Earth Federation Party, c/o Frederic Eger/Slokas iela 146/5, Riga (2026)

Q: What is the address?

C/o Frederic Eger/Slokas Iela 146/5

21/09/2023

Geopolitical Economy Report: Global rebellion against the neocolonial financial system: 'We must change the rules of the game' Global South countries making up 80% of the world population called to transform the "unfair international economic order" at the G77+China summit in Cuba. Topics: 0:00 Introduction; 1:19 G77 vs G20 vs G8 vs G7; 7:06 G77+China statement; 18:17 Speech by Cuba's President Díaz-Canel; 43:46 Speech by Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega; 49:44 Outro ;Please consider supporting us at https://GeopoliticalEconomy.com/Support; Patreon: https://Patreon.com/GeopoliticalEconomy; Newsletter: https://GeopoliticalEconomy.Substack.com

07/06/2023

World Federalist Movement Canada's coms Director Erica Wilson and Exec. Director Alexander McIsaac organized the organization's annual conference a simulation of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly simulation at which I was an "elected" UN Member of Parliament representing the 21 Latin-American countries as I am a citizen of Argentina and was the only citizen from a Latin-American country to attend before I was joined by my friend Juan De Dios Cunegui. that was held during the annual World Federalist Conference. The simulation was the drafting a UNPA law on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and disarmement. I sincerely enjoyed participating with goose bumps as living the dream of having the World Citizens represented at the UN Parliament. I want to sincerely thank Erica and Alexander for their outstanding dedication and professionalism making this simulation-politic-fiction into a palpable politic-reality! The time has come to reform the UN and turn it into a real Federation, Republic! Get Involved: https://wfmcanada.org/pages/get-involved; Become a member: https://wfmcanada.org/pages/membership; Donate: https://wfmcanada.org/pages/donate

09/05/2023

WFMC Toronto: The Earth Constitution and World Parliament: talk with Dr Glenn Martin - Apr 17, 2023 - It has been widely recognized for many years that the current United Nations has shortcomings. Beginning in 1958 the World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA) gathered a series of global conferences to draft the “Constitution for the Federation of The Earth”. It was first published in 1974. In 1977 a call for ratification by the nations and peoples of Earth was issued, and the Earth Constitution was presented to the UN General Assembly. The Earth Constitution defines a “Provisional World Parliament” which has met 15 times since 1982, writing 52 “World Legislative Acts". Dr. Martin will discuss what is happening today with this movement and how it relates to other movements aimed at improving global governance.

06/02/2023

One World's Oded Gilad Debunks the Objections to Global Democracy - Global Democracy & Justice: All Lectures
Think world federation is impossible? dangerous? utopian? Think again! This video answers all your doubts, while also discussing solidarity and diversity and explaining how Putin and Russian gas undermine national democracies. The History and Future of Democracy: youtu.be/Mzl9hUaFUXs; Pathways to World Federation: youtu.be/snbukGdLus4

