Founder's Blog

 

 

Comments: 1

The following short essay is about preventing future wars and atrocities by fixing egregious structural limitations on effective global democracy in (and through) the United Nations.  It was first posted as a listener comment, at KQED.org/forum on 2017 September 13th; stimulated by the show's discussion of "Textbook Ethnic Cleansing" alleged right now in Myanmar. 

From: 1PeterDuMont2STARALLIANCE8 • 

To answer your caller's question to the effect: "Why doesn't the U.N. do anything?..." 

The Security Council, which has fifteen member countries at any given time, includes five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the UK, and the USA.  The other ten member countries on the Council at any time, rotate in and out on two-year terms; and since there are about two-hundred member countries (193 to be exact), the five big historical players have hugely disproportionate power.  In addition to their permanent status, any one of them can block action by the entire Security Council with their single vote withheld. This is the so-called "UN Veto," which is never mentioned by that name in the Charter language.

The good news is: it is absolutely legally possible, under Article 109 of the Charter, to call for a UN Charter Review at virtually any time.  This would amount to a Global Constitutional Convention, and with this, We the People of the World, through the current UN structure itself, would have a chance to upgrade the legal realities of our nascent global democracy to a more fair system. We could create a sensible override feature for the Veto, for example, such as we have in the United States over a Presidential Veto. And we could upgrade the UN in other important ways such as creating some form of population-linked, directly-elected representation, which is now entirely feasible in the Internet Age.  This would augment the General Assembly, which is a kind of "Senate of Nations" where the head of each nation, whether elected or not, appoints one senator.

In the 72 year history of the UN (which body was put together in a matter of months after WWII), Article 109 has NEVER been activated. I believe this is from a-priori discouragement that all five of the permanent Security Council members, who vote is required for final ratification, would ever agree on a reasonable change.  This combined with ignorance on the part of the public and frankly, most in officialdom, too: on how, specifically, to get started on this vital discussion.

As with so many things, it is a matter of knowledge and political will. This opportunity is very important and worthy of mass attention as soon as possible!  "Natural Law," as it were, will keep "hammering us" in different ways until it finally gets our attention and we fix our own global governance dysfunctions. No mystical outside force is going to do it for us.  Meanwhile, we face no less than the harsh and costly realities of Climate Change and the very real possibility of sudden global death through Nuclear Winter!  The Big Five — and literally everyone — are encouraged to see clearly, rationally, and quickly: their own self-interest in making way for progressive changes by these and other means.

The caller and other alert citizens are invited to volunteer or donate to nonprofits including the UNA (United Nations Associations or "citizen-booster chapters," of which there are several in the Bay Area alone) and the STAR ALLIANCE Foundation of Berkeley, for example, with which I have been volunteering for thirty years(!) They can also contact their elected officials and generally "Talk it up."  We must BUILD POLITICAL WILL for the points outlined above.

Upgrading the structure and function of democracy at the global level is one of the very best ways — and certainly a necessary component — of preventing future wars and atrocities.  We must act promptly.  We are not helpless in the Challenge of Peace.

Comments: 1
Peter DuMont - Mon Jul 24, 2017 @ 07:00PM
Comments: 4
The following essay was first composed as a comment for KQED-FM's outstanding Forum show with Michael Krasny on 2017 July 24th.  Krasny hosted Nobel Laureate Al Gore at the end of the hour, following the producers of his new film on Climate Change: An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.  The entire show can be accessed here.
Avatar

It has long seemed obvious to me that "The Big Bucket" of global resources needed to arrest and remediate climate change is still largely squandered on armaments and unresolved conflicts.

A truly tiny fraction of the defense budgets of the world re-directed to more effective conflict resolution and prevention — at every level of society — would soon unlock sufficient resources to preserve our collective environment. A positive, solution-oriented Citizens Media Network will help stimulate and maintain such an intelligent shift of policy priorities. And by the way, the militaries of the world can help employ the network for peace by guaranteeing security in designated media stations, allowing conflicting parties opportunities to talk to each other, let off steam, and reach understanding from a safe distance.

