New Book: Bridge to Global Governance

New Publication!

My purpose in writing this book is several-fold. My primary aim is to propose a workable first step in the creation of global decision-making institutions that can effectively and efficiently attend to the urgent and immediate needs of the 21st Century. I hope to demonstrate that it is possible to build a global system of governance that serves all the peoples of the world and that is founded upon the principles of federalism. I believe that the best approach is to start in a narrow sphere of international endeavor and then to build outward, gradually and methodically expanding into broader spheres as success inspires confidence. As a starting point, I propose breaking the logjam caused in our global life by the complex of three seemingly intractable problems: global warming, inequitable distribution of energy, and nuclear proliferation. Success in this urgent but narrow sphere of international endeavor would bring immediate benefits to all and thereby engender hope, free us from the grip of paralyzed will, and inspire confidence to expand the spheres in which we apply this methodology, covering ever-widening areas of collective need.

Another purpose of this book is to demonstrate the power of even a handful of individuals, particularly those in positions of leadership motivated by only the best interests of humanity rather than self-interest and exhibiting certain sterling qualities like freedom from prejudice, to bring about organic and far-reaching changes in the structure of our global governance institutions that in turn foster peace, prosperity and stability in our global society. In a world where the rule of strongmen seems to be once again on the rise, where leaders unabashedly stir up the ugliest and most divisive of human emotions like xenophobia, racism, and sexism to gain and maintain their grip on power, and where the forces of nationalism appear to be gaining ascendancy resulting in the increasing fragmentation of human society, I believe it is essential that we remind ourselves of a better world which could be ours if we only bring ourselves to demand leaders with qualities that inspire trust and engender unity.

Lastly, but by no means of least importance, I aim to illustrate the power of consciously and deliberately weaving a set of universally agreed, global ethics into the very structures of our global governance institutions. It is not sufficient for our leaders to possess ennobling qualities. In addition, the very composition, voting structures, and processes that govern our institutions must also embody principles of oneness, equity, and uncompromising focus on the collective good to inspire trust and confidence in the governed and guard against the corrosive forces of self-interest and corruption.

The model I propose is based on the remarkably successful European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) adopted after the Second World War to enable the recently warring countries to rebuild their devastated economies and national polities despite critical shortages of coal and steel without falling into the same traps that doomed the same countries after World War One. As I will explore in depth, we can derive much inspiration and many lessons from the ECSC about how to solve the complex, entrenched problems facing us today, in particular the three-fold complex of global warming, inequitable distribution of energy, and nuclear proliferation. The ECSC had many strengths from which we can learn, ranging from the way it came into being, to its composition, funding, powers, and guiding principles, and most importantly to its role in bringing a lasting peace to Europe. The  successes of the ECSC inspired confidence among its member nations to deepen and expand their cooperation to encompass additional domains of economic, security, and legal policy in what we know today as the European Union. Although the ECSC also suffered from certain weaknesses, these are no less instructive as we strive to shape global governance institutions that are fit for purpose for the 21st Century and beyond.

In this book I hope to offer a useful model for action. Although the argument rests on textual resources and analyses, footnotes would obstruct what I hope is a natural flow of ideas. Those who wish to dive deeper, however, will find these sources in a bibliography at the end of the book, broken down by chapter.

World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

---Robert Schuman, May 9, 1950

Get your copy today at www.amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com, or www.kobo.com.

The Greek Crisis: A Potential Stepping-Stone To Deeper Integration

Over the past five years, the world has been gripped in the suspense of an unfolding drama: that of the Greek sovereign debt crisis.  As the drama has moved towards its climax in the last few months, with Greece and the euro zone countries lurching from one nail-biting scene to another, the world has continued to watch and wait with bated breath, wondering what the ultimate outcome will be and worrying about its potential ramifications for the financial markets in Europe and beyond.

Despite the repeated injection of funds by Greece's creditors, namely the IMF, the ECB and the euro zone countries, Greece's plight remains dire: the country has lost 25 percent of its GDP over the past five years, the general unemployment rate is over 25 percent and double that i.e. 50 percent among the youth.  The country has strained and groaned under the imposition of austerity measures imposed by its creditors.  In the end, on June 26, her elected leaders chose to walk away from negotiations with creditors aimed at providing further bail-out funds in return for further austerity.  There followed a referendum in which the majority of Greek voters rejected bail-out terms offered by those creditors.

The European Union now finds itself in an unprecedented situation in which one of its members may default on a $3.9 billion in bond payments to the ECB on July 20th, having already earned the dubious distinction of being the first developed country to default on a loan from the IMF.  If the July 20 payment is missed, the ECB will likely cease propping up the Greek banks with emergency loans, Greece will plunge into bankruptcy and will have to start paying its bills in IOUs, all of which will probably lead it to exit from the euro. What the effect of such an exit will be on the financial markets in Europe and beyond and consequently on the global economy, is anyone's guess.

