vogue. And Afghanistan remains a barren if beautiful battleground that continues to suck in outside powers. Revolts, coups, tribal uprisings, and insurrections broke out against Soviet-backed regimes first in 1975 and again in 1978, leading to an Afghan civil war which in turn led to a massive Soviet invasion in December 1979. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, “secret operations” including actions by the CIA drew the Soviet Union to fall into “the Afghan trap” by design and thus give the Soviets their own “Vietnam War,” a reference to the recent and long-drawn out US loss in Indochina. The Vietnam War bled the American economy, undermined many domestic reforms, and catalyzed public turmoil and rebellion back inside the United States. The Americans hoped the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan would trigger similar economic and socio-political upheaval back in the USSR.

Brzezinski was and remains a member of the US Democratic Party as well as two influential secret societies, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberger Group. At first many progressives were relieved as they saw him as a cheerful and brilliant alternative to the equally brilliant but notoriously gloomy Henry Kissinger, but he turned out to be a different model of the same general realpolitik mindset. Brzezinski referred to latter-day versions of the “Great Game” as the “Grand Chessboard” and to many American allies as “satrapies.” In spite of President Carter’s public shock and dismay at the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, Carter’s own CIA had been conducting covert operations against the Communists there starting in 1978. Even back in 1977 US National Security Advisor Brzezinski formed the Nationalities Working Group dedicated to inflaming ethnic strife inside the USSR and especially stirring up non-Russian Muslims against the Soviet Russians. This eventually led to US-backed raids by the Afghan Resistance into the USSR during the 1980s, a model in turn emulated by Chechens in their nationalist and Islamic revolts against the Russians. And if Islamic militants could strike deep into Russia, why not also, at a later date, strike deep into Europe or America? Which eventually happened in what even the CIA terms “blowback,” a violent version of the old saying beware of what you do in case it comes back to haunt you.

The US played a power game that was blatantly hypocritical. Yet this game was dubbed “realistic” by the Kissinger-Brzezinski school of Neo-Conservative/Neo-Liberal “Realists.” While on the edge of war with Revolutionary Iran under its Fundamentalist Islamic theocracy and taking Jewish Israeli sides in on-going conflicts against Muslim Arabs, the US in turn supported Fundamentalist Muslims in their war against Afghan and Soviet Communists in Afghanistan. And then the Soviet satellite state of Baathist Iraq, a fierce enemy of US-backed Israel, asserted its independence from the Soviet Empire and invaded Iran in September 1980, only nine months after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and twenty months after Fundamentalist Muslims overthrew the Shah of Iran. This in turn set the stage for conflict between Islamic extremists on both side of the Sunni and Shia divide, with the Shia primarily concentrated in Persian Iran and southern Iraq.

Iraq is the hub of the Middle East, and who controls Iraq exerts enormous influence in the region including the Persian Gulf. European nations allied with the USA such as France and Germany sold Iraq weapons including aircraft to quickly fill the Soviet void and to blunt the Ayatollahs of Iran. The US stepped in to help prop up the Baathist military dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to keep the Soviets off-balance. Europeans funneled large sums of money to Iraq including the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro which funneled up to $5 billion worth of unreported loans. The United States exported chemical and biological warfare agents to Iraq and Americans assisted Iraqi forces in using poison gas on both Iranian forces and on Iraqi rebels in violation of the 1925 Geneva Accords. This progressed to the point where CIA assisted the Iraqi Army in calibrating mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops in 1984 and in 1988 the US Defense Intelligence Agency was heavily involved in Iraqi cyanide, mustard, and nerve gas attacks that killed many tens of thousands of Iranians. The Americans even attacked outright Iranian installations in the Persian Gulf in the so-called Tanker War Campaign.

Even though it was Iraq that attacked and severely damaged the American Navy ship USS Stark with French-made Exocet missiles fired from a French-built Mirage jet in May 1987 for reasons still not clearly understood (was it a tragic error of misidentification, or a capricious warning by Saddam that no one is his boss?), the US under Republican Ronald Reagan stood by Saddam as it viewed Iran and the Soviets as greater threats. In a similar, almost reverse and still controversial incident, the Americans shot down an Iranian civilian passenger airliner in July 1988 with great loss of life.