As touched on by Mr. Shenk in today's discussion — the peace, environmental, and social justice movements should attempt to integrate and support each other even more explicitly than they have to date. The media network will be a great project to engage together and foster this goal ongoingly.  An exposition of baseline civic values for good social behavior to catalyze this effort, and improvements generally, may be found at www.STARALLIANCE.org, which can also provide a good brand for the network.

Upgrading the United Nations to a truer form of democracy — via a population-based house and a legislative override on the veto at the Security Council — will be particularly vital. This process is NOT a nonstarter. Article 109 of the U.N. Charter provides a mechanism for its own review at virtually any time. It is the political will and focus on this vital process that is needed. Rather than assuming current veto-holding nations to be their mortal enemies, other nations and peoples should be asking The Big Five (U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K.) to lead the campaign in the interests of collective security, peace, justice, and love for both nature and humanity.

Comments: 4
Peter DuMont - Tue Jul 11, 2017 @ 02:05AM
Comments: 5

Editor's Note: The following is a heartfelt, and one hopes also well-reasoned comment first posted to the United States Government in care of the National Parks Conservancy Association website on 2017 July 10. — PBD

When I was 16 years old and just learning to drive...my family took a memorable road trip across the United States, from Piedmont, California, to Boston, to visit my cheerful aging grandfather. On the same trip we visited some of the great national monuments in Washington, D.C. and experienced the excitement and speed of New York City.
Surprisingly, the most vivid and lasting memory of all was stopping at Craters of the Moon National Monument, for just an hour or two on the way back home.
The family all went down a long vertical ladder into the awesome OWL Volcanic Tube and explored both ends. By the time we emerged, the sun was setting in the west over the nearby mountains. Etched on my soul, brain, and body from that moment is the deep, literal meaning of "purple mountains' majesty." A painting by that name [created by the international author-artist Mamade Kadreebux] now hangs in my bedroom and greets me, morning and night.
How can one put a price on such an experience? 
 And how could one dare upset this rich national heritage of our great nation — whether for Craters of the Moon or any other national monument?
The unique wildness of the terrain at each core site depends on an adequate buffer in the surrounding territory, within the protected region. I beg the current Administration to respect the wisdom of this tradition. It transcends individual and commercial interests in favor of the universal and the timeless.
Specific to Craters of the Moon: during the exciting successful Apollo Moon Shots of the late 1960's, and periodically throughout my life, I have had occasion to reflect on and appreciate the NASA astronaut training activities that occurred there; and to enjoy even the unseen presence of our other National Monuments and other protected lands which together form a vastly enhanced level of Being in our great nation.
Of course there are also economic advantages of these wild lands accruing to the domestic recreation and international tourism industries that depend on them. This practical advantage to the entire national community must not be endangered in preference to more limited interests.
An attack on one of America's national monuments is an attack on the higher interests of all. Therefore, I am opposed to any attempts to rescind or alter the size of any one of our country's national monuments.
"Act not for the fruits of action." 
 Just do the right thing, and the fruits will follow.
To quote the venerable poet and playwright James Shirley:
"Only the actions of the just smell sweet, and blossom in the dust."
In advance: Thank you for paying attention!

Peter DuMont; Principle Founder, Writer, and Public Educator; 
STAR ALLIANCE™: Good Will Education Foundation for All™
[Also adapted for the Bears Ears National Monument (and all monuments); the latter submitted at 11:42 pm Pacific Time July 10th.] PBD
Comments: 5
Peter DuMont - Thu Jul 06, 2017 @ 11:44PM
Comments: 4

On the dramatic eve of the first in-person summit between Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and U.S. President Donald J. Trump, it would be well for these leaders and all the great powers to contemplate one of the supremely overriding needs, challenges, and principled goals of this moment in world history: to achieve a quantum jump in the evolution of true global democracy.

