Austria
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I know that this letter is like a drop of water in the sea of letters that your association receives. Like the others, I'm writing you with the hope that you'll help me.
I'm a young Albanian guy from Kosova in former Yugoslavia. In 1990 I left my homeland because I refused an order to go into the Serbian army.
I came here to Austria without a passport. I crossed the borders illegally. So, since I still don't have a passport, I'm writing you in the hope that you'll help me get a passport. I'm looking forward to your answer and advice.
All the best,
Mustaf Bivolaku
Austria
Dear Sirs:
I'm in a very difficult situation that I haven't found a way out of. That's why I'm giving you the following statements about myself.
My name is Palackovic Desimir, and I was born on November 8, 1969, in Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I used to live and go to school. I had to leave my hometown because of the outbreak of the war. I fled to Austria, more precisely to Vienna, because I didn't want to take part in all the horrors and sufferings of the war.
I've been in Austria for a long time now. I've been trying to solve the problem of having no identity papers, but all has been in vain. I've got no documents, which stayed back home in the war.
Here, I have no chance of getting either a passport or a work permit. I can't go on living so helplessly. I expect that I will have to go back home, but that's not what I want. That's why I ask you cordially to help me and to make it possible for me to get your passport, so I can become a normal citizen in this world with equal rights.
I'm enthusiastic about your humanitarian work, and I feel I am qualified to become a member of your organization.
In expectation of your answer as soon as possible,
Yours truly,
Palackovic Desimir
France
Dear Sir,
My name is Huang Jie Ming (male). I was born in 1957 in Zhejiang, China. I was the chief of the accounting section for a society to help the poor in Beijing.
In 1989, Chinese students and intellectuals all over the country took part in a movement which strove for democracy and human rights. I gave some part of my organization's fund to the students who were sitting in at Tian An Men Square. After the movement was put down, I was judged guilty. I was persecuted.
In 1990, with the help of friends, I left China and went to France. I've asked the French government for political refuge, but it hasn't been granted. For six years, I have lived without formal identity and without normal work.
Several of my friends say that your organization is devoted to democracy and human rights, and they have urged me to join it. But I don't know how to do it.
What conditions must I meet? How much should I pay? Please answer me as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Huang Jie Ming
Azaadville, South Africa
Dear Mr. Davis,
While in Cameroon, I had the opportunity to peruse your brochure.
While I and my organization subscribe to the concept of a global family, my concerns are primarily those of structural development based on international law.
It is very well and laudable that travel documents and other personal documents are issued by you and accepted by some countries.
It is my considered opinion that we live in a world that is regulated by law and conventions. I will not address the legitimacy of those laws, as that would require another lengthy discussion.
I ask you, though-would it not be wise to work within international structures such as the U.N., UNESCO, UNICEF, and be registered with them so as to attain some degree of global competency, and to exploit the global platform to send out your messages of globalism?
In Africa, rural areas are sure grounds for presenting this concept with positive impact, provided your authority can also undertake some sort of humanitarian program to mutually benefit all.
In this respect, I avail myself to assist you. Please send me a copy of your letter to my President, Nelson Mandela, since, as stated in your brochure, you have sent letters to all heads of state. I would also be grateful to receive a copy of President Mandela's response.
Prof. A. M. Sadek, National Chancellor, Int'l Assn. of Educators for World Peace
(Publisher's note: To the contrary, our world is NOT regulated by "law and convention." "International structures" are not a world government. They have no legislative, executive or enforcement power. "International law" are mere treaties between nation-states. Claiming world citizenship is every human's inalienable right. The aggregrate of those individual claims is the genesis and practice of world government.)
To the World Service Authority:
I stumbled across your World Wide Web site while perusing some material on comets, and have read the various pages on the history and background of World Citizenry with great interest. I find the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights particularly interesting.
The question I have is in regard to taking action in defense of one's rights. I didn't see anything in the U.N. declaration comparable to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifying the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending themselves against infringement of their rights, either by individuals or governments.
What position do you take on how one protects individual human rights when they are abrogated by a person, group or other organization?
Does the philosophy of World Citizenship advocate a totally pacifist approach, or does it surmise that we have the right to physically defend ourselves when we are physically under threat?
By the way, I have often described myself as a citizen of the world, but until now I was not aware that there was any significant body of people on the planet who recognized such a concept. I would be interested in joining this effort and lending such modest support as I am able to provide.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Jack Reed
The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that human rights should be protected by a "regime of law." In that phrase is embedded the entire concept of democratic government. And underlying it is the concept of individual sovereignty in a community of individuals, i.e., the "social contract."
We make "contracts" with each other from infancy onward. Simply living in society implies a collective contract. It always starts from a recognition of common natural rights: the right to live, for example. To proceed from natural to positive rights is a process we all acknowledge and accept. Otherwise, there is chaos.
Your concern about "protecting" human rights through arms presupposes a condition of social chaos, not agreed-upon law. It is also a phenomenon of our time, when the nation-state system itself perpetuates a condition of global chaos in order to preserve its alleged sovereignty. The nation-state's near-monopoly of violence perpetuates the notion that individual human rights can and must be defended by arms. That notion, in concept and effect, represents a rejection of law as the main factor in social intercourse. For instance, in your local community, you do not consider arming yourself to protect your human rights.
Now, to the global level.
The human race is a fact. The world we all live in is a fact. Principles of unity and universality have been taught by sages for millennia. But today, for the first time, we have the technical means to unite principle with practice. Your own profession, as a software specialist, is a perfect metaphor for one world and a common citizenship.
Our world government is a convenient fiction-just as the "United States of America" was in 1787. It is intended to reaffirm both our individual sovereignty-that is, the right to choose our own political status-and humanity's right to live on this planet, along with the other species. It's a vast subject you've brought up. Let's hear more from you.
If a simple yes or no is required, then how do you respond to the question, "Does an individual have the right to use physical force when physical force is directed against him/her"? The presumption underlying this question is that the "force" is not legitimate social restraint, such as an officer of the law reasonably enforcing laws. I am referring to instances when a person is physically assaulted by someone or by a group operating outside the social contracts you speak of.
I believe in what you say about a "regime of law" and in the peaceful coexistence of peoples who have widely variant customs and local laws. I did my "service to country" as a Peace Corps volunteer and strongly believe that conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful manner.
As you suggest in your reply, I do not feel the need to arm myself against those I recognize as my community, but what do I do about all those who have no intention of respecting my community, but rather intend to disrespect it by committing violent crimes against persons and property?
It is inevitable that in such large populations as we have on earth today there will be individuals who do not recognize the social contract or the laws by which most of us agree to live. It is also inevitable that an official arm of society will not always be available to intervene when such an individual decides to relieve you of your rights/goods/life.
In such circumstances I feel that one of our inalienable sovereign rights is that of self-defense by whatever means is appropriate.
Let me emphasize that this is not strictly a "gun" issue. I mentioned the Second Amendment because it represents the right of self-defense in the face of any oppression, be it individual or organized. Human beings are tool users, and in the realm of self-defense a tool can be anything from a weaponless martial art to a $30 million fighter airplane.
The most basic question is this: If a person comes under illegal physical assault, does she or he have the right to use whatever means necessary to prevent harm or loss to themselves? I am very much looking forward to your response.
Jack Reed