In another event evocative of regional political complexities, Israel, a fierce foe of Saddam’s Iraq even though both countries at that time were supported by the USA and Western Europe, attacked Iraq in June 1981 and destroyed Saddam’s nuclear reactor at Osirik. Iraq was deprived of developing nuclear weapons to bomb Iran and Israel with and thus resorted to chemical warfare including the use of poison gas. Israel had been allies with Persian Iran against the Arabs before Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah, but at that time still viewed Iraq at the greater enemy. That viewpoint shifted after the Islamic Revolution with Israel and Iran considering each other implacable foes as the Iran-Iraq War ground to a halt with a cease-fire in August 1988. It was acceptable from the global imperial point of view for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iraq or Iran. It was also acceptable for Iraq to actually use chemical weapons backed by the US on Iranians and Iraqi rebels in the 1980s but not in the 1990-1991 Gulf War on American and Coalition forces. The US threatened the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq should Saddam use poison gas on American troops. The Superpowers continued to play local and regional powers off against the other across the Middle East and South Asia in their Machiavellian Cold War maneuvers.

As such the USA, especially through the use of the CIA and eventually with training by US Special Forces, organized, armed, and bankrolled the anti-Communist Afghan Resistance, which came to call themselves the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen in turn declared an Islamic Jihad against Soviet and Afghan Communists. Many Muslims from other nations, including Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, and Egypt and Pashtuns from Pakistan arrived in Afghanistan to battle the Soviet invasion. These Arabs and Pashtuns usually found support from the Americans and their wealthy allies among the Saudis.

One of these wealthy Saudis supported by the American CIA in Afghanistan is Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden later dismisses the role of the United States in the Afghan defeat of the Soviet Empire, preferring to credit the victory to Allah. The CIA even disclaims responsibility for developing Osama bin Laden’s power base in their defeat of the USSR. The House of bin Laden also denies responsibility for Osama’s actions, claiming instead that he was a rogue black sheep who left the family fold. This Mujahideen victory, however, in turn led to a vicious and tyrannical civil war after the Soviets were forced out of Afghanistan, as if this was also Osama’s interpretation and abuse of “God’s Will.” The Saudis funneled billions of dollars into both the Iraq war against Iran and the Mujahideen jihad against the Communists. There were close ties, too, between the Bush Family, the House of Saud, and the Bin Laden Family.

Muslim Pakistan, an enemy of India, the world’s largest democracy, was backed by the US because it was anti-Soviet and the Indians pro-Soviet. This demonstrates the Cold War divide between monolithic Communism and monolithic Democracy is a myth, as the Communists backed anti-American democracies and the pro-American democracies backed anti-Communist dictatorships. Pakistan itself wavered between corrupt civilians democratically elected and coup-happy military dictators. Both backed the Mujahideen including financing and training them, even joining them in battle. The Pakistanis also backed Islamic Kashmiri separatists in their terrorist rebellion against predominantly Hindu India. The United States, first under Democrat Jimmy Carter and then under Republican Ronald Reagan, saw the Afghan War as a Cold War battle between Communism and Democracy and the Iran-Iraq War as a way to blunt Soviet expansion into the Middle East and also strengthen Israel’s position as Israel itself was bogged down in Lebanon’s multifaceted Civil War while simultaneously battling Palestinian insurrections. In the end these positions fueled a global Islamic Fundamentalist militancy. And Afghanistan was the battlefield “for freedom and democracy” versus “Communism and socialism.”

In truth, too, the majority of the Afghan Resistance was not in favor of democracy at all. They were a mix of corrupt warlords, opium farmers, ultraconservative tribal traditionalists, and radical Muslim Fundamentalists. The only freedoms many of the Mujahideen fought for was the freedom of Afghan Muslim men to fight each other, suppress women and keep women in conditions of virtual slavery, dominate children, farm opium, and drive out not only Communists and atheists but Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists as well as secularists. Afghans that desired true freedom, equality, and democracy were either mostly killed off or fled into exile to seek those dreams in the West.

The Soviets were eventually driven out of their Afghan “Vietnam” by February 1989. Their Communist puppet state held until finally deposed in April 1992 by the Mujahideen, who then took to warring amongst themselves. Driving out first the Soviet Union and then their Afghan puppet regime was hailed as an American and Afghan victory for freedom and democracy. The Soviet Union itself dissolved by the end of 1991, and its defeat in Afghanistan was deemed instrumental in its collapse.

The Mujahideen resistance mutated into a patchwork of corrupt, feudal warlords whose quarrels then degenerated into full-scale civil war. From this bloody chaos emerged the strict and austere Taliban, who seduced many Afghans with the illusion of law, order, and stability. The Taliban conquered many of the warlords, rooted out corruption, and imposed an austere but oppressive Fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship over much of Afghanistan. Their desire to establish a Muslim Caliphate did not invoke the tolerant high civilization of the Medieval Muslim empires of the Arabs, Berbers, Persians, and Turks that contributed much to humanity, but a backward, rigid, barbaric tyranny.