04/02/2023

Will UN Reform Happen This Year? Don’t Hold Your Breath
By Evelyn Leopold - Democratic World Federalists News - Jan 30, 2023 - Photo:General view of the 74th session of UN General Assembly at UN Headquarters in New York, United States on September 24, 2019 Erçin Top Anadolu Agency - For decades, negotiations on expanding the Council have produced no results, though in the last year, voices for reform have grown more vehement. That may stem from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago and President Biden’s kick-starting the topic last fall in his General Assembly speech. JOHN PENNEY/PASSBLUE - Everyone talks about reforming the United Nations Security Council but change remains elusive after decades of debates. This past year, the voices for expanding the Council became louder, yet few can agree on how to do it. And they were not expected to do so during meetings that began last week.
Called the intergovernmental negotiations, the war in Ukraine has spurred numerous countries into action, but their positions vary on the number of seats for changing the Council and its veto powers, which is held by the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Russia’s frequent veto on the war in Ukraine is often backed by China.
Any change is extremely difficult in the prestigious, 15-member Security Council, which also has 10 elected countries holding two-year terms. Any major change involves opening up the UN Charter and requiring an agreement of at least two-thirds of the 193 General Assembly members as well as the Council, including the veto powers.
“To propose that the intergovernmental negotiations continue as they have over the last 14 years would be similar to asking the orchestra on the Titanic to continue playing music as the ship has started to sink,” said Brazilian envoy Ronaldo Costa at a November debate on Council reform.
One change that would be welcomed in the UN Charter is the 1945 provision against Axis nations that fought in World War II. To ensure that Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy and Romania could not start a war again, the Enemy State Clause was added to the Charter.
Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, or the G-4, have been vying for permanent seats for decades. Italy objects to Germany, Pakistan objects to India, Argentina objects to Brazil and African nations have yet to decide on their candidates, although they want two permanent seats. Arab nations also want a representative on the Council and Benelux countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, have their own position to name only a few competing interests.
For those UN members who object to almost every proposal, Italy has organized the Uniting for Consensus group. This calls for nine long-term non-permanent members distributed among regional groups, plus two additional non-permanent seats with two-year terms: one for Eastern Europe and another for small island developing states and small states. On the veto, the proposal poses options, including abolition or restricting its use to major war and peace resolutions.
France and Britain have long called for enlarging the Council. In remarks to the General Assembly in 2022, President Joe Biden called for increasing both permanent and non-permanent representatives, including seats for Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. “I also believe the time has come for this institution to become more inclusive so that it can better respond to the needs of today’s world.”
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, has made similar comments while stressing that the veto had to be used responsibly. She said the US itself would refrain from using the veto except in extraordinary situations. She and her office repeatedly say she is on a listening tour among African and other member states to hear their views on expanding the Council. On her trip last week to Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique and Somalia, she told media on Jan. 30 that she continued “our consultations on UN reform to ensure the UN is fit for purpose.” None of the details of conversations on reform have been made public.
The president of the General Assembly, Csaba Korosi, a Hungarian, said the debate had been going on for 43 years, not just 14, since Council reform first appeared on the Assembly’s agenda. “A choice is at hand: Does the Assembly continue its annual repetition of well-known positions or, moved by these crises, does it swing into action to find common ground and achieve breakthroughs?”
A new momentum for changing the status quo took off last year, on Feb. 27, when the Council referred the situation in Ukraine to the Assembly following its own failure to adopt a draft resolution deploring Russia’s aggression. This was the Council’s first use of a Uniting for Peace resolution in 40 years, aiming to obtain Assembly condemnation of the Russian invasion.
Two months later, through an initiative led by Liechtenstein Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, the Assembly decided by consensus that it would meet whenever a veto is cast in the Council. It has now convened twice in accordance with this new procedure: after vetoes by China and Russia on North Korea in May and a Russian veto on Syria in July.
Yet the war in Ukraine grinds on for nearly a year and the Council remains helpless to stop it. While the Assembly voted against the Russian invasion, some nations abstained, including 17 African states, softening Moscow’s humiliation.
The post Will UN Reform Happen This Year? Don’t Hold Your Breath appeared first on PassBlue.

