POSITION PAPER 1978 - U.N. vs. World Government

The United Nations vs. The World Government

Never before has it been so important to find a solution to the problem of substituting law for force in international affairs. It is almost a cliche to say that our very existence depends on finding a solution and finding it soon - but if this is a cliche it is also a frightening truth. - U Thant, Secretary General, United Nations, 1963
Note: The page numbers have been left in this text for reference purposes.
1.   Historical Background

The author fought with the Allies in World War II from the ruins and 
idealism of which came the present United Nations.  His right to take 
an active role in the personal issue of world peace may be said to be 
categorical and sovereign.  The same may be said of all combatants 
from whichever "side."  To have been intimately involved with world 
war and not to play a dynamic part in world peace is to have fought 
in vain.  Worse, it is a betrayal of one's brothers who died in battle 
and of the wives, mothers, sons and daughters whose deaths testify 
to the totality of 20th century war.

Two years after the atom bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the 
author came to realize that the United Nations, as originally and 
presently constituted, could not fulfill its avowed mission of world 
peace.  Based on the principle of collective security of exclusive 
nation-states, which defect led to the collapse of the League of 
Nations and World War II, it lacked the sovereign legislative, 
administrative, judicial and enforcement ability, democratically 
controlled, to govern the world community wherein war would be 

The Dumbarton Oaks proposal of the Four Powers, the United States, 
Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union, condemned in advance 
the San Francisco Conference to a sterile exercise of national 
diplomacy which continues to this day.  No nation proposed-- in 
recognition of our being one world in time and space-- to make us 
world citizens under a representative government dealing directly 
with people everywhere.  Only China and Columbia expressed a 
willingness to delegate sovereignty to the organization while France 
and Venezuela paid passing tribute to a federal system.  It must be 
added that a world legislature was proposed by Ecuador, the 
Philippines and Venezuela while more power for the General 
Assembly was proposed by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa 
Rica, Egypt, France, Greece, Guatemala, Liberia, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Norway and Uruguay.

As to the veto of the Security Council, seventeen nations opposed it 
as completely contrary to the doctrine of the sovereign equality of 
states while Ecuador maintained flatly that it represented anarchy 
and the Australian delegate pointed out that if five states of the 
original United States had enjoyed a veto, the ten amendments to the 
Constitution would never have been adopted.

As one at least equally concerned with world peace as any United 
Nations delegate, in May, 1948, after becoming stateless by virtue of 
Section 401(f) of the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940, the author claimed 
the status of world citizenship.  By so doing, he was fulfilling his
P. 116

international civic obligations implied by the Nurnberg Charter under 
Article 6(a)(b) and (c) which defines "crimes coming within the 
jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual 

The right to assume individual civic responsibility in a given 
community is the essence of course of the democratic principle and 
the true meaning of sovereignty.  This has been subsequently 
confirmed by Arts. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 15(2), 18, 19 and 29 of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights.

The author's direct relationship with the United Nations itself began 
on  11 September 1948 when he was ordered by ministerial decision 
to leave France.  Repairing to the "international territory" of the U.N., 
about to hold its 3rd General Assembly at the Palais de Chaillot in 
Paris, he requested global political asylum as a World Citizen in a 
petition to then Secretary-General Trygve Lie.  This petition 
specifically called for a review conference, according to Article 109 of 
the U.N. Charter to convoke a world constitutional convention to draft 
a world constitution for the governance of the world community.  At 
the request of the Secretariat, he was summarily expelled from the 
"international territory" by the French police under orders from the 
Ministry of the Interior.

