Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come

The solution to many of our collective global problems lies in a closer integration and union of our diverse nations ultimately resulting in a world federation of states.  For a deeper exploration of this proposition,  I invite you to see my webinar entitled "Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come" by clicking on the following link:  http://bahai-studies.ca/building-a-world-federation-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

What Should We Do When A Nation Threatens The Peace?

This evening, the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released a press statement saying that its mission to Iran had failed (yet again). Once again it appears that Iran is obstructing the international community's efforts to get to the bottom of Iran's nuclear activities and determine once and for all whether Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons or whether its nuclear program is, as it has repeatedly claimed, solely intended to meet the peaceful energy needs of its population. One would think that if the purpose was peaceful, Iran would be eager to have inspectors examine all its nuclear sites and produce satisfactory responses to the questions posed by the IAEA inspectors.

Iran's reasons for obfuscation and obstruction could be many and without solid facts, it is futile to speculate. What is abundantly evident and must be the center of our focus is the catastrophic course on which we are all embarked: If the international community continues down the path of making shrill demands unsupported by unified, decisive action, (other than incrementally broader sanctions) and if Iran continues to behave provocatively and meets the demands of the international community by turning a deaf ear, the risks of an all-out conflagration in the Middle East which no body wants, will continue to escalate until we reach the point of no return. A Middle East war has the potential to drag the entire international community into its orbit with all the devastation that such a world war would entail. Is this really the result we want? If not, then we must get off this path immediately and seek a safer and more sensible alternative.

We need to be very clear about the costs of inaction: What happens when we, the international community and the community of nations, abdicate our collective responsibility to act in unity to devise a collective system of security that ensures the safety of one and all? At this stage in our collective evolution, nothing short of a global collective security pact in which all nations (yes, all without exception) agree to eliminate nuclear weapons, to keep their conventional weapons to a the minimum required to preserve the peace within their borders and to rise against a nation that brazenly threatens the peace of the world will suffice to keep global peace. Such a pact must be backed by an international standing force that we have put off establishing for too long and must be based on a set of internationally agreed rules clearly delineating the circumstances in which it can be used.

What makes this alternative path, our only hope for salvation is the parity of treatment that is accorded all nations, as determined by international rules arrived at by consensus of the international community. We must let go of all our double standards and systems of "haves" and have nots". If one nation has nuclear weapons, others will want them and eventually someone will use them either deliberately or accidentally. Therefore no one can be allowed to have them. The other element that makes this alternative path viable and effective is the unity of action it requires. There is tremendous power in speaking with one voice and acting as one, especially in the face of would-be bullies on the playground of international affairs.

If we had not wasted past opportunities to put such a system in place, chances are Iran would not be making so bold as to play cat and mouse games with the IAEA and to make aggressive statements that merely serve to raise the levels of suspicion and mistrust. Then again, were such a system in place, the response of the global community in the face of such statements would be a unified and decisive one based on the rule of law. As it is now, individual nations who feel threatened by Iran's nuclear program may feel the need to respond aggressively based on the momentary requirements of expediency to defend themselves. Alas, any unilateral or coalition action is fraught with dangers for one and all and is likely to so the seeds of new problems as we have already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let us take up the challenge of our times and begin the painstaking but immeasurably rewarding work of building a collective system of security that will ensure the safety of our children and the generations to come.

The Security Council Veto Must Go!

The Security Council is the organ of the United Nations tasked with the duty of maintaining peace and security. Why then does it appear to be failing so miserably and is there anything that can be done to restore its credibility in the eyes of an increasingly cynical world?

Restoring the Security Council's credibility is possible but only if it is seen to be taking decisive action where it is most needed: for instance in putting an end to the brutal acts of the regime in Syria or eliminating the threat to world peace posed by Iran's unwillingness to come clean on its nuclear program. For such decisive action to be even possible requires the international community to take the following minimal steps:

First, we must we must revamp the Security Council to make it more representative of our world as it is today -- not as it was in the middle of the last century. Part of this process of modernizing the Security Council requires that we sweep away that relic of our past, namely the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council. This relic, far from being a quaint reminder of our history, has become a solid barrier to world peace, paralyzing the Security Council at those critical moments when it needs to act quickly and decisively, and encouraging countries to act solely in their narrowly-perceived self-interest rather than in the interests of the global community.