13/01/2023

US plans to use nuclear weapons against Russia: Pending armageddon? 12 January 2023 by Glen T. Martin - Nuclear mushroom resulting of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb - My wife and I were in Hiroshima in June of 2016 just three weeks after US President Barack Obama became the first sitting US President to visit the Holocaust Memorial in that city. With the help of the World Federalist Group in Hiroshima, we met with the mayor of that city, Kazumi Matsui, in his offices. As always in such meetings, we gave him a copy of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth and explained why it is imperative to unite humanity under this Constitution.
I explained to him about the threat of nuclear holocaust that has been with us since the 1950s. I explained about the many times that the fate of humanity has hung in the balance since that time and the fact that today (as of 2016) these weapons of mass destruction have proliferated to ever more nations leaving us with the same “Sword of Damocles” hanging over the fate of humanity.
These facts, described early on by such scholars as Errol E. Harris in his 1966 book Annihilation and Utopia, have been further elaborated in such books as The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner (2017) by Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg was a Pentagon insider during the Vietnam War and the key person in the release of the famous “Pentagon Papers” documenting the real (then secret) views of that war from inside the Pentagon. He also described the US plans to use nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War and how this was narrowly avoided.
In our meeting with the mayor of Hiroshima, we also, of course, described the terrible threat posed by our collapsing planetary ecosystem, which likewise demands the uniting of humanity under a democratic world government with the authority and the means to protect and restore the environment while simultaneously respecting the human rights and dignity of all persons on Earth. The mayor was unmoved. While a kindly man who showed us great respect (as is customary in Japan), he responded that he had just met with President Obama three weeks earlier and that Obama was a great man of peace dedicated to eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons. Here are excerpts of Obama’s speech made in Hiroshima at that time:
Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again….Some day, the voices of the hibakusha [atomic bombing survivors] will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change…. Among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them….It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.1
The Mayor of Hiroshima appeared to have been deeply moved by Obama’s speech and his commitment to end the war and establish peace. He did not see any need for an Earth Constitution that created a democratic world authority above the nations capable of making war illegal and disarming them, beginning with all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Was the mayor aware that Obama had already, during his presidency, signed one trillion-dollar upgrade in the US nuclear weapons system? I very much doubt it.
Like nearly all Presidents, Obama was a consummate propagandist, a spokesperson for the empire that soothingly spoke the very opposite of what he was doing with the war system—his escalations in the Afghanistan war and the system of militarized drones that he sanctioned, arbitrarily killing perceived enemies around the globe (so much for “the irreducible worth of every person”). He “regretted” blowing up funeral processions or wedding parties, but the borderless and endless “war on terror,” like its policy of nuclear brinkmanship, continues to give the world more terror than any private groups of terrorists could ever dream of. Obama’s one trillion-dollar upgrade in the nuclear weapons arsenal included “tactical” nuclear weapons designed for actual combat, and the US has always affirmed its right to “first use” of nuclear weapons in any conflict anywhere in the world.
In 1969, President Nixon threatened to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. But public opinion in the USA (the only opinion that has even the slightest influence on Pentagon policy) helped force him to back off from this idea. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 had taught the Pentagon a lesson—although it was the wrong lesson. The Soviet Union had been in the process of installing nuclear weapons on missiles in Cuba when the US discovered this and reacted violently—threatening nuclear war unless the USSR backed down.
Instead of thanking God that humankind narrowly escaped Armageddon and taking steps to mitigate and eliminate the possibility that we would ever again come that close to planetary hell, the Pentagon (and Nixon) learned that nuclear brinkmanship can lead to victories for the US empire. Nixon’s strategy in the conflict over Vietnam was even to pretend to be a nuclear-armed “madman” in order to intimidate the Soviets.2
Then came 9/11 and the blessing (from the point of view of the Pentagon and the Bush Administration) that the “Project for the New American Century” could be realized. This project, formulated two years before G.W. Bush was elected, involved an ideology that Bush and key players in his administration deeply believed in, that is US world military domination. The document declared that the new American century of strategic world domination could only happen if American public opinion was galvanized through “a new Pearl Harbor,” an actual attack on American soil3. With 9/11, all bets were off. Whatever international limits or rules regarding the war had been there previously were repudiated by the United States. A galvanized American public opinion was ready for endless war.