Many of the Arabs and Pashtuns who infiltrated Afghanistan to fight the Communists were also Fundamentalist Muslims and in turn supported the Taliban against the other Afghan warlords. These foreign fighters came to be called “Afghan Arabs.” The secret security and intelligence services of Pakistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI, many whom were in opposition to the secular Pakistan Army, were riddled with Fundamentalist Islamic radicals. They gave enormous support to the Taliban and by extension the Taliban’s Afghan Arab allies. The Pakistanis gave so much support to the Taliban that some analysts consider the Taliban to be more of a Pakistani creation than an Afghan one.

With echoes of the Anglo-Russo Great Game, the Pakistanis sought to make Afghanistan a buffer against Soviet Russia. The Pakistanis also sought to outflank India through Afghanistan as well as connect with China. India was supportive of the Soviet Union, engaged in intermittent wars with Pakistan, thumbed its nose at both Great Britain and the United States, gave Tibetans including the Tibetan Dalai Lama refuge from the Chinese, and were later defeated in an embarrassing border war by the Chinese. The United States also sought to control both Afghanistan and Pakistan to create buffers against any Asian nation-state potentially a major US enemy such as the USSR or Red China. The Americans sought indirect control via financial clout, the sale of weaponry, and economic pressure. Thus the USA funneled millions and millions of dollars into Pakistan, which in turn funneled it through the ISI into the Afghan Taliban.

The roll of the Afghan Arabs and the Pakistani Pashtuns in the defeat of the Communists and the rise of the Taliban can not be underestimated. For reasons of national and ethnic pride, the Afghan Mujahideen and their replacement the Taliban maintain the fiction their victory over first the Communists and then the warlords was primarily an Afghan victory. True, the majority of Mujahideen fighters were Afghans and they fought with ferocious valor. Even so, their victory clearly would not have been possible without American support, both directly through the NSA, CIA, & Special Forces and indirectly through equally enormous US support of Pakistan and the Pakistani ISI. The Afghan Arabs also played a significant role in the defeat of the Soviets and the Afghan Communists. While relatively small in number, they still represented a major force. They brought in large infusions of cash, especially from Saudi Arabia, enrolled many Arabs and other Muslims to their jihad, and due to their fanatic fierceness and training in tactics and strategies as well as their family connections throughout the Middle East rose into prominent positions in military, political, and religious structures.

Clearly, the native Afghan Mujahideen played a significant role in their defeat of the Communists prior to turning upon each other, but their Muslim jihadist allies from other countries eventually numbered from 20,000 to 60,000 warriors recruited by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam alone. Later over 100,000 jihadists came to Afghanistan and Pakistan with thousands more undergoing training in Pakistani madrassas or radical Islamic Fundamentalist schools. Those numbers from the perspective of both guerrilla warfare and the Afghan landscape and population represents an enormous quantity of non-Afghan fighters.

The Afghan Arabs, initially as they were enemies of the Soviets and allies of Pakistan as well as allied with the Mujahideen, also received funding and military support from the United States. They were also close with the Pashtuns of the Afghan-Pakistani border regions as the Pashtuns shared fierce traditions of warrior tribalism and were also, like many in the Taliban, relatively uneducated and prey to religious indoctrination by Fundamentalist Islamic radicals. The Afghan Arab leadership also sought to create a Muslim Caliphate, but as many of them came from different countries they envisioned the Caliphate as not merely an Afghan emirate but a restored Islamic Empire that would eventually span the globe. Interpretations of what this caliphate was envisioned to resemble varied considerably, yet it was an overarching goal.

The Afghan Arabs and the Taliban went on to greatly influence the Chechen revolts against the Russians and transformed a nationalistic war for Chechen independence into a Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad that spilled out into other regions and included Chechens fighting in Islamic conflicts in other lands. They also supported the Bosnians in the Yugoslav Civil Wars, the Palestinians against Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Kashmiri separatists against Hindu India as well as Muslim revolts in Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Jihadists were involved in radical revolts and terror campaigns in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia and then after 2003 flocked into Iraq to fight the American and British occupation. It was blowback, indeed.