Secondly, the Council needs to be given the proper tools with which to discharge its responsibility. It must have an international standing force at its disposal with which to enforce its decisions to maintain peace and security. Without such a force, it will continue to remain largely impotent, falling back on shrill and repeated watered-down resolutions calling for actions that recalcitrant nations feel free to ignore.

Thirdly, the mandate of the Security Council to act to restore the peace must be clearly delineated, especially regarding the circumstances in which it may use force. The mandate must be based on international rules rather than fuzzy policies and must be applied even-handedly to all nations.

How much more suffering does our world need to witness, before we are willing to take these steps to bring it some measure of peace and security?

Keeping the United Nations Relevant in the 21st Century

For thoughts on this topic based on her book "Collective Security Within Reach", please go to the following link of an NPR interview of Sovaida Ma'ani Ewing broadcast live with call-in questions on October 14, 2011:

http://www.wuft.org/conner-calling/

The Emperor Has No Clothes: Where is An International Standing Force When you Need One?

Events in Libya continue to worsen after Colonel Gaddafi ordered a brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors by police, the army and irregular units resulting in mass killings, arbitrary arrests and the detention and torture of prisoners; he has even threatened to make Libya a hell and yet the international community is paralyzed.

Our leaders are right when they say that the situation is "unacceptable" and "intolerable" but under such dire conditions with the threat of massive human sacrifice hanging over Libya's head words are not enough.

It is time for our leaders to stop dithering. It is time not only to speak with one voice but to act as one in a spirit of unity: with a strong common purpose and intention, world leaders must agree to immediately intervene militarily to protect the people of Libya from a leader who is clearly willing to sacrifice his people in order to save his pride and hold on power. To talk at such a time about imposing economic sanctions, a possible arms embargo, travel bans and asset freezes and to give warnings about retributions under international criminal law for possible crimes against humanity is ineffectual at best. Analogies are useful for putting things in perspective: If we were to see a man climbing through the window of a family's home armed and announcing his intention to rape the female inhabitants and then murder the family, what would we do? Would we be satisfied to tell him that the police were watching him and issue warnings about the arrest and trial that are bound to follow his intended crimes? The very thought is preposterous. And yet, we have managed to get ourselves into similarly untenable situations as a community of nations. It is time to correct course and acknowledge that in situations such as the one we see in Libya, the international community must intervene swiftly and effectively to prevent the the crimes against humanity from occurring.

Unfortunately, given the system we have in place, it is not easy to intervene at all let alone swiftly when it comes to the international community. We face and have for a long time faced two problems that we need to solve if were are to get out of this cycle of standing by while atrocities are committed with impunity, be they in Rwanda, Darfur or Libya. The first problem is that of coming to firm and decisive agreement on clear and firm rules to be applied by our international institutions, in particular the Security Council when threats to the peace and human rights atrocities occur. It is time to agree that when governments begin to commit crimes against humanity, the international community has the responsibility to step in and act immediately, using force if necessary. The use of force, is unfortunately, often the only language that these brutal dictators understand. Under such circumstances, threats of economic sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans and asset freezes and of international criminal trials are ineffectual.

The second problem is that the Security Council currently lacks an international force at its disposal and under its command capable of enforcing its resolutions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. We need to remedy this and start working on establishing such a force now in the hopes that by the time the next intolerable and unacceptable crisis hits, we will be equipped to actually do something effective about it in a timely fashion. Had we started working on creating such a force a decade ago, today we would have been in a position to intervene effectively and stop the massacre in Libya.

It is better to start late than never, for one thing is certain: given the world we live in, there are bound to be future crises and more opportunities for such a force to act either as a deterrent or as a means to minimize bloodshed and the risks of a destabilizing breach of the peace.