The US government declared a huge military build-up and a war on terror without end, a war that included any nation or group anywhere in the world that it perceived as hostile or a possible threat to “US security.” The militarization of space was already quite advanced4. All potential rivals to the US-dominated global order would be eliminated. In 2015, one of Donald Trump’s campaign spokespersons asked, “What good is having nuclear weapons if you’re afraid to use them?”5 and Trump himself, when asked whether he would use nukes against Europe, declared “I would never take any of my cards off the table.”6
But there was a fly in the ointment, Russia and China have been growing and prospering, both implicitly and explicitly demanding a “multipolar world system” predicated on international law and mutual respect among nations. This had to be stopped, and the Biden administration is living proof of this foreign policy, demonizing both Russia and China and militarily challenging them both with reckless brinkmanship dedicated to reasserting US hegemony.
Today, the Russians are facing their very own version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The right-wing neo-fascist regime installed in Ukraine with the CIA’s help in 2014 has declared its “sovereign right” to violate the Kremlin’s absolute red line (which is no NATO nuclear-capable weapons systems on its borders) the very same red line that the US imposed upon Cuba (only 90 miles from its borders). But there is a difference, the US may well have no intention of backing down as the USSR did in 1962.
The Ukraine ultimatum, which gave Russia no choice but to invade or risk nuclear blackmail on its borders, may, at last, provide the US with the cover and justification to initiate nuclear war. The Pentagon and the White House, under Obama, Trump, and cold warrior Joe Biden, have been engaged in a comprehensive “Nuclear Posture Review.” Geopolitical analyst Mike Whitney recently described this review:
The primary purpose of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is to deceptively “rebrand” the offensive use of nuclear weapons as a justifiable act of defense. The new criteria for using these lethal WMD has been deliberately maligned with the clear intention of providing Washington with a green light for their use and proliferation. Accordingly, US foreign policy war-hawks have established the institutional and ideological framework needed to launch a nuclear war without fear of legal reprisal. These arduous preparations were carried out with one objective in mind, to preserve America’s steadily-eroding position in the global order through the application of extreme violence.7
Whatever Putin’s faults may be, his IQ is clearly double that of Biden (and quadruple that of Trump). Putin knows that the very existence of his country is at stake. In a recent speech, he declared:
The United States has a theory of a ‘preventive strike’…Now they are developing a system for a ‘disarming strike’. What does that mean? It means striking at control centers with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.8
Ukraine has sent missiles into Russian territory recently, as well as “by mistake” into Poland. This and other provocations may well be designed to bait Russia into doing something that instigates a war directly with NATO, in which case the US will have nuclear weapons ready “to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.” Ellsberg, once an insider at the Pentagon and since a close follower of US the top-secret nuclear weapons policy, shows how “first strike” to take out the opponent’s capacity to respond, like the policy of nuclear brinkmanship, has long been very much part of secret Pentagon strategy. The world teeters, once again, at the abyss.
In my view, our only hope for survival is to ratify the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, truly representing the right of all the people of Earth to a government that ends the war and protects our precious planetary environment. A multipolar world order, as advocated by Russia and China, can never work as long as there are militarized sovereign nation-states recognizing no enforceable laws over themselves. Arms races with high-tech weapons must be replaced by dialogue and discussion among nations committed to our common human civilizational project. The World Parliament will have the explicit authority to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, end war, and disarm the nations. It is either this, the rule of democratic world law for everyone on our planet, or the collective su***de of humanity.
Which path are you willing to choose?
Notes
1 President Obama’s speech made in Hiroshima.
2 Nixon's "Madman Theory" Was Not the Vietnam War's Only Nuclear Weapons Test Case. FPIF.
3 Project for the New American Century. SourceWatch.
4 See Chalmers Johnson. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
5 Trump Spokesperson: Why Have Nuclear Weapons ‘If You’re Afraid To Use’ Them?. ThinkProgress.
6 Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. New York: Bloomsbury, 2017, p. 330.
7 Putin's Conundrum.
8 Ibid.
Glen T. Martin
Glen T. Martin, Ph.D., is an author of twelve books and hundreds of articles concerning global issues, human spirituality, and democratic world government. A recipient of many peace awards, he is the longtime President of the World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA).