When the United States and its allies turned on Saddam’s Iraq and set up Western military bases in Saudi Arabia, viewed by Islamists as Muslim Holy Land off limits to “infidels,” and with the Taliban’s emergence as a brutal theocracy, both the Taliban and their Afghan Arab allies turned on the Global Empire of the West. They singled out the Americans as Arch-Enemy Number One as Americans were at the head of this secular Global Empire. American allies from Israel to Europe to Canada to Australia and India were issued dire warnings. From this Alice-in-Wonderland craziness grew the Frankensteinian monster known today as al-Qaeda and its primary leader Osama bin Laden. Even Benazir Bhutto, when she was Prime Minister of Pakistan and years prior her assassination in early 2008, told newly-elected American President George H. W. Bush Sr. back in 1989 that “You are creating a veritable Frankenstein.” Bush had been Ronald Reagan’s Vice-President and before that Director of the CIA. Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs, Richard Murphy, later admitted “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan.”

Pakistani ISI agents wanted a royal Saudi prince in Afghanistan, especially as the House of Saud bankrolled much of the Afghan Resistance. The American CIA and Special Forces had begun covert training of Afghan Mujahideen soon after the Soviet Russian intervention. While the ISI did not get a true prince, they did get Osama bin Laden. The House of bin Laden is intricately linked to the House of Saud, and thus Saudi Arabia extended primary and massive financial aid to the Mujahideen. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan early on, possibly as early as 1980, although the ISI did not actively began recruiting Arabs and Pashtuns until 1982.

At one point Osama bin Laden was established in Peshawar, on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. There in 1984 he helped run and finance a Mujahideen front group known as MAK, or Maktab al-Khidamat, also known as Al-Kifah. MAK was heavily nurtured and supported not just by the House of Saud with the House of bin Laden but also directly by the Pakistani ISI and indirectly by the American CIA. Through MAK Osama bin Laden also built close relations with corrupt warlords and opium smugglers such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a feudal warlord operating near the Afghan border with Iran. Hekmatyar was directly supported also by the ISI and the CIA in his guerrilla campaign against the USSR, became allies with the Taliban in the civil war that broke out after the Soviet defeat, and then in the wake of 9/11 turned on the United States after it invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. Hekmatyar today maintains links with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda as well as with Iran.

MAK was initially founded by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam and Azzam’s son-in-law Abdullah Anas. Sheikh Azzam was one of Osama bin Laden’s primary mentors and strongly advocated a Muslim jihad to conquer the world. Supported by both the ISI and the CIA and bankrolled by Americans and Saudis, Azzam with bin Laden recruited tens of thousands of Arabs to fight in Afghanistan against the Communists. Azzam traveled around the world, including in the United States. In fact MAK set up about 30 branches or centers inside the USA. Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, while not as widely known as Osama bin Laden, was an incendiary speaker and very successful recruiter and organizer. He was a Palestinian and lived in Jordan and Saudi Arabia before moving to Pakistan to join the Afghan Mujahideen. He indoctrinated Osama bin Laden in many radical causes, including the concepts of global jihad and the creation of a worldwide Muslim empire.

Toward the end, however, Azzam fell out with many of his allies and followers even though the CIA supported him in trying to unify the Afghan warlords and end the civil war. After the Soviets had been driven out and the Mujahideen fell into civil war Sheikh Azzam was assassinated by car bomb in November 1989. Osama bin Laden moved to take over MAK/Al-Kifah and merged it with al-Qaeda, which he had formed the year before in 1988. The branch in New York City, named the Al-Kifah Refugee Center, became involved as the headquarters for the first terrorist attack on New York’s World Trade Center in 1993. The CIA helped provide visas for not only for Azzam to travel to the USA prior to his assassination, but also for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheikh,” to travel to New York City. The Blind Sheikh was the apparent leader behind the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center.

We thus see how the United States and its allies from the United Kingdom to the House of Saud created a number of Frankensteinian monsters, from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, from the Israelis to the Pakistanis, from Sheikh Azzam to the Blind Sheikh, from the Mujahideen to Maktab al-Khidamat to al-Qaeda itself. We see amid the tangle of warring nation-state regimes and financial manipulation for control of resources such as oil the origins of blowback, continued imperialism and military adventurism, and terrorism. None of it had anything to do with “freedom,” “capitalist entrepreneurship,” or “democracy.” It was all about empire, money, religion, and control. Nor does it appear that the US Federal Government including the CIA deliberately aided these jihadists to attack New York City in 1993. Cultural ignorance, superpower greed, bureaucratic negligence, and interagency rivalries played far greater roles in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist war against the United States did not begin with the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11 but with the Iranian seizure of American embassy personnel as hostages in 1979. Hezbollah’s successful suicide bombings of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1988 were another early hammer blow, driving the US out of the Lebanon Civil War. There were a proliferation of Muslim terrorist groups across the Middle East, many of them Palestinian and Lebanese but also including many from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and other countries. Many of them such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria were suppressed by Arab and Persian dictatorships, some were bankrolled by Arab and Persian governments or wealthy families such as the Saudis, and the survivors coalesced under the leadership of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Armed Islamic Group or al-Jama’ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallaha in Algeria, and al-Qaeda across the Middle East and Central Asia.