Once again he "petitioned" the General Assembly, this time from the 
balcony of the Palais de Chaillot the 22nd of November 1948, 
interrupting a session with the aid of friends and fellow World 
Citizens, calling for a world constitutional convention.  Again, he was 
summarily ex-
*II.  Jurisdiction and General Principles, Article 6, para. 2.  The U.N. 
Secretary-General, in his Supplementary Report to the General 
Assembly of 24 October 1946 stated that "In the interest of peace, 
and in order to protect mankind against future wars, it will be of 
decisive significance to have the principles which were implied in the 
Nurnberg trials, and according to which the German war criminals 
were sentenced, made a permanent part of the body of international 
law as quickly as possible.  From now on the instigators of new wars 
must know that there exist both law and punishment for their 
crimes.  Here we have a high inspiration to go forward and begin the 
task of working toward a revitalized system of international law."  On 
15 November 1946, the U.S. delegation introduced a proposal to the 
U.N. "...to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose 
of encouraging the progressive development of international law and 
its codifications "...and reaffirmed ...the principle of international law 
recognized by the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal and the 
judgment of the tribunal."  U.N. General Assembly Resolution 
488.48(v) 1950, "Nuremberg Trials," entered the principles to 
international law.

P. 117

pelled, this time by U.N. security guards.  Increasing public support 
however coalesced into a worldwide movement for peace through 
world citizenship.

Dr. Herbert Evatt, then-President of the General Assembly, granted 
the author a personal hearing agreeing to distribute the petitions 
endorsed by a public meeting at the Salle Pleyel to all delegations.  
On 3 December 1948, at a public meeting at the Velodrome d'Hiver, 
Dr. Evatt's personal response was read.  In substance, he wrote that 
the United Nations was not constituted to make peace between the 
"Big Powers" but only "to maintain it once made."

From this public acknowledgment of its President that the United 
Nations was inherently unable to "make peace" between "Big 
Powers"-- a situation which prevails today 30 years later-- which 
required world law and its sovereign institutions, we the people of 
the world, understood that world peace depended on each of us, not 
as exclusive nationals but as world citizens.  We understood that we 
had to become identified as a "world people" before we could claim 
our right to determine our own political, economic, social and cultural 

Coincident with these historical events, the General Assembly on 10 
December 1948 proclaimed the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF 
HUMAN RIGHTS  "...as a common standard of achievement for all 
peoples and all nations..." endorsing the principle of a world 
democratic legal order+.

Both the concept of world citizenship as well as the eventual World 
Government of World Citizens was thereby mandated by this United 
Nations document to which all Member States became subject upon 
signing the Charter itself (Ref. arts. 55, 56).

Needless to say, despite article 109(3) which provides for a review 
conference after ten years of the U.N.'s existence, no such conference 
has yet been held, every member of the Security Council with veto 
power being on record as in opposition.*

In the five years following the above events, literally millions of
+Preamble, para 4 and Article 28.

*U.N. General Assembly Resolution 375(IV), 6 December 1949.  
"Declaration on Rights and Duties of States", Art. 14 states:  "Every 
State has the duty to conduct its relations with other States in 
accordance with international law and with the principle that the 
sovereignty of each State is subject to the supremacy of international 

P. 118

ordinary citizens throughout the world actively endorsed world 
citizenship with more than 750,000 actually registering at the 
International Registry of World Citizens in Paris which the author 
founded with friends in January, 1949.

Given this popular mandate, and invoking both the highest moral 
principles and the imperative need of humankind in toto and each 
human being to survive, the author declared the World Government 
of World Citizens on 4 September, 1953 at Ellsworth, Maine, U.S.A.+

The administrative and executive agency of the new government was 
founded at New York City, January, 1954 under the name, World 
Service Authority.*

The first official World Government document, the World Passport, 
was printed and issued beginning in June, 1954.  It was based on 

Sample copies were addressed to all national governments*,  to the 
High Commissioner for Refugees, to the U.S. Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, to the Security Division, United Nations Secretariat, and 
to the International Federation of Travel Agents.  Thirty-six 
governments acknowledged receipt of the sample passport, Ecuador, 
Laos, Cambodia, and Yemen accorded it de facto  recognition and 
certain other governments indicated they would take advantage of 
the document when the occasion presented itself.  No national 
government returned or rejected the document.