06/01/2023

The Earth Constitution and Our Divine-Human Destiny: Integrating the United Nations toward Our Common Human Future. Here we are in Kuala Lumpur, in the year 2022, 13.7 billion years from the beginning, products of a 13.7-billion-year evolutionary upsurge become conscious of itself in us. World philosophy day celebrates the immense collective wisdom of humankind. Our bodies are made of energy from the sun, our sun was born at the heart of our Milky Way Galaxy, and our galaxy emerged from the cosmic ground of being that exploded into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Our lives, our planet, our sun, our galaxy, and the cosmos are all gifts of God. In World Philosophy Day we celebrate these gifts of God. We look forward to the realization of our divine-human destiny in a world of peace, freedom, justice, and sustainability.
Yet our present moment in history teeters on possible apocalypse. China, Russia, and the USA struggle as lawless nuclear weapons-wielding nation-states over economic, political, and territorial power in a world system that brokenly believes it can accommodate endless economic growth in concert with endless sovereign-state military expansion. The result is the nightmare we are living within at this minute—at any second the entire human project and all human civilization could go down the drain, never to arise again.
An anthropomorphically conceived God remains silent at this immense sin of high-tech war and militarism, and at the corresponding global sin of the community of nation-states together remaining silent in the face of this apocalyptic absurdity. Smaller nations do not want to cross the great imperial powers. These powers have the capacity to do real damage to smaller states, both economically and militarily. Some states, like Iran and North Korea, aspire to become nuclear powers themselves, understanding that this may be the only way to preserve their autonomy against the gigantic forces of superpower imperialism.
Nations may call themselves “non-aligned,” that is, they want to keep their heads down, deal with their internal issues, and hope that the big powers leave them alone. But in a globalized world economy there are no more strictly “internal issues.” We are all in this mess together and keeping one’s head down will not prevent nuclear apocalypse or other weapons of mass destruction from being used. Nor will it prevent the on-going destruction of our planetary climate, which, according to many environmental experts, is rapidly heading toward an uninhabitable planet and possible human species extinction (cf. Martin 2021).
Many claim that the United Nations is meant to address this situation, and that a strengthened United Nations may be able to steer humanity beyond this apocalyptic crisis. But the UN is a very complex reality, itself not a unity but a multiplex of conflicting forces, some pointing forward to a new civilization, others pointing backward and leading to the demise of our common human project. Some scholars have distinguished three UNs, not just one (Weiss, et al. 2017).
The First UN includes the system of so-called sovereign nation-states involving the General Assembly with the Security Council and operating under the UN Charter. The Second UN includes the Secretariat and the many agencies working worldwide for ending poverty, promoting transition to sustainability, or protecting human rights. The Third UN includes thousands of NGOs worldwide that work with the UN or are registered has having “consultant status” with the UN. The Second and Third UNs often look forward to a global civilization of peace, justice, and sustainability, which is also the vision behind the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.
Of course, politics and conflicting interests play a part in the paralysis of all three UNs in attempting to deal with the descent of our world into ever-greater chaos, misery, and possible human extinction. Nevertheless, the lion’s share of the problems of superpower conflict, possible apocalyptic war, and environmental destruction lies with the First UN that slavishly adheres to the outdated UN Charter. This Charter takes its stand on “nation-state sovereignty.”
The First UN is premised on a Charter whose roots go back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when the concept of “sovereign” nation was outlined at the end of the 30-years war in Europe. A nation was defined as having absolute territorial boundaries and autonomy over both its internal affairs and in its foreign affairs. This structural model for “nation-states” is nearly four centuries old and comes from a paradigm long ago transcended by all contemporary sciences. In the face of the current threat of apocalyptic death, to slavishly cling to these absolute boundaries appears as madness.
The metaphysical assumptions behind 17th century thinking are often called “Newtonian” as these were synthesized in the Principia Mathematica of Sir Isaac Newton, published in 1687. The universe at that time was believed to be atomistic, mechanistic, and deterministic, so it only made sense that human beings should organize themselves into atomistic “sovereign” social entities called independent nations. Today, this paradigm has been entirely supplanted by the Einsteinian-Quantum Physics Paradigm (see Harris, 2000). Yet the thinking of most of us in the 21st century remains solidly Newtonian, unable to move forward into the new integral holism at the foundation of the cosmos and human existence.