The most famous al-Qaeda-related including pre- or embryonic al-Qaeda terrorist attacks launched were in New York City against the World Trade Center in 1993, a US military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the USS Cole off Yemen in 2000, culminating in the controversial and spectacularly horrifying events of September 11, 2001. There were other scattered terrorist attacks and al-Qaeda instigated tribal warfare such as in Yemen and in Pakistan as well. Perhaps the most spectacular pre-9/11 US counterattacks were the bloody and failed 1992-1995 intervention in Somalia including the First Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993, followed by the 1998 cruise missile attacks on alleged al-Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. During these decades there were also violent repression and bloody terrorism in Egypt and especially Algeria between moderate Sunni quasi-secular governments and Fundamentalist Islamic jihadists.

These events unfolded under the US Democratic regime of President Bill Clinton. One could say they actually began under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. There is a direct link through the past, however, to the historic meeting between President Franklin Roosevelt and King Adb al-Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia in February 1945 toward the end of the Second World War. This event proved more significant than it first appeared at the time, as it brought the US deeper into the quagmire of Mideast politics where it became entangled in paradoxical alliances. It was this meeting in Egypt between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud that not only was a strategic yet non-democratic alliance forged but America began its addiction to Middle Eastern oil. King Ibn Saud had allowed American oil companies into Saudi Arabia as early as the 1930s, and that relationship quickly grew into one of great strategic importance as the Axis empires went down into defeat leaving the Soviet Empire in control of most European oil fields as World War II morphed into the Cold War.

Zigzagging back across time and place, we see how the British and French, supported by their American allies, carved up the Middle East after the end of the First World War and the defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The Tsarist Russian defeat by the Germans in the First World War, made more ironic as the Germans lost to Russia’s allies even as it defeated Imperial Russia, and the subsequent Russian Revolution and Civil War also led to regional instability in that region. The current crop of anti-Western anti-colonial pro-Arab revolts and wars for independence broke out. We see the emergence of seemingly neverending Jewish and then Israeli and Palestinian conflicts and Arab-Israeli Wars, Kurdish nationalist conflicts, Arab-Arab conflicts such as between the Hashemite royal families and the House of Saud, Arab-Turk conflicts, Turk-Armenian conflicts, Armenian-Azerbaijani and Caucasian wars, Arab-Persian conflicts, Sunni-Shia battles, and in South Asia Hindu-Muslim and Indo-Pak riots, communal massacres, and wars.

Among the other Frankenstein monsters is the current mess in Iran. During the Second World War, Iran, along with Syria, Lebanon and Iraq sided with the Axis Powers of Nazi Germany and Vichy France. The Allies, primarily British Imperial units assisted by the Free French, occupied Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Next, the British and the Soviets invaded and occupied Iran in 1941, overthrew its monarch, Reza Shah Pahlavi, and had Iran declare war on Germany in 1943 so Iran could join the United Nations. Ironically, the pro-German Shah appealed to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt for help against Britain and Russia, but Roosevelt deferred, citing “Hitler’s ambition of world conquest.” The primary reasons for the Allied conquest of Iran were to control the flow of oil and the Persian Gulf sea lanes as the Allies were concerned both would fall into Nazi hands. Axis military advances had only recently been pushed back from both Egypt and the Soviet Caucasus in what looked to Allied global strategists like a giant Nazi pincer on the Middle East and perhaps India, which was already threatened by the Japanese attacking out of Burma. So Iran was overrun with the Soviets occupying the north and the British the south. Countries proclaiming liberation end up conquering others is yet another mark of the hypocrisy, instability, and damage caused by the Westphalian system of nation-states.