Population-based representation at the global level will give the crucial stamp of legitimacy to world democracy.  With the dawn of the Internet Age, this is now a practical possibility, and we should seize the moment.  We must boldly conceive and execute.  Population-based representation is the great missing element in the current, wobbly structure, moving ever-so-slowly toward effective world governance at a time of multiple, accelerating threats. This is the time to pay attention to our global decision-making structure.  We cannot afford to dilly-dally around. It is the gigantic elephant in the room that nobody is talking about.  It is the Emperor's New Clothes that no one dares mention.  Yet how can we think of ourselves as democratic world citizens without population-based representation?

Just as North Korea's leaders must be challenged — and inspired — to live up to the dignity of their country's official name: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea; so the five permanent member nations of the United Nation's Security Council must be challenged — and inspired — to live up to their privileged status.  They are the ones, with their outsized power (which currently has nothing to do with population!), who must lead the campaign to upgrade the Body's status with a fair-minded additional legislative House, and a legislative veto override.  Article 109 of the U.N. Charter provides the mechanism for calling a Charter Review Conference.

Whether we contemplate avoiding Nuclear Winter and other unspeakable horrors, facing up to global air pollution and other dire environmental threats, refraining from interference in other countries' elections; resolving the crises in North Korea, Syria, Kashmir, Palestine, and many other areas; we should look to upgrading the United Nations, from within its own structure, as our primary practical political means.

Without a major overhaul, we are simply spinning the roulette wheel and flirting irresponsibly with potentially irreversible disasters.

Everyone, from the high and mighty to the homeless of any land, may contemplate the classic English poet John Donne's words at this time:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

[Special thanks to STAR ALLIANCE Advisor Karl Mitchener for helping stimulate and refine this post, 2017-7-6 & 7.  — PBD]

POST NOTE added 2017 July 11th ET:

For those who legitimately fear control of the world by the great population centers — in the event of a truer form of global democracy consisting of 1) a population-based house for the United Nations and 2) a legislative override on the current veto structure — please consider that true democratic representation at the global level may be the very liberating solution required to ensure responsible freedoms for everyone in the world!  As outlined by historical U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  — PBD

Comments: 4
Comments: 2

2017-5-31: MESSAGE SENT C/O WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the STAR ALLIANCE • FOUNDATION FOR ALL (www.STARALLIANCE.org), for the health and safety of all Americans; the very air we breathe, the safety of our coastlines (not to mention the welfare of humanity around the world); PLEASE support the Paris Climate Agreement!
Ours and future generations will be thanking you for respecting scientific consensus and common sense alike!
Peter Bruce DuMont
*****
ADDED NOTE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP & ALL READERS:
Please read the immediate previous post about the "Real and Present Dangers" of Nuclear Winter...Which of course would be the most cataclysmic and irreversible climate change of all. [Reference the classic "Fire and Ice" poem by Robert Frost.]
Comments: 2
Peter DuMont - Sun Apr 30, 2017 @ 06:55PM
Comments: 4

The following, with a new title, is a copy of my post to KQED-FM’s Forum on 2017 February 10th:

The Threat of Nuclear Winter and "Good Will as Defense"

The Public's Right to Know, & an Important Public Policy Recommendation

All-out nuclear war is definitely not necessary to threaten U.S. national security. 

Nuclear Winter is the much more likely and immediate threat.

Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock and others have pointed out for years that even a relatively small number of initial nuclear explosions between India and Pakistan, for example, would start

huge, uncontrollable fires in their big cities. Heavy soot would spread quickly, darkening the entire planet. We could all freeze to death or, more likely, starve to death from massive crop failures over a slightly longer period.

Recognizing this totally unacceptable possibility --

Wouldn't it be good, precisely for America's self interest:

1) Straightforwardly to acknowledge this astonishing threat [to a broad global public] and the [worldwide] interdependence it implies.

