World Citizen Update

Our Global Anti-Terrorism Question for the 21st Century

To begin with, I am not a lawyer, only a single, declared citizen of the world. But I have submitted two briefs to the United States Supreme Court and one to the International Court of Justice at The Hague on the subject of world law and its legitimacy. All were denied a judicial hearing. More about these below.

World law in its infancy can be found in the Nuremberg Principles. They were adopted by the tribunal set up by the Allies after World War II to indict and try the Nazi leaders. They were the ?losers? of that war. I was a B-17 bomber pilot in the 8th Air Force in this war, therefore, as a US citizen, I was one of the ?winners.? Among the other "crimes" we Allies created for the trials was "Crimes Against Humanity." These have been used ever since to indict, try, convict and punish certain individuals. But I have major problems with this ?crime.?

First of all, any word used in criminal cases must have a legal definition.

"Humanity," however, has not been defined legally. Can humanity then be legal? If not, then how can it become a plaintiff? And if so, then who represents this ultimate plaintiff? World lawyers?

Secondly, if an individual is charged with a "crime" against humanity, the charge itself automatically renders him/her guilty. For humanity obviously needs no defense, being inclusive. Also since the individual is part of humanity, anyone charged with a "crime" against "humanity" would per se be both part of the plaintiff and the defendant, an obvious contradiction in terms!

Then there is another problem. Most of the people charged with this "crime," have obviously not killed humanity as such, but only other individuals. Indeed, if humanity were "killed," there would be no one to try or be tried by. So where is the "crime"?

Throughout the world of jurisprudence, the threat of causing death is considered a crime in itself, a felony. And herein lies the final dilemma. Since August 5, 1945, a real threat against humanity itself became evident. We humans had entered the so-called Nuclear Age. The nuclear "gun" was and is pointed at everybody, i.e. humanity. Its proliferation continues to this day. Nine nations possess nuclear bombs but the USA and Russia dominate in terms of numbers on-line: 7,500 and 6,500 respectively. Today's headlines citing India's and Pakistan's quarrels about who "owns" Kashmir, concern humanity itself considering the possession of nuclear weaponry by both nations. Neither death nor radio-activity, however, is a respector of nationalities or indeed religions. Needless to add that the first atomic bombs, the "Big Boys," exploding over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?a US-condoned extra-legal and indiscriminate ?terrorist? act setting the stage for the ultimate one? were pop-guns compared to today's nuclear megatonnage, enough to wipe out all vestiges of living matter on the planet many times over.

A deadly psychological repression of the danger to humanity itself has insidiously conditioned the world public via the use of the ultimate oxymoronic phrase "national security." The common syndrome is fear. Its latest manifestation is the current "war against terrorism." That the presidents and prime ministers of these nine nuclear states all justify their possession of nuclear weaponry in its name is the ultimate political terrorism directed against us, the citizens of the world. Indeed, the trust of their citizens is not only being betrayed by these so-called leaders, but worse, they are the prophetic purveyors of humanity's demise. Should anyone of them push the nuclear trigger, humanity itself could cease to exist.

Are they not then the real "criminals against humanity"?

Today, President George W. Bush and his fellow national leaders are "pointing" a nuclear "gun" at me and you. The same "gun" is also aimed directly at humanity.

That is a global felony .

This nuclear threat is the penultimate crime on our home planet. We, humanity, therefore, have become the legitimate "plaintiff." (The ultimate "crime," of course would be the destruction of the planetary environment itself.)

These nine national?not world? leaders then, whatever their politics and personal inclinations, thereby menace humanity itself.

Should they not be indicted, tried, convicted and punished as war criminals? But this raises the obvious question: by what court? The ICJ, despite its pretension to justice, is not empowered to try the very states or its principal officials which chartered it.

Then, you will ask, are not these national leaders protected by their very official positions? Well, no official is above the law. In modern times we have seen indictments against Pinochet, Milosevic, Fujimori, Marcos, Stroessner, Bhutto, Babangida, Suharto and the list goes on.

Already, the very court established by the nations at The Hague, the International Court of Justice, in 1999 condemned nuclear weaponry as "illegal" with the incredible caveat that if a state itself was being "destroyed," the use of nuclear weapons would be justified. In other words, to "protect" the fictional state millions of human can be destroyed and radio-activity released to condemn future generations.

This decision will live in infamy as it affirms national sovereignty in lieu of humanity?s sovereignty.

What can we, the citizens of the world, do to prevent this ultimate catastrophe?

The answer is self-evident: Outlaw war.

How?

The opposite of "Crimes against humanity," is self-evident: "Compact with humanity," i.e. world law by, for and of the citizens of the world community.

If government has evolved to the national level from the 17th to the 20th centuries?the last being the bloodiest of all? but not to the 21st century global level where our technology and communications already are, then government must evolve to deal with OUR major problems which are global in scope.

In short, legalize humanity.

All the political tools have been available since 1948 when the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a "common standard of achievement for all people and all nations?" Article 21(3) implicitly sanctions the evolution of a democratic world government:

"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

And how is this peoples? general will to be expressed?

"This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent voting procedures."

So far so good. The major lack, however, is candidates for world public office. Suppose, for example, Mr. Mandela or any respected leader publicly declares himself or herself a "candidate" for world public office, where is the global electoral framework in which such a potential candidate could legitimately campaign?

In January, 1949, I founded the International Registry of World Citizens in Paris. It was designed to be the first electoral machinery for such global public office. Over 750,000 individuals registered in a period of 13 months, an incredible mandate for a global parliament. Even enlightened national parliamentarians at the time formed an NGO called "Parliamentarians for Global Law" later changed to "Global Action." The legitimate political outcome of that first world citizen registry of 1949 is the World Government of World Citizens declared in September, 1953.

I began this article by citing my two briefs to the US Supreme Court and one to the International Court of Justice. In all three briefs, I affirmed the sovereign right of the individual to choose his or her political allegiance as the basis of all democratic government, as sanctioned implicitly by the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. (In the petititon to the ICJ, I pointed out the illegitimacy of war itself and that both President Reagan and Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev were war criminals for threatening my life with nuclear weaponry.) I noted that most national constitutions claim that the government power derives from the sovereign people. Moreover the right of political choice is the very foundation of government itself. This is as true today as it was in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence in which the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could only be protected by government "with the consent of the governed."

Moreover, if it is legal to exercise one's sovereign right of political choice as did the US Founding Fathers and that choice is world citizenship, then the legitimate status of world citizenship prevails over that of national citizenship by definition.

The modern-day legitimacy of world citizenship by definition outranks all state leaders.

As humanity and all humans enter the 21st century, the primordial question each of us must answer is: Shall we continue the ancient war game in a nuclear-triggered world which could eliminate the race in toto, or shall we survive individually and as a species by outlawing war via the proven method of law?

The decision is ours, not God's, not nature's, not possible ET's, and certainly not national leaders, but ours as actual citizens of planet Earth, our only home.

And the time to make it is NOW!