One of the problems with a Greek exit from the euro zone (commonly termed a "Grexit"), is that the monetary union was set up as a "no exit" union, meaning there are no legal avenues for those who have joined to leave it, and yet, as a practical matter, unless Greece and her creditors can come to terms before July 20, such an exit is likely to become a reality.  Even if this happens, however, there is nothing to stop Greece from staying in the EU although this relationship could rapidly become complicated if Greece finds herself unable or unwilling to follow the rules of the single market.  In the end, there is a chance that Greece may end up leaving the European Union.  Such a departure would set a terrible and unfortunate precedent for a Union that was committed to increasing its integration.  As the Economist points out "the long-term effect of an irrevocable union being partially revoked is unpredictable." 

What then, if anything, can be done to save the European Union from unraveling?

The answer may well lie in further integration and closer unity within the European Union.  Indeed, the American experience teaches us that further integration can be critical to solving Europe's financial crisis.  Most of us forget that American began life as a fiscal mess and that one of the main drivers for moving from a loose confederacy to a tighter federation was precisely the problem of the large debts that the thirteen American states had taken on during the revolutionary war and were finding themselves unable to repay. During the war each state had separately borrowed heavily from foreign powers. After the war, the states found themselves unable to repay what had become enormous debts.  The Confederation was hamstrung and unable to help, because it lacked the power to impose taxes and most states were not paying their share of assessments to the confederate government -- a condition that is familiar in the context of the European Union today.  Within the context of the American experience, the problem was further exacerbated because the states were printing their own money at will. The flood of paper money produced wild inflation in American economies.  The only solution was to move towards greater unity and integration by creating a federation with a central government capable of levying federal taxes that it could use to repay the foreign debts, or else risk disintegration.

The parallels with the EU's current dilemma are striking! One of the problems the European Union currently faces is the resistance by its member states to mutualizing liabilities, especially in the absence of mutualized responsibility, for example by being able to raise European-wide taxes to fund bail-outs or the ability to have shared decision-making over budgets, taxes and pensions in the first place.  As eminent economics experts have said, the crisis in Europe is at root a deep constitutional and institutional one rather than one of funding.  The real solution appears to lie in Europeans taking a quantum step toward deeper economic and political union which requires an acceptance that its member states must be willing to cede more sovereignty.

The insistence by EU countries on clinging excessively to sovereignty in the face of the suffering and chaos it is causing them individually and collectively, is not sensible.  Surely, policies and theories of how we organize ourselves as peoples and nations are there to serve our best interests and to lead to our well-being.  If they have ceased to do so and are patently injuring us, is it not time to reconsider and adjust them?  In this instance, giving up a modicum of sovereignty in accordance with clear rules, backed by collectively-created and shared enforcement mechanisms and agreeing upon sanctions for non-compliance that are applied even-handedly to all member states, may well go a long way to relieving the European Union of its current suffering and the Greeks of their plight.  While today it is the Greeks who suffer,  who is to say that in the absence of necessary reforms to the system, tomorrow other European countries like Spain, Portugal, Ireland or even France may not follow in its wake?

It was such a recognition that led the thirteen member states of the American confederation to take the momentous decision to fuse their interests by moving from a confederation to a federation, in which certain limited powers that affected their collective interests were delegated by them to a central government, while remaining powers were retained by the states themselves.  The Europeans might do well to examine closely this historical precedent that has resulted in the creation of a strong, unified country that overcame its debt problems and consider following suit by applying the adopting the principles of federalism to the European Union.  There is still time to use the Greek crisis as an opportunity or stepping stone, to create a watershed moment in the history of the European Union, one in which the obvious vulnerabilities of the common currency are recognized and addressed by taking swift, effective and unified steps to strengthen the EU by taking the next step towards creating a United States of Europe, as envisioned by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of the Second World War.

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.

What ought we to do when one nation illegally sends troops into another?

On September 2nd, the New York Times reported that during the course of a four-hour meeting in Brussels, European leaders had criticized Moscow's military offensive in Georgia but yet had failed to settle on concrete measures that might deter Russia from similar action in the future. 

Indeed, one would think that with the magnificent achievements of the human race in so many fields, including some complex scientific and technological ones, our community of nations would have been able to figure out by now what to do when one country breached the territorial integrity of its neighbor.  

Isn't it time for us as an international community to come together and agree upon some firm rules about the consequences that are to follow if one nation takes the belligerent step of sending troops into another?  Should not such an action be viewed as a "threat to the peace" in the language of the United Nations Charter (Ch. VII, art. 39), giving the Security Council the right and indeed imposing on it the obligation to take steps to maintain or restore the peace, up to and including the use of force, if necessary?  Perhaps if our system were more rule-based, with all nations being on notice of the rules in advance along with the consequences for their breach, it would be easier for our international institutions tasked with maintaining the peace to act swiftly and decisively.  

In addition to establishing a set of clear rules and consequences, the world community would also need to create an international standing force that would operate at the beck and call of the Security Council and on behalf of a unified community of nations.  With such an enforcement mechanism in place, individual nations would be less tempted about acting with impunity, knowing that they would have to face a unified international response.