2) Save substantial overkill nuclear modernization resources, for example, and direct these instead -- as a matter of STRATEGIC DEFENSE -- toward proactive efforts for global peacemaking?

These efforts should include using interactive mass media for promoting good will and achieving better mutual understanding, conflict resolution and transformation worldwide; and helping meet basic human needs everywhere:…again as a matter of U.S. defense…to reduce despair and increase hope, cooperation and yes (shock) even joy!!

Honestly, this GOOD WILL AS DEFENSE strategy could generate a level of good will effectively overwhelming to the now nearly overwhelming level of negativity which is manifesting as terrorism -- a very clear early warning sign.

It will prove far less of a gamble than we have been taking for decades, everyday.

It will be our best, most COST-EFFECTIVE form of American defense.

Peter Bruce DuMont

STAR ALLIANCE

FOUNDATION FOR ALL

Berkeley

www.staralliance.org

Comments: 4
Peter DuMont - Thu Mar 30, 2017 @ 05:27PM
Comments: 2

  • The following message about tackling "Economic Discrimination Before the Law" with a "Universal Right to Civil Counsel" (Please also see the coalition website supporting that ideal.) was first published as a comment at KQED.org's FORUM with Michael Krasny on 2017 March 29th.  The original show/page is entitled: "'The Meaning of Citizenship' with the ACLU's Abdi Soltani.

  • Listener comment by Peter B. DuMont:

  • 1PeterDuMont2STARALLIANCE8

    A Universal Right to Civil Counsel would address the endemic problem of Economic Discrimination Before the Law — which applies every bit or more so to civil cases as to criminal ones.

    One hopes the ACLU will devote a portion of its impressive new funds inflow to tackling these comprehensive problems. They are intimidating by their very nature and scale, but all the more important to address — whether through specific cases, legislation, raising public awareness; creative community-building solutions; or preferably all of the above.

    One idea for both impact and creative financial project-sustainability is this:

    1) Establish a proof-of-concept capital fund, sufficient for ongoing support to a small band of attorneys and support staff in a given community. 2) Advertise for civil plaintiffs who cannot afford paid legal representation, and whose cases do not qualify for contingency representation.* 3) Carefully select a (doable) caseload, and represent these cases toward quick settlements whenever possible. 4) With every successful case, use a portion of the winnings to increase the capital fund, gradually building a more powerful organization with greater reach and stamina.

    This process will benefit not only direct damage award recipients.  It will put the whole community on notice that routine systemic abuse of the poor will, increasingly, no longer be tolerated.

    * An educational note for the honorable naive:

    Legal marketplace contingency representation typically requires ALL FOUR of the following: 1) Actionable damages sufficient to attract the "strictly business" interests of lawyers regardless of noble intentions. 2) Deep pockets to sue against (and having won, actually to collect!) 3) A slam-dunk provable case to minimize risk. 4) An opposing force which is not too well-funded or otherwise intimidating.

    No wonder so few of poor people's civil cases — outside of personal injury — are represented under the contingency system. There is seldom enough money involved to trigger an attorney's business interests alone, much less to fulfill all the other conditions simultaneously.

Comments: 2
Peter DuMont - Fri Mar 24, 2017 @ 01:12PM
Comments: 3

Relative to the current rush to "replace Obama Care with something better," I am reminded of an old, wise joke neatly printed on the walls of many print shops I have seen over the years:

"If you don't have time to do it right...Where do you find time to DO IT OVER?"

Truth to tell, that is a major reason why your STAR ALLIANCE — a foundation of knowledge and inspiration for all — has taken so long (about thirty years to be exact) — carefully to draft our Highest Civic Ideals documents set that we are offering to the world — and it's still not 100% finished yet!  But we hope this slow process will prove well worth the wait.  We feel that by getting it right in this generation, we can establish a baseline civic values system that will stand the test of time and be relevant anywhere, to anyone who wishes to establish and enjoy productive, sustainable relationships at every level of life and society.  