The Shah himself had seized power in an army coup in 1921 in the post-World War I chaos. His young son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was declared Shah under Allied protection. The Soviets eventually withdrew, leaving the British with their American Allies with the greater influence. The Allies encouraged a parliamentary democracy to check the royal power of the Shah. To their chagrin, however, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to power as a popular nationalist. He was elected Prime Minister in 1951 and nationalized Western, especially British oil industries. The British Empire responded with an oil embargo. Convinced the Soviets with Iranian communists were behind Mossadegh, as all-out war had broken out with Communists on the Korean peninsula and war with the Communists had only recently ended in Greece, British and American intelligence services including the CIA plotted a pro-Shah coup. In 1953, rioting broke out in the streets between different Iranian factions and the Shah launched a military coup that overthrew the elected Prime Minister. With Mossadegh out of power, the Shah moved to create a secular, anti-communist but authoritarian regime.

Iran modernized considerably, but much of its population had been alienated against the West. This sentiment was leveraged by Fundamentalist Shia Muslims who organized the revolution against the Shah of Iran. Fighting broke out in January 1978, ending with the seizure of power in February 1979 by radical Islamic clerics. Under the fiery and stern control of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the theocracy established what they called an Islamic Republic of Iran but was in fact an absolute dictatorship more tyrannical than the Shah and his secret police. Secular, communist, and military factions that had joined the ayatollahs to oppose the Shah now revolted against Khomeini but were crushed in city after city by Khomeini’s Iranian Revolutionary Guards. In November of that same year radical Islamic students took over the United States embassy in Tehran and accused the USA of plotting a CIA coup to overthrow Ayatollah Khomeini in a repeat of what happened to Mossadegh. The hostage crisis dragged on until early 1981, included bungled military rescue attempts by the USA, and brought Iran and the US extremely close to war. It also encouraged Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, to take advantage of the turmoil and invade Iran, resulting in another disastrous and bloody war.

Saddam was supported by the United States in his failed war against Iran. As described earlier, that war ended in 1988. In a devious abuse of politics, Saddam was covertly encouraged by the Americans to invade Kuwait in 1990, which triggered the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. The United States, under President George H. W. Bush, turned on Saddam, organized a global coalition against Iraq, trumpeted the New World Order, pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait, prevented Israel from retaliating against Iraqi attacks, and amassed enormous military forces in the Muslim holy lands of Saudi Arabia. This inflamed the Mujahideen, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. Nationalist insurrections by nominally Muslim peoples mutated into Fundamentalist Islamic terror campaigns in places as separate as Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Indonesia, Thailand, Somalia, and the Philippines. In the midst of this Saudi Arabia remained an absolute monarchy that dominates and oppresses women and all non-Muslims. Even Christians in the US Military sent to ostensibly protect Saudi Arabia had to keep their religion a low profile and not display symbols of their faith in Jesus Christ. Kurdish and Shia uprisings in Iraq were instigated by the US but not supported. The West stood by once again as Saddam slaughtered and gassed his fellow Iraqis in 1991 just as he did in 1988 after the war with Iran ended. The Kurds had been riled up time and again by Americans and Europeans in various rebellions against Arab, Persian, and Turkish regimes, only to be betrayed at the end.

The ancient Fertile Crescent has become a crescent of madness. Today’s Global Long War on Terror burns across the Middle East and Central Asia with flaming fingers extending down into South Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, even the cities of Europe and North America. The Euro-American Global Empire is on the march in its hunger for oil and other natural resources and a desire to establish more military bases around the planet than any other power. Its ignorance of culture, religion, and ethnicity combined with the obsession for oil leads to both the intentional and unintentional creation of multiple Frankensteinian monsters. The great irony is the majority of Europeans and North Americans actually favor the spread of liberty, democracy, and entrepreneurial capitalism and have been misled by both government and media to believe those good qualities drive economic expansion and military intervention. In return, however, we see the rise of a militant and radicalized Islamic Fundamentalism devoted to terror and slaughter to destroy the secular and Judaeo-Christian West and create its own worldwide Muslim Caliphate. The rest of us human beings, the majority of us including people from all the world’s religions, not wanting to support and empower either form of world empire, are caught up in the middle.

Together, We the People of Earth must take power away from this unofficial yet real Global Empire as well as radical Islamic terrorists to establish a transparent, democratic world government and an equitable, fair, and wealth-generating economic system. Together we can do this, in fact we must do this or the extremists on all sides will drown us all in our own blood. And one of the mechanisms We the People of Earth must oppose is the proliferation of nation-states, especially as they are done so in front of the covert banner of world empire. It is not enough to choose one side over the other, for both in their own way spread murder, mayhem, and exploitation. Both sides must be stopped. War is a crime and has to be seen as such with its perpetuators brought to justice.

