National Sovereignty is lethal
The Book review of “Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be ruled by Others?” (“Why global governance does not work” Washington Times, Nov 7, 2011) was so full of misconceptions and misinformation it should be shelved under fiction or humor.
First, “one-world government” isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a wise and rational goal given the reality that there is only one world and one human race. And we are running out of time to decide if we will continue to risk out most cherished freedom and security in a lawless world of war, genocidal leaders, catastrophic pandemics, and economic chaos, or thrive under a global rule of law established on most of the same principles our founding fathers aspired to.
As former Issues Director for the World Federalist Association (which unfortunately abandoned its original mission for reasons of political correctness) I can attest that the “transfer of political power to unaccountable transnational organizations” was never on the agenda. In fact, accountability of every government, corporation, president and dictator was. In the current system where national sovereignty reigns supreme over human rights, any government, can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any accountability unless some other nation or extremist group decides to wage war, try to enforce sanctions which can be more deadly than war, or take their grievance to an anemic UN talk fest. Meantime, genocides go without intervention, explosive deadly border disputes rage for decades, and WMDs, pathogens, recessions and pollutants roam freely across every national border because ‘national sovereignty’ is powerless to stop them.
Mr. Fonte is “one of the very few scholarly defenders of sovereignties ideas” because the rest have come to the same realization. ‘National sovereignty’ is useless against a the growing array of threats that come with hyper globalization that is amplified by the exponential growth and increasing affordability of powerful dual-use technologies... a growing gap between rich and poor... and abusive governments and corporations that are not accountable to “we the people”.
Not a single ‘one world’ advocate that I know wants to “council countries like the United States to become like the United Nations”. In fact just the opposite. Most want the United Nations to be like the United States. They see the historical failure of confederations of states and the genius of federalism with a proper balancing of power between democratically elected bodies. Such a world federal government would “derive” it’s “just powers through the consent of the governed”, unlike the current system where the IMF, WTO, Iran and the USA can take actions that effect the world without being held accountable for the consequences.
While “it is unclear whether a majority of Westerners desire to live under the Kyoto Protocol” any rational schooled individual can see that ‘national sovereignty’ can’t protect them from the extreme weather conditions and other consequences associated with a changing climate. A climate most likely influenced or exacerbated by the policies of any nations excessive contribution of CO2 to our common atmosphere.
In the world government I (and many others advocate for) the WTO would have elected representatives, and there would be a supranational bureaucracy to appeal to, like the U.S. supreme court, as greivences arise. And, other measures like war and sanctions would no longer be needed.
And, yes, there would be a global bill of rights with an irrevocable “second Amendment” ensuring the basic right of every person and every nation the “right to bear arms”. If they wanted to waste their limited resources on such useless things, no law would stop them. But the misuse of any weapon for taking property or taking innocent lives would be dealt with swiftly. A SEAL Team like police force that would have the world’s people and all other nations backing it would capture suspects if possible, without the loss of innocent lives, and a world court of elected judges would hear the case.
We are not faced with a “clash between global governance and democratic sovereignty” as Mr. Fonte writes. We really face a reality struggle against those who think ‘sovereignty’ resides in governments...and those who believe sovereignty resides in “we the people” of the world.
First, “one-world government” isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a wise and rational goal given the reality that there is only one world and one human race. And we are running out of time to decide if we will continue to risk out most cherished freedom and security in a lawless world of war, genocidal leaders, catastrophic pandemics, and economic chaos, or thrive under a global rule of law established on most of the same principles our founding fathers aspired to.
As former Issues Director for the World Federalist Association (which unfortunately abandoned its original mission for reasons of political correctness) I can attest that the “transfer of political power to unaccountable transnational organizations” was never on the agenda. In fact, accountability of every government, corporation, president and dictator was. In the current system where national sovereignty reigns supreme over human rights, any government, can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any accountability unless some other nation or extremist group decides to wage war, try to enforce sanctions which can be more deadly than war, or take their grievance to an anemic UN talk fest. Meantime, genocides go without intervention, explosive deadly border disputes rage for decades, and WMDs, pathogens, recessions and pollutants roam freely across every national border because ‘national sovereignty’ is powerless to stop them.
Mr. Fonte is “one of the very few scholarly defenders of sovereignties ideas” because the rest have come to the same realization. ‘National sovereignty’ is useless against a the growing array of threats that come with hyper globalization that is amplified by the exponential growth and increasing affordability of powerful dual-use technologies... a growing gap between rich and poor... and abusive governments and corporations that are not accountable to “we the people”.
Not a single ‘one world’ advocate that I know wants to “council countries like the United States to become like the United Nations”. In fact just the opposite. Most want the United Nations to be like the United States. They see the historical failure of confederations of states and the genius of federalism with a proper balancing of power between democratically elected bodies. Such a world federal government would “derive” it’s “just powers through the consent of the governed”, unlike the current system where the IMF, WTO, Iran and the USA can take actions that effect the world without being held accountable for the consequences.
While “it is unclear whether a majority of Westerners desire to live under the Kyoto Protocol” any rational schooled individual can see that ‘national sovereignty’ can’t protect them from the extreme weather conditions and other consequences associated with a changing climate. A climate most likely influenced or exacerbated by the policies of any nations excessive contribution of CO2 to our common atmosphere.
In the world government I (and many others advocate for) the WTO would have elected representatives, and there would be a supranational bureaucracy to appeal to, like the U.S. supreme court, as greivences arise. And, other measures like war and sanctions would no longer be needed.
And, yes, there would be a global bill of rights with an irrevocable “second Amendment” ensuring the basic right of every person and every nation the “right to bear arms”. If they wanted to waste their limited resources on such useless things, no law would stop them. But the misuse of any weapon for taking property or taking innocent lives would be dealt with swiftly. A SEAL Team like police force that would have the world’s people and all other nations backing it would capture suspects if possible, without the loss of innocent lives, and a world court of elected judges would hear the case.
We are not faced with a “clash between global governance and democratic sovereignty” as Mr. Fonte writes. We really face a reality struggle against those who think ‘sovereignty’ resides in governments...and those who believe sovereignty resides in “we the people” of the world.
posted by Chuck Woolery at 3:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home