It is increasingly the time — if not past time — to put our careful work to the test with a broader public.  Would you like to help?  How would you like to help?  

You can start simply by reading some, most, or all of the documents linked on the page: Good Will Wisdom Documents Offered for All. 

If you like the gist of what you read, tell your family, friends and colleagues — maybe even someone you have a conflict with...

It might help a lot, because attitudes determine much of what happens in any relationship, and apart from specific values, our documents tend to culture broad-minded attitudes of good will and common sense.

You may also have specific feedback to share, whether positive or negative.  Either one is a significant way to help.

Please also feel free to contact us about how you might like to help in other ways.   Since we are still essentially unfunded and unstaffed (Believe me, it's been a long and winding road...There are reasons that will make an interesting story!) please be persistent to make sure you get through and get a response.  

Yours in service to a world that works for all people of good will — especially those who do their best to learn and practice all our Highest Civic Ideals, 

 Peter.DuMont@STARALLIANCE.org.  510-540-8887.


Comments: 3
Peter DuMont - Mon Mar 20, 2017 @ 05:16PM
Comments: 7

2017-3-20:

Hello readers.
Stimulated by current events, I'm going to attempt to blog more frequently. Even little things can trigger commentary on big topics.
Today, for example, I called a technical support person at Sonic.com (and got through like lightening, which is typical at that outfit.)  Scott was great, and we both invoked Benjamin Franklin's wisdom in context of today's Congressional Hearings on national security and espionage. Scott quoted Franklin to the general effect: 'If you give up your freedom in favor of security, you will end up with neither.'  
According to a couple of sources I checked, Franklin's exact words were:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
To Scott, I recalled the marvelous PBS documentary on Franklin I saw years ago and often remember.  When he was in Paris, wooing pivotal support for the American Revolution, Franklin was the toast of the town.  He noticed that spies were everywhere, but took this in stride, commenting to the effect:
"I would never think of dismissing a valet simply because he is a spy...
...Provided, however, he is a good valet!"
To Scott I commented in essence: Maybe we should all accept that everyone is spying on everyone else in today's world, make friends anyway and prevent Nuclear Winter together!
He said he couldn't agree more, but he hoped there would be enough others "who agree with us."
I referred Scott to STARALLIANCE.org for our Declaration of Highest Civic Ideals (under the Good Will Wisdom Documents Offered for All page) and his interest was enthusiastic. I invited him to check at least the first two links on the page and to contact me at my priority email: Peter.DuMont@STARALLIANCE.org if he wants to volunteer personally or help link us up with his company, for example.  I also encouraged him/them to be persistent and call if necessary, since we need both volunteer tech and staff support [or the funding to pay for it!!] I would not want to miss his inquiry, and the same applies to you, readers of the world! — PBD
Comments: 7
Comments: 9

Immediately following is my abbreviated tip to world leaders (offered from a humble place, figuratively and literally) who are faced with the chaos and confusion that is Syria right now.  This comment was stimulated by the discussion of former United States Ambassador to Russia, Dr. Michael McFaul at Stanford, with star radio host Dr. Michael Krasny, under the headline appearing at KQED.org/Forum on 2016 October 4th:

U.S. Ends Cooperation with Russia on Syrian Civil War

1PeterDuMont2STARALLIANCE8 • 

Russia needs a glorious role to fulfill in the world, just as the United States does. The U.S. would do well to provide leadership and enlist Russia and other major players' support to jump up to a true world democracy.  In the context of that bigger discussion [and one hopes: result], many intractable smaller issues could get cleared up, perhaps not easily, but certainly more easily.

***********************

Here, in addition, on this blog: are some followup comments showing a clear path towards true world democracy. 

***********************

The sense of security now held by the few historical United Nations veto holders is an illusion, masking the underlying, inherent DYSFUNCTION and WEAKNESS of the current global system, which violates the essential democratic principle of power vested proportionately in the people.