The 2nd edition of the world Passport was printed in November, 
1971 and sample copies sent to all national governments.+  The third 
edition of the World Passport was printed in June, 1975 with 
samples again addressed to national governments.**

The World Service Authority central office is in Basel, Switzerland.  It 
is organized as a non-profit association under Swiss Civil Code 60 ss.  
World Service Authority District II has offices in London and World 
Service Authority District III in Washington, D.C.  The latter is 
organized as a non-profit corporation in the District of Columbia.
+See "Ellsworth Declaration" (excerpted) appended.

**Purpose:  1) To realize fundamental human rights as outlined in 
U.D.H.R.:  2) To promote technical, and global coordination of 
organizations, specialized agencies, etc. working for general good;  3) 
Provide documentation service for world citizenry corresponding to 
the articles of U.D.H.R.
*Accompanying letter appended.

P. 119

2.   The United Nations - An Analysis vis-a-vis the World 
government of World Citizens

The present U.N. Secretary-General, Dr. Kurt Waldheim, is not 
unaware of the Organization's defects.  In his 1977 Annual Report, in 
noting "increasing frustration and disappointment at the failure to 
protect and promote human rights in various parts of the world..." he 
reminds us that "...it must be remembered that the existing 
machinery such as the Commission on Human Rights is 
intergovernment and intergovernmental bodies of course reflect the 
position of Member-States."*  Unfortunately his conclusions are 
vividly and tragically known to millions of victims of war, 
deprivation and torture:  "Thus we continue to have a conflict 
between the individual asserted principles of national sovereignty 
and the broad commitment to human rights."**

His own concern for this lethal duality-- reflected also by his 
predecessors-- is apparent when he maintains that "For the work of 
the United Nations to be effective in the field of human rights, we 
need the active commitment, cooperation and political will of the 
international community."+

Exclusive nation-states however cannot exercise "political will" 
internationally which implies a political framework.  What they can 
and do exercise is their "power will" backed either by economic clout 
or by armies.  "Political will" outside the national constitutional 
framework presumes people acting civically in the world community.  
From this civic commitment evolves inevitably a corollary sovereign 
institution, divorced from nations, to which such individuals turn for 
help, giving it their primary loyalty, which becomes thereby capable 
of protecting human rights from violations by nations.

When the individual politically bypasses the nation-state in a 
unilateral exercise of his/her innate sovereignty, s/he is acting ipso 
facto as a citizen of the world.  Further, s/he is incorporating the 
universal and unitive principles of world government just as the 
local and/or national citizen incorporates the principles of his/her 
locality and/or nation.
*Section V, para. 5
*Section V, para. 7

P. 120

The failure of the United Nations is nowhere more nakedly revealed 
than in the problem of disarmament.  Since General Assembly 
Resolution 41(1) of 14 December 1946 to Resolution 31/72 of 10 
December 1976, spanning 32 years of lip-service to the problem, 
general world disarmament has been grotesquely and disastrously 
mocked by 94 international wars, over $6 trillion of the world's tax-
payers' money spent on destruction, over 50 million killed and many 
more crippled, made homeless and refugeed, a 1977 global 
armament budget of over $300 billion-- almost 8% of the world's 
gross national product when endemic poverty is the daily grim 
condition of hundreds of millions-- and an overkill capacity 
hundreds of times over.  "Stocks of nuclear weapons," writes Dr. 
Waldheim, "have already been sufficient to destroy the world many 
times over, and yet the number of warheads has increased five-fold 
in the past eight years."  Not only does the Secretary-General 
recognize the universality of the problem-- "...In a period where a 
new form of world society symbolized by the United Nations, is 
emerging, (disarmament is) a problem which vitally affects them all 
(the majority of the medium and small Powers)"-- but that all 
nations "should play an important part in a comprehensive approach 
to disarmament aimed at real disarmament  in the context of 
world order."  (Emphasis added.)+

Though his appeal for "world order" is understandably addressed 
only to national powers-- which inadvertently exposes the 
fundamental contradiction of the underlying premise of the United 
Nations itself-- he can only mean the political reality of a world 
sovereign, i.e. legal power which can only derive from the true 
sovereigns, humankind and its fundamental integer, the human 