The new paradigm emerging out of 20th century physics is 100% holistic. There are no independent atomic parts to anything. Neither is the new paradigm mechanistic or deterministic. The new paradigm provides a holistic vision in which everything is interrelated and interdependent with everything else. All parts are necessarily part of greater wholes. There are no wholes without parts and no parts without wholes (cf. Laszlo 2007). Human beings have evolved within this astonishing cosmic evolutionary process, 13.7 billion years in the making, as a single species, a single human community, as a vast, sacred holism of unity in diversity. As evolutionary scientist Brian Swimme declares: “Our human destiny is to become the heart of the universe that embraces the whole of the Earth community” (2011, 115).
The concept of “sovereign nation-states” is not only anachronistic. It is a monstrous assumption destroying our planet and its future, whether through climate collapse or nuclear holocaust. What is real under the new paradigm includes persons within communities. A person is always part of community. Persons are not an atomistic reality, and neither are communities. The Islamic religion is strong on this point. And as Islamic scholars like Rashid Shaz (2021) have pointed out. For the Blessed Prophet Mohammed, the ultimate community is the entire human community before God.
Under the holistic paradigm, my local community within which I am embedded is in turn embedded in a regional and national community which is in turn embedded within the human community, just as the human community itself is not autonomous on planet Earth but is embedded in a planetary biosphere that sustains human and all life on this planet. Ultimately, we are embedded within the 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolutionary upsurge. It is the attitude that we are autonomous and separate, both from one another in sovereign nation-states, and from our environment in our greed for economic expansion and exploitation of nature, that is leading us rapidly toward human extinction.
Many well-meaning people within the Second UN and the Third UN believe that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will save us if only we can motivate the nations to adhere to their promised goals. However, the conceptual framework of the SDG Document is seriously flawed and cannot lead to success. The SDG document frames these goals without challenging the capitalist assumption of the “right” to unlimited accumulation of private wealth, nor does it challenge the assumption of nation-state atomism. Item 18 of the SDG Introduction declares: “We affirm that every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity” (cf. Martin 2021, Chap.6).
With this foundational assumption we have assured the failure of the SDGs and the accelerating destruction of our planetary ecosystem. Take, for example, the “Lungs of the Earth.” Everyone knows that the lungs of the Earth exist in the vast Amazon rain-forest basin that produces much of the oxygen needed by living creatures, adsorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide, and, in a multiplicity of ways, moderates the moisture in the atmosphere and the climate of our planet. Under this SDG principle, Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, or other nations hosting the lungs of the Earth have the legal right to cut down and destroy the lungs of the Earth, which the present government of Brazil is busy doing as we speak.
Similarly, everyone knows that the lion’s share of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide poured into the Earth’s atmosphere every year come about almost equally from the United States and China. Everyone knows that the atmosphere over the US and China is the same atmosphere that circulates around the globe that we all need to get under control in order to mitigate global warming. Yet under the UN system, China and the US have the legal right to pour as much CO2 as they want into our planetary atmosphere because they are “sovereign nations” and somehow “own” the atmosphere over their territories. And the so-called First UN, the one slavishly following the UN Charter, is going to cling to this notion even as it leads us to the brink of human extinction.
The Constitution for the Federation of Earth is premised on the holistic paradigm of unity in diversity arising from the scientific revolutions of the 20th century (cf. Martin 2016). It recognizes the people of Earth as sovereign, and the nations are communities within the holism of human civilization, not autonomous parts capable of egotistically bringing down the whole as a consequence of their ethnocentric greed and power struggles. The UN needs to replace the outdated UN Charter with the Earth Constitution, which brings the Second and Third UNs into its embrace, along with all the nations of the world as members of a legally encompassing human community.
