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.

International Fuel Bank Is a Step in the Right Direction

This month, i.e. December 2010, the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) made history. Its board of governors representing 35 member nations voted to create an international fuel bank. The purpose of this bank is to provide nations with access to a source of low enriched nuclear fuel enabling them to power their civilian nuclear reactors which in turn produce much-needed energy in the form of electricity. Nations seeking access to fuel from the bank would have to forego their right to the technology that would allow them to enrich uranium domestically and create their own fuel thereby reducing the risk to the world of proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials and weapons. This is a tremendous boon to the cause of global security because once a nation has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment it can easily move from producing low enriched uranium needed to power civilian nuclear reactors to highly enriched uranium needed to produce nuclear weapons. Moreover, even if a nation were to have no interest in the development of nuclear weapons, the danger of nuclear material falling into the hands of unscrupulous terrorists increases with every new nation that starts producing its own nuclear fuel.

As a practical matter, the bank is likely to be particularly attractive to small and developing countries that need access to energy sources in order to bolster and aid their development. Indeed, dozens of such countries have already expressed their desire to have nuclear power. However, as the pundits point out it is unlikely to solve the bigger problems our world faces of countries such as Iran and North Korea who pursue uranium enrichment and/or plutonium extraction for reasons that are suspect.

Therefore, although the creation of this international fuel bank is an important first step for bringing the issue of nuclear proliferation under control, I remain convinced that it is not until the nations of the world are willing, one and all, to forego their right to enrich uranium to produce their own nuclear fuel, and to submit nuclear fuel making to the sole jurisdiction of a supranational organization that will ensure that they each have fair and access to the nuclear fuel they need to meet their legitimate energy needs, that this problem will be resolved in the long-term.

The benefits of the approach I advocate are many and include a level playing field for all nations be they large or small, nuclear powers or non-nuclear powers. If we are to build an international community that is based on clear rules rather than fuzzy policies, we must accept the fact that there can be no hypocrisy or double-standards. The rules must apply even-handedly to all nations.

Another benefit is the transparency afforded by such a system which allows nations to know exactly how much nuclear fuel each one of them is getting and how it is being used. The system will be even more fool-proof once the international community gets around to creating an international monitoring and verification system that is robust, applies to all and is coupled with a proper collectively conceived and created system for enforcing the rules and dealing with breaches by rogue nations. Until that day comes, we can take heart in the fact that the international community has taken a firm step in the right direction leading to a more secure world.

Rules To Prevent Proliferation of Nuclear Arms Must Apply to All Nations

Every now and then in the life of a nation and in our collective life as a community of nations, we must stop to ask ourselves the following question:  Do our laws, institutions and policies serve our best interests and promote the well-being and happiness of our people?  It is important to ask this question because our laws, institutions and policies are there to serve us.  We must not unwittingly sacrifice our collective well-being and happiness for the sake of our attachment to their preservation. 

 

An example that comes to mind relates to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, also known as the 'NPT.'   This Treaty was designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms while encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  And yet, as leaders of thought and experts in the field attest, it is a fragile system that is falling apart at the seams: Nations are ignoring their commitments under the NPT or withdrawing completely from it.  New dangers, such as the international terrorist networks and easy dissemination of military technology are compounding the problem.   It is clear therefore that this Treaty and the system of which it is a part must be either fixed or replaced if we are to keep our world safe from the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons.  

No matter how we go about strengthening the nuclear proliferation system and the quest for a viable, effective and efficient system that can keep us safe from the scourge of nuclear weapons, we must apply two key principles:  The first is that all nations must be treated as one, in other words even-handedly and fairly, without favor or discrimination.  This means that all international rules relating to the safety and security of the world as a whole must apply to all nations across the board without exception and must be equally enforced.  The second principle is that the advantage of the part can only be truly guaranteed by assuring the advantage of the whole.  

Applying these two principles it becomes clear that the time has come to make all rules and treaties for the prevention of nuclear proliferation apply mandatorily to all nations.  We can no longer afford to have an arms control system in which participation by states is voluntary as there is too much at stake.  It seems ludicrous for instance that a treaty intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms would make the participation of nations known to have nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, India and Israel, optional.  Having such a voluntary system simply invites states to consider their short-term self-interest at the expense of the long-term security of the international community as a whole: while it serves their interests, they join the NPT and benefit from it - for example by gaining access to civilian nuclear technology - while possibly developing the ability to make nuclear weapons in secret.  Then, when it no longer serves their interests to be subject to the NPT rules and restrictions, they withdraw from the Treaty by giving a mere 30 days' notice to the other NPT parties and to the Security Council   

The same is true with respect to the safeguards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is tasked with monitoring compliance with the NPT.  It makes no sense that 30 members of the NPT should not be subject to any monitoring safeguards.  Again applying the principles articulated above, the program of safeguards established by the IAEA should mandatorily apply to all nations without exception.

In addition, it is time to abolish the right of nations to withdraw from treaties such as the NPT that are so fundamental to maintaining the safety and security of our world.  It is preposterous

that a member of the NPT should be allowed to withdraw with only 30 days' notice for reasons that are blatantly self-serving, including jeopardy to its supreme interest, and without suffering any consequences.  Such a rule serves only as an invitation to expedient behavior.  

It is time that the laws and institutions we craft to ensure the safety and security of our world are firmly grounded in principle rather than driven by expediency.