Since the nation-state is by definition incapable of extending itself 
politically beyond its own sovereignty, the aware individual must 
recognize his/her sovereignty as already directly allied to that of 
humankind itself on a de facto  or actual as well as moral basis.  The 
Founding Fathers of the United States of America, to take but one 
example, recognized both a de facto  and morally-based common 
citizenship between 1778 and 1887 yet politically disunited.  They 
remedied the situation with the U.S. Constitution.  That common 
world citizenship is the dynamic conceptual and actual fact of the 
*Section IV, para. 3, 1977 Annual Report
*Section IV, para. 8       "         "         "
**Appended are statements from Heads of State advocating the rule 
of law as indispensable to world peace.

P. 121

century rendered by contrast startling apparent by the totality of 
nuclear war-- paling into virtual insignificance all lesser problems-- 
as well as by related global crises such as pollution, gross economic 
injustice, depletion of the planet's resources and the like.

The institutionalization of our common world citizenship, as we have 
pointed out, has already begun.  Thus the complementing of the 
international penal code of the Nurnberg Decisions by the World 
Government of World Citizens removes the fundamental cause of 
war, i.e. the absolute sovereignty of nation-states.  Only by so doing 
can nations disarm in security and world peace eventually ensue as 
trust and cooperation become reinforced by just world law.

In his Report, the U.N. Secretary-General overtly sanctions the 
extension of individual sovereignty-- as already codified by the 
Nurnberg Decisions-- beyond one's national allegiance.  In discussing 
the administration of the U.N.*, he maintains that the Charter "...is 
very clear on the exclusive international loyalty of the Secretariat...."+

Moreover, every Member-State is obligated "to respect the 
exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the 
Secretary-General and the staff...."*

The primary political allegiance then of Dr. Kurt Waldheim and 
every member of his staff is to an organization-- not a government 
to which an individual can affiliate civically-- which he admits 
publicly as the highest civil servant of that organization is 
constitutionally powerless to sanction and protect fundamental 
human rights, the first of which is the right to live.  This paradoxical 
political allegiance is duly sanctioned by the U.N. Charter, the binding 
international instrument of all Member-States.  It follows that the 
sovereign right of all humans to identify themselves politically as 
world citizens allied to its governmental counterpart by a simple 
pledge is likewise condoned implicitly by the United Nations Charter.  
RIGHTS, sanctions the right of the individual to choose his/her 
government, but the U.N. Charter itself as well as the 
*Section X, Para. 2
+Article 100(1):  "In the performance of their duties, the Secretary 
General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any 
government or from any authority external to the Organization."
*Article 100(2), U.N. Charter
P. 122

ON HUMAN RIGHTS+ recognize the right of self-determination of 
peoples and that the States Parties to these Covenants "shall promote 
the realization of the right of self-determination and shall respect 
that right in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the 
United Nations."

Furthermore, the United Nations by definition and by Article 20(1), 
U.D.H.R., recognizes the right of association.  Notwithstanding the first 
three words of its Charter:  "We, the People...", it does not however 
admit membership by individuals.  It cannot therefore disapprove 
the founding by individuals unrepresented democratically by its 
mandate of a governmental institution to which they can associate as 
sovereign citizens thereby fulfilling their determination "to save 
succeeding generations from the scourge of war...reaffirm faith in 
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human 
person, etc...."*

Again, the Secretary-General condones this position in his remarks 
concerning the helplessness of the Commission on Human Rights+ 
when he writes, "...in the present circumstances of international 
affairs, I feel that my actions must be governed by one overriding 
criterion,. namely, what approach will best serve the welfare of the 
individual concerned."**