The International Community Cannot Continue to Abdicate Its Responsibility

As events in North Africa and the Middle East unfold in quick succession, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is time for the international community to step up to the plate and assume responsibilities that it has abdicated for too long.

When the UN Security Council was created in the aftermath of the Second World War, it was accorded the distinction of being the principal organ of the new United Nations and was given the responsibility for maintaining and restoring peace in the world: its mandate was to act to ensure peace if it found that one of three events had occurred: that there had been a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. In any of these circumstances, the Security Council was empowered to act using a variety of tools including economic sanctions and even the use of force.

As we witness the outbreaks of government-endorsed violence in countries such as Libya, and hear the outcry of peoples around the world railing at such injustice, is it not time for the international institutions to which we have entrusted the very responsibility for maintaining peace to step in and act? Do not the circumstances that we are witnessing amount at the very least to a 'threat to the peace' or a 'breach of the peace?' If not under these circumstances, then when should we act? Words alone, will not suffice. Action is required.

And if we find that what is standing in the way of timely, decisive and effective Security Council action to restore the peace is the absence of a standing international force that is truly representative of the community of nations and that acts in accordance with clearly delineated rules agreed to in advance by all nations, then is it not time to set about finally creating such a force? Surely in a world that is advanced in so many ways, we can succeed if we bend our minds to crafting an international system of collective security that is effective.

The time has come to put away our excuses for inaction and get on with the job of re-vamping our global institutions to ensure that they adequately meet the needs of our time.

The Power of Unity -- A Formidable Tool for Peace and Security

Today, February 11, 2011, Egyptian protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in Alexandria and in Suez got their wish: President Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president of Egypt after thirty years in power.

In following the media coverage of the historic events that have unfolded in Egypt over the past eighteen days, the most striking phenomenon has been the demonstration of unity amongst people of disparate backgrounds: the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, secularists and Islamists, the young and the old and people of various political persuasions. This unity has manifested itself in three ways: unity of purpose, the ability to speak with one voice and unity of action. When coupled with a disciplined determination to keep the protests peaceful and avoid violence, the power of such unity has been phenomenal: it has begun to change the course of history both within Egypt and inevitably within the region.

The power that results from unity of purpose, action and voice is one that the international community would do well to ponder and to mindfully cultivate as it seeks effective tools to maintain and restore much-needed peace and security in the world.

It makes no difference whether the problem is caused by a bully in the form of an autocratic leader with whom the citizens of a country are contending, or whether it is caused by a bully in the shape of the government of an individual nation which threatens the peaceful equilibrium of all member nations of the world community; in order for the solutions to all such problems to be effective, they must be pursued in reliance on a spirit of absolute unity. Whether it is a president who has seized power in defiance of the constitutional requirements of his country, as in the case of Mr. Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast, a president whose autocratic rule has outlived its welcome as in the case of Mr. Mubarak, or a country that poses a threat to other countries through its illicit pursuit of weapons of mass destruction such as Iran or North Korea, any effective solution must have as its linchpin the principle of unity.

In the case of the Ivory Coast, the African Union and the the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) must continue to speak with one voice (with the continued backing of the EU, the UN and the rest of the international community) and act as one -- with collective force if necessary -- in order to be effective and set a good precedent for the rest of Africa. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it is high time for the international community to rise to its responsibility and clearly decide what it will do when a nation has been clearly shown to be flouting the international rules that prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and is consequently threatening the peace of the world with its behavior. The consequences of such behavior must be clearly specified and agreed to by all nations, along with the circumstances in which they will be applied. Moreover, punishment must be meted out even-handedly to all who break the rules. Last, but not least, it is time to establish an international standing force that represents the international community and has the mandate to enforce its collective decisions.

It is not until the international community can both speak with one voice and back its voice up with unified action that peace will become a reality. As for Egypt, it is still not out of the woods: what remains to be seen is whether the people of Egypt can maintain their unity of purpose, voice and action as they go about collectively crafting the future of their country.