Under the Earth Constitution, our global commons—that is, the atmosphere, the oceans, and the great rainforests of Earth—belong to the people of Earth (Article 4). They are not the “private property” of corporations, nation-states, nor individual persons. As the 2015 Encyclical Letter from Pope Francis declared, “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all” (Laudato Si’, 23). Hence, according to Pope Frances and the Earth Constitution, the climate belongs to the people of Earth, a truth that we can only actualize through ratification of the Constitution. According to the UN SDG document, our planetary climate is fragmented into some 193 parts, each belonging to some “sovereign” nation.
Secondly, under the Constitution, the nations will be fairly and systematically disarmed in a cooperatively planned program over a reasonable period of time (cf. PWP’s World Legislative Act 53). Civilian police, armed only with weapons necessary to apprehend individuals, are all that is necessary under a system of democratically legislated world laws, enforceable not over nations but over all individual persons. The SDG document is glaringly silent on militarism. It never mentions the 1.5 trillion US dollars poured by the “sovereign” nations of Earth annually down the toilet of militarism. No militaries are necessary if we really aspire to be civilized human beings with democratic input into the planetary laws that govern us.
Third, global public banking is instituted by the Constitution in order to assure a universal sustainable development that ends extreme poverty without growth beyond the carrying capacity of our planet. No longer would the supply of money created as debt (whether debt for nations, businesses, or individual persons) demand unending growth in order to service that debt and retain solvency (Article 8.7, cf. Heinberg 2011). So-called “free enterprise” becomes truly free when it is no longer enslaved by the debt-system predicated on the unlimited accumulation of private wealth by the 1% of humanity who today own 50% of the wealth on this planet. Finally, through global public banking and debt-free money creation, the synergistically united people of Earth will be able to address climate crisis in effective ways impossible under today’s UN system.
How do we devote ourselves to the well-being of the larger human community, thereby fulfilling our divine-human destiny? The Constitution for the Federation of Earth does not abolish the nations or their borders. But it takes its stand on the unity in diversity of the entire human community, for the first time making it truly possible to dialogue with one another as human beings, as children of the divine ground of Being, and not as mere mouthpieces of this or that nation, race, or religious dogma. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 assumes and embodies this very principle.
Its Preamble states correctly the basis for all government. It reads: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” All legitimate government derives from this foundation of human dignity. Article 2 of the Declaration states that “everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, s*x, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.” “Nations” are excluded as a source of our rights and freedoms. Our common human dignity is the source. Individual dignity and our common humanity are inseparable (cf. Martin 2018, Chap. 2).
If the dignity of human beings in community is truly the source of all legitimate governing, then we know why the world since the Second World War suffered more than 150 wars, with many millions dead or displaced, and with on-going human rights violations for hundreds of millions of the Earth’s citizens (cf. Glover 1999). The answer is implicit in the UN Universal Declaration’s recognition that respect for human dignity (and not sovereign-nation statehood) is the foundation for freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Clearly, this inference is recognized in Article 28, which states: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”
The world lacks this order. The world defeats the rights and freedoms listed in the UN Declaration. What could be more obvious? Democracy is a universal. Human rights are universal. The human community needs to be universal. Yet the world is divided into apparently incommensurable fragments that constitute a war-system, an immorality and corruption system, and ultimately an omnicidal system. Nation-states as such have no rights. The idea of nation-state sovereignty is an abomination; it religious terms, it is idolatry.
the logo of the world constitution and parliament association
The Earth Constitution integrates and enhances the United Nations system by drawing together the three UNs into a truly universal federation of planetary unity in diversity. The entire universe as we know it is an evolving dynamic integration of individuals within wholes on multiple levels having (necessarily) internal relations to all other such wholes (see, e.g., Currivan 2017). The actions I take always affect others in the system and beyond. There are no purely external relations.