This humane "approach" is clearly and unequivocally spelled out in 
itself:  "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have 
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, 
that human rights should be protected by a regime of law...."  And 
Art. 28 confirms the character of this "regime of
+ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for 
signature on 19 December 1966, entered into force for the following 
States on 23 March 1976:  Barbados, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, 
Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, 
Ecuador, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of 
Germany, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, 
Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Norway, Romania, Rwanda, Surinam, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, 
Tunisia, Ukranian SSR, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United Republic of 
Tanzania, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Spain, Panama, Poland.
**Part I, art. 1(3)
*Preamble, U.N. Charter
+General Assembly Resolution 728 (XXVIII):  "The Economic and 
Social Council approves the statement that the Commission on Human 
Rights recognizes that it has no power to take any action in regard to 
any complaints concerning human rights."
**Section V, Para. 6, 1977 Annual Report

P. 123

law":  "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in 
which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be 
fully realized."

The oppressed individual must therefore avail himself of the most 
effective "approach" to secure protection of his fundamental rights 
and freedoms "in the context of world order."

genuine political genesis of that world order which already has 
myriad other manifestations far advanced such as communications, 
technology, commerce, medicine, travel, etc., and represented in 
some measure by the specialized agencies.

The Secretary-General defined in his 1977 Report our very World 
Citizen allegiance:  "The United Nations is also...the symbol of a higher 
and more ambitious political and social aim, the evolution of an 
international community with interests, aspiration and loyalties of a 
far more wide-ranging kind."*  (Emphasis added.)  He concedes that 
the U.N. "is in search of its identity and its true role..." which again is 
to say that it has not found either yet, and that "...It tends to react 
rather than to foresee, to deal with effects of a crisis rather than 
anticipate and forestall that crisis."  As a result, he adds, "its 
problems sometimes seem insurmountable and its frustrations 

The United Nations therefore, as presently constituted, based on 
exclusive national sovereignty, represents world disorder or, to put 
it boldly, international anarchy.  It is thus per se an institution of 
discord and conflict.  Its Secretary-General however tells us that "We 
are, I believe, beginning to see the birth of such a community 

We World Citizens allied wilfully to World Government are in 
common accord with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 
this point.  But we would go further.  Neither the world community 
nor humankind are abstractions.  Both are dynamic facts of the 20th
*Section I, Para. II, 1977 Annual Report
+Section X, para. 6,      "          "         "     .   His predecessor, U Thant, 
in discussing the obligations of the S.G. stated:  "The Secretary-
General operates under the Charter in a world of independent 
sovereign states, where national interests remain dominant despite 
ideological, technological and scientific changes, and despite the 
obvious dangers of unbridled nationalism....  The truth is of course, 
that the United Nations, and the S.G., have none of the attributes of 
sovereignty, and no independent power...."
**Section I, para. II, 1977 Annual Report

P. 124

century, of the Space Age.  And to imagine that humankind and the 
world community can endure in an 18th century political system of 
separate, exclusive nation-states armed with nuclear weapons is not 
only utopic but suicidal.

In the light of the total crisis facing our human race, the exercise of 
individual world sovereignty becomes not only legitimate by virtue 
of the highest conceptual values taught by humanity's sages from 
time immemorial, by the total interdependence of each and all to a 
common eco-system as well as to common social needs, and by the 
entire plethora of "international instruments" aforementioned 
mandating and sanctioning the new planetary role of the individual, 
but it is the very price of human survival.

No less than Dr. Waldheim himself on 20 May 1974 admonished us to 
accept individual responsibility for world affairs with these words:

	"The choice is in our hands.  No nation and no individual can be 
a bystander at this critical moment in the history of the world.  
There are occasions when the magnitude and complexity of the tasks 
we face make a sensitive and responsible individual feel dispirited 
and helpless.  But as the record of the last 30 years shows us, there is 
nothing beyond our capacity if we act collectively.  That is why it is 
so important that every one of you recognize your responsibility not 
only as a citizen of your own country, but as a citizen of the world-- 
and above all, an active one."

We, the WORLD CITIZENS of WORLD GOVERNMENT, have approved 
and acted upon the United Nations' Secretary-General's endorsement 
of that willful and legitimate civic role.

P. 125

Quote of the day