Under a democratic world government with an equitable and prosperous fair market economic system of natural, dynamic capitalism there will be no so-called independent nation-states engaged in wars seemingly without end, no more oppressed ethnic states in rebellion, no more civil wars for power, but the opportunity to work together in peace to create wealth, health, and education. With the demise of poverty and ignorance there will be fewer opportunities for terrorism, despair, and violence. Countries and other groups must learn to work together to achieve a democratic world government with peace for all people. War will become a thing of the past with any criminal flare-ups addressed immediately. The underlying causes of wars, most of them based in economics, nationalism, active racism, and religious discrimination are removed under a united, integrated planetary democracy.

Excerpted from Chapter 3 - “The Transition to World Government” from copyrighted manuscript of book in progress by the author currently titled We the People of Earth move from Global Empire to Democratic World Government (C).

William Dudley Bass



(C) Copyright 2008, 2009, 2011 by William Dudley Bass.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

We the People of Earth: It’s time for us to build Democratic World Government



World government is coming, one our children and grandchildren may well live in. Some would say the beginnings of it are already here. Will our world government be one of freedom and democracy, or tyranny and dictatorship? Will it be one of openness and transparency, or one of secrecy and elitism? Will there be ongoing and increasing poverty and financial distress, or abundance of prosperity with equality of access to opportunity for all? Will it be a regime that focuses on the hard work of liberty or the illusion of security? Will this coming world government be one that plunders our common resources, accelerates climate change, and allows our environment to be destroyed or will it establish responsible stewardship for our planet? Our choices are not between whether or not we reclaim our various national sovereignties versus world government but what kind of planetary regime we establish. Will it be world government by the people, of the people, for all people, or by self-selected masters over the rest of humanity? We the People of Earth have choices. We choose which way we turn.

I choose freedom and democracy. I choose liberty for myself and all people. I choose wealth over poverty. I stand for our economy to be rooted in environmental reality with ourselves in control of our own money. And I stand vehemently for an economic system that puts human beings before corporate profits. Put people before profits, and all of us profit as a rising tide lifts all boats and civilization advances. Put profits before people, however, and the corporations increase their power, the middle class is driven into poverty, capital flows into the hands of the relatively few families that compose the global financial elite, and social breakdown accelerates.

Furthermore, even as I stand for the right to self-defense, I stand for peace in a world without war. Although not a pacifist, my stand is that war is obsolete. War must be criminalized and policed just as we have outlawed human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, crimes of revenge, and incest among others. Conflict can be resolved or at least managed without violence. There will never be true security, but as a unified planet we can have a degree of global security from the absence of war. That is freedom from war. I seek a global society based upon individual human rights and shared responsibilities. We must have a world where government and its institutions are transparent and not the secret manipulations of elitists behind closed doors. I stand for privacy, not secrecy. Justice is for all of us, and there is no justice without freedom. We can no longer live on a planet where some people are free and the rest of us work like slaves while pretending we’re free. I seek to live without fear in a prosperous, democratic world government. I emerge to stand with others as We the People of Earth.

The essence of the designation “We the People of Earth” is rooted in the American Constitution. That magnificent document echoed around the world from one revolution to another as republican democracy and middle class capitalism took root in what became the United States of America and began to spread. Unfortunately that spread mutated and at times the USA trampled on its own Constitution, most recently with the Global War on Terror, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and a slew of Executive Decrees. Even so, those remarkable words crafted and agreed to by the Founding Fathers of America still have power and continue to inspire and empower those so moved by its message. The first paragraph states:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is not my intention or desire as a current citizen of the USA to advance any American triumphalism at the expense of the dignity of other countries. Instead I acknowledge and celebrate the influence of the US Constitution as a generous contribution not just to Americans but to all humanity for the cause of democracy everywhere. This process began with the Cyrus Cylinder of Ancient Persia from approximately 539 B.C. through the great experiments in Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece. It unfolds today through the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Earth Charter in 2000, and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Democracy has been fleeting and intermittent in human history, most of which has been seared by imperial quests for domination, the lust for power, ethnic bloodshed, the oppression of women, and religious intolerance.

I love the land of my birth, but I have no desire to return to the past or stay in the present danger. It is my every desire to move forward with open mind, open heart, and strong spine to co-create the next evolutionary step with this Constitution as a vibrant model. I may be wrong, but I daresay many of the Founding Fathers, were they alive and together today would sense the urgency to take this next and necessary evolutionary step. Thus we move from “We the People of the United States” to include all the world’s people and transcend all national borders to take this next step together as “We the People of Earth.”