A system of independent national units with the right to militarize (autonomy over internal affairs) in external relations to other such units (including the so-called right to go to war) is a conceptual and moral absurdity (cf. Reves 1946). No wonder the world has been in chaos since this system was invented in 1648. A true federation must be based on a principle of unity in diversity such that the unity bears on all the doings of the groups and individuals within that diversity.
Human beings can never solve our most fundamental problems unless we base our planetary organizations on realities, not fantasies. Human persons are a primary reality, and our common humanity (embracing universal dignity and human rights) is the other dimension of that primary reality. These two poles or dimensions are inseparable—individual human beings and the entire human community. Human beings create groupings and all kinds of “boundaries” between themselves, including all so-called “sovereign nation-states.” These are all strictly secondary realities, none of which are or can be legitimately sovereign (cf. Harris 2008, Chap. 7). In the Earth Constitution, sovereignty belongs to the whole, to the people of Earth (Article 2).
The Federation of Earth, therefore, does not make nations primary in government. It recognizes their historical existence (there is no whole without parts) without falling into the fallacy that we have to build the future on that radically flawed and incoherent past. There will be about 1500 votes in the World Parliament (and only about 300 for the nation-states) for the Earth Federation is primarily a federation of people directly from 1000 World Electoral Districts, that is, it is primarily a democracy, not a compromise with the undemocratic notion of false territorial sovereignty.
Under the Earth Constitution, “federation” means that the parts recognize that they only have their reality as parts of a whole and therefore unite as a whole that protects the limited autonomy of each of the parts, creating an indivisible coherence for humanity as constituted through an enforceable democratic legal authority. This recognition constitutes the paradigm-shift away from the illusory Newtonian atomism to the holism of a truly new age, precisely because it is based on the reality of our human, planetary, and cosmic situation as revealed by all post-Einsteinian sciences. The concept of a “sovereign nation-state” is a false-god, an idol that is holding humankind back from right relationship among ourselves and with the blessed groundless-ground of Being.
Our divine-human-cosmic adventure takes its next step through the emergent unity of humankind via ratification of the Earth Constitution. True democracy, true self-government for humanity, can only happen at the global level, when all are embraced and all invited to participate. The Earth Constitution allows us to realize our “ontological vocation” to become ever more fully human and ever more fully expressive of the creative source of all Existence.
Works Cited
Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Online at www.earthconstitution.world. In print from the Institute for Economic Democracy Press, Appomattox, VA, 2010 and 2014.
Currivan, Jude (2017). The Cosmic Hologram: In-formation at the Center of Creation. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
Francis, Pope (2015). Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of Holy Father Francis: https://www.vatican.va/.../papa-francesco_20150524...
Glover, Jonathan (1999). Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Harris, Errol E. (2000). Apocalypse and Paradigm: Science and Everyday Thinking. Westport, CT: Prager Publishers.
Harris, Errol E. (2008). Twenty-First Century Democratic Renaissance: From Plato to Neoliberalism to Planetary Democracy. Appomattox, VA: Institute for Economic Democracy Press.
Heinberg, Richard (2011). The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Laszlo, Ervin (2007). Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
Martin, Glen T. (2016). One World Renaissance: Holistic Planetary Transformation through a Global Social Contract. Appomattox, VA: Institute for Economic Democracy Press. See Martin’s website at www.oneworldrenaissance.com.
Martin, Glen T. (2018). Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence: The Power of the Future for Planetary Transformation. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
Martin, Glen T. (2021). The Earth Constitution Solution: Design for a Living Planet. Independence, VA: Peace Pentagon Press.
Provisional World Parliament (PWP): passing World Legislative Acts (WLAs). The Parliament has met 15 times between 1982 and 2021). See https://oneworldrenaissance.com/.../overview-and-history.../
Reves, Emery (1946). The Anatomy of Peace. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Schuon, Frithjof (1976). Understanding Islam. London: Unwin Paperbacks.
Shaz, Rashid (2021). Islam: Another Chance? A Rashid Shaz Reader. New Delhi: Milli Publications.
Swimme, Brian Thomas (2011). Journey of the Universe. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe, Roger A. Coate, and Kelly-Kate Pease (2017). The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Eighth Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
https://www.amazon.com/Earth-Constitution.../dp/B09N9RR7T3

Earth Federation Party

21/09/2023

07/06/2023

09/05/2023

06/02/2023

04/02/2023

13/01/2023

06/01/2023

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category