Where is it fair that only one of five nations sitting permanently on the 15-member Security Council (the other ten members rotate in and out) can completely block security action of the whole global governance of 200-member states?

The five historic veto-holders have the FREEDOM of this choice at the awesome global level of public affairs. So they should also properly bear the RESPONSIBILITY of making the system more fair and functional.  It is they most of all who should provide the necessary leadership!

Therefore, we issue a challenge to: Mr. Obama, (Barack Obama), Mr./Ms. U.S. President-Elect, Mr. Xi (Xi Jinping), Mr. Putin (Vladamir Putin), Mr. Hollande (Francois Holland), and Ms. May (Theresa May):

Please accept The Challenge of Peace: Please lead our world to structure a new, fair and functional representative global democracy. Support calls for a timely U.N. Charter Review / Global Constitutional Convention.

If you do not, the day and hour may come soon, right here on Earth, to wish bitterly you had tried your best.

If you do choose to use your freedom and power to make this happen, you will be on the right side of history. And the thanks of the world's people, all of whom will ultimately benefit, will be with you always.

***********************

Below we explain a few U.N. Basics for the general public, repeat some of the key admonitions above, and then add the easy way out that is, fortunately, already encoded into international law.

* * * * * * * * * *

There are approximately 200 nations in the world. 193 are member states of the United Nations.

The United Nations, chartered in 1945 at the end of the Second World War, is structured with an executive Secretariat, headed up by the Secretary-General. There are two main legislative bodies: the General Assembly and the Security Council. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are the two United Nations courts.  The latter are finally starting to get a real foothold in public consciousness and compliance.  

The General Assembly is a kind of Senate of Nations, in the sense they are not based on population, but soley on entity.  Every nation has one vote in the General Assembly, cast by one Ambassador, who is typically appointed by one Head of State.  And that Head of State may or may not be democratically elected. (Out of the 193 member nations, 123 are currently considered democratic. This is huge progress, because in 1900, there were only eleven democracies! [See source.]) 

To upgrade the United Nations, we need two big changes:

1) a sensible legislative override on the currently unfair, disproportionate power of the historic U.N. veto mechanism.

The effectiveness of the Security Council is seriously hampered by the current veto. President Putin loves it. He openly touted the "stability" factor of the Veto in a published OPED piece in the NY Times several years ago. And frankly, he has a good point from a historical perspective. There are times when everyone needs a good bridge. But stability, like anything, can be taken too far and go over-limit, in this case creating paralysis time and time again.  The world needs to move beyond its own history and embrace the future now.  

We are all at risk of Nuclear Winter if things spin out of control at any time.  Most people don't realize it would only take in the order of tens of the Big Ones to light enough uncontrollable fires in big urban areas to shadow out our vital sunlight worldwide with smoke. Temperatures would plummet and stay there. Crops would fail.  The End. 

[Please reference Nature Journal, 2011 May 19, p. 275; Comment piece by Alan Robock, PhD Climatologist at Rutgers University; and/or his website.]

The other four nations who hold the veto since the U.N. was created —  the U.S., China, U.K., and France — love it, too.  Why shouldn't they?  They have this unfair power also!  

Remember, too, that as a practical matter, it's not only five nations who wield the veto.  It's the individual national leaders who "call the shots."  This is concentration of power run amok.

OK.  Those who have it want to keep it.  It gives them a sense of some limited security and control in a scary world of change. 

But that sense of security, that partial control, is not based in wholeness of global consciousness or even what we call reality. 

Instead it is an illusion, masking the underlying, inherent DYSFUNCTION and WEAKNESS of the current global system, which violates the essential democratic principle of power vested proportionately in the people, and as such puts everyone at risk of tyranny manifesting in different forms.

The lack of true global democratic governance is like having a body without a fully functioning brain.