To do so we must reclaim our personal and individual sovereignty, give up our many and conflicting national sovereignties as obsolete, and embrace a new vision together of planetary sovereignty and the responsibilities such demands. The six specific items listed in that first paragraph of the American Constitution are exactly what we seek to manifest for all humanity on a planetary level. We want those six items for all people everywhere. People everywhere, from all cultures, naturally in their own different ways seek out such blessings. Yet such blessings are difficult to establish and even more so to protect, uphold, and cultivate.

We reach out to those who oppose us, for they too are among the people of Earth, and invite them to join us in intelligent mass collaboration to co-create a global constitutional democratic federal republic. Planet Earth itself may finally achieve the status of a political jurisdiction, and a transparent, democratic one in alignment with the brilliant diversity of its environment and biosphere. Our other choice is to continue the on-going march into perpetual warfare, roiling economic upheaval, never-ending energy crises, increasing environmental destruction, cross-border pandemics, and finally, global dictatorship with accompanying social breakdown into a world of famine, fear, pollution, and poverty.

The challenges before us are already upon us. Wars spiral out of control wherever we look. Wars of all kinds rage around Earth from gang wars to drug wars, from international wars to civil wars, from riots, insurgencies, and rebellions to revolutions and coups, from border wars to foreign invasions, from state terror to global terrorism to domestic violence, from ethnic strife to religious hatred, from one genocide to the next genocide. Global climate disruption is but one vast part of environmental challenges that are upon us. Industrial pollution of our air, soil, water, and food, toxic waste, desertification, overgrazing, overfishing, deforestation, and overpopulation all threaten us. Health issues including hunger, sanitation, nutrition, epidemics, and pandemics erode away at the foundations of humanity. Economic, financial, and energy issues overwhelm us with yet another level of collapse.

Obsolete political structures and economic markets undermine and divide us. Religions of the world preach peace and unity yet agitate people to roar with hatred, fear, and violence. Technology outruns our ethical capacity to control them, including stunning advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, neurotechnology, and the loss of local community control over these technologies. The power of national military forces, local rebel and terrorist groups, the various military-industrial-intelligence complexes, criminal cartels, politicalized religious institutions, transnational corporations, and the central banking system have to be reckoned with as their rivalries and power plays threaten us all.

Transparent, democratic, and constitutional world government is not only possible but pragmatic. It is the next step in our cultural evolution as a species. And it is hard to turn a big ship around. Our current institutions have enormous inertia, yet without serious and fundamental change this inertia will carry us all off the cliff like a stampeding herd of bison.

We have the technology today, including the Internet, to facilitate local-global cooperation and planetary governance. We have the resources. Local, regional, and global institutions are already in place for us to use, reform, rebuild, and use as a foundation to build with during this transition. We need the will to do so. The average human being will be challenged to look beyond their local, tribal, regional, religious, and national allegiances to understand we are one species sharing one planet. All our local problems are now global. All our global problems are now local challenges.

The alternatives are increasing fragmentation and breakdown as global civilization collapses into a planet-wide Dark Age or dictatorship by the financial and socio-political elites in their attempt to prevent total collapse and seize total control. It may be dictatorship cloaked in all the trappings of democracy, and it will still be tyranny. We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in our history as a species if we haven’t already tipped. There is much to be done in all areas. And on the socio-political front that is working together to build democratic world government.

There are many models to work with. I have my preferences. My preferences, for example, include eventually establishing a United Federal Republic of Earth as a constitutional federation of tens of thousands of local regions with their representatives cooperating directly in a global parliament with a prime minister or world congress with a president, both with a supreme judiciary, that bypasses nation-states and allows for all ethnic groups to have a voice in planetary government. And my preference is not the point. The point is the time is now to wake up to what’s possible and work together in spite of all our differences. We can do it.

We must learn to forgive our enemies and forgive ourselves. We must remember love, dignity, respect, and honor are the ethical bonds that transcend the divisions of race, class, and religion. Compassion and kindness are contributions to world peace and global unity. Our work will be challenging. It demands patience, courage, open minds, open hearts, solid feet, and strong backs. Our challenges require vision, imagination, creativity, action, execution, and implementation. Together we can play to our various strengths and reach out across cultures to lead ourselves forward. Or be resigned to apathy, cynicism, fear, hate, and destruction. The choice is ours. The choice is yours.


Excerpted from Chapter 1- “Reach for Freedom” from copyrighted manuscript of book in progress by the author currently titled We the People of Earth move from Global Empire to Democratic World Government (C).

William Dudley Bass
New Year’s Day 2009


© Copyright 2008, 2009, 2011 by William Dudley Bass.