A sensible legislative override would get our adolescent world democracy off "stuck" and reduce the danger of a "clash of the titans" and more insidious and likely: continuing, chronically-unresolved conflicts stimulating, even from "smaller" actors, at worst: Global Suicide.

We at STAR ALLIANCE propose a two-thirds or four-fifths veto override.  If a very clear majority (10 or 12, respectively, out of the 15 Security Council members) favors a corrective action, then let it be.

*****

2) The other big flaw in the current U.N. System is: there is no population-based representation.  

Yes, The General Assembly is a Senate of Nations.  It provides dignity to each of the 193 member nations with one seat.  Fine and great.  What a wonderful starting development from all those who created it.  But just as with the U.S. Senate, the General Assembly bears absolutely no connection to the numbers of actual people represented!

This can be corrected with a Congress of the Earth that includes a population-based House.  We should have perhaps one voting representative for every five or ten million people represented. (Smaller nations could split single votes proportionately.)

That would make a body of about 350 representatives @ one for each 10-million population; or a body of about 700 representatives @ one for each 5-million population.

The good news is: all of this that would have been so difficult and relatively expensive to organize before, can now be organized largely over the Internet, cutting way down on the logistical challenges, start up, and operational costs.

*****

Now: How to engage the process of actually changing the current system?  (Or are We the People of the World just locked into it forever?)  

Answer: Easier than you may think!  

Article 109 of the U.N. Charter contains the necessary prescription for orderly change.  With a two-thirds majority vote, The General Assembly can call at any time a Charter Review Conference (aka: A Global Constitutional Convention!) Only nine members of the Security Council are required to approve, meaning a conference can be called without necessarily having support from any of the five veto powers. 

This is the peaceful way to create global structural change.

The Charter Review Conference can draft and pass the necessary upgrades suggested here, and one hopes: a few others that make good sense.  

Voila! 

Only one more hurdle: Ratification by two-thirds of the member countries, according to their respective constitutional processes, INCLUDING ratification by ALL FIVE permanent member nations of the Security Council.

That's where everyone who moves in or towards these high-minded circles, already, tends to get discouraged before ever getting started.  They assume that at least one: of Russia or China or the U.S., or France, or the U.K....will block the reform.

Well here's my suggestion:

Let's put these very folks in charge of the campaign!

After all, these important leaders and the nations and peoples they represent, to whatever democratic extent, have the legal SECURITY of knowing that they can nix anything that's not to their liking — right up until the final documents are agreed and signed!

Since they have the FREEDOM of this choice at the awesome level of global public affairs — they should also properly BEAR (sic!) the RESPONSIBILITY.  It is they most of all who should provide the necessary leadership!

Therefore, we issue you a challenge: Mr. Obama, (Barack Obama), Mr./Ms. U.S. President-Elect, Mr. Xi (Xi Jinping), Mr. Putin (Vladamir Putin), Mr. Hollande (Francois Holland), Ms. May (Theresa May): 

Please accept The Challenge of Peace:  Please lead our world to structure a new, fair and functional representative global democracy. Support a Charter Review - Constitutional Convention as soon as possible.

If you do not, the day and hour may come soon, right here on Earth, to wish bitterly you had tried your best.

If you do choose to use your freedom and power to make this happen, you will be on the right side of history.  The thanks of the world's people, all of whom will ultimately benefit, will be with you always.


******************

Author's Note: I recall with gratitude: the late, great Dr. Lucille Greene of El Cerrito, California, and many aothers in the Bay Area Global Democracy Movement; the great Mr. Benton Musselwhite, Esq. of Houston; Dr. Alan Robock, of course; my instructors at U.C. Berkeley in Peace and Conflict Studies, particularly Ms. Rita Maran, who taught us about Human Rights Law; and particularly all those like First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt who helped spirit creation of the United Nations Bill of Human Rights, and the Organization itself, originally. On behalf of everyone, really: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!! — PBD)

Comments: 9
powered by Doodlekit™ Website Creator