WORLD CITIZEN UPDATE

2007 New Year's Message
Sovereign Humanity Is In Mortal Danger!
from Garry Davis

"We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices... (t)he failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth." --Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

On January 18, 2007, the "Doomsday Clock" of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was reset from 7 minutes to 5 minutes from the fatal hour of midnight: humanity's untimely extinction.

Eight heads of state possess nuclear weaponry as an alleged "defensive deterrent" in a politically anarchic world.

Einstein in 1945 warned us that the nuclear device is not a war weapon because, unlike a missile or bullet, its destructive power is "indiscriminate." In short, it is a killer of society itself, the very physical and temporal environment of human life. Only a world government, he concluded, could outlaw it and save humanity. Einstein also reminded us that "Imagination is more important than intelligence."

On November 22, 1948, 3 years after the end of WWII, we World Citizens interrupted a United Nations' General Assembly session in Paris "in the name of the people not represented here." We told the delegates "the sovereign states you represent divide us and lead us to the abyss of total war." And that "our common need for world law and order can no longer be disregarded." If the UN failed us in this critical task, we said, "Stand aside, for a People's World Assembly, will arise from our own ranks to create such a government."

History is replete with the concept of a governed world and world citizenship. But today we live in the first age when humanity itself is threatened.

What do we mean by "humanity"? Is it a conscious being? Can it think? Does it feel?

Would you or I die for it as national soldiers willingly die for their "nation" and as national presidents and supreme court judges pledge to defend their national constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?

Can humanity, by itself, appeal to its constituent parts. . .us, as individuals, for its survival?

Or must each one of us, conscious of our dynamic relationship to it, speak AND act for humanity in our waking life? Finally are not we as individuals expendable whereas humanity obviously is not?

So the ultimate question comes down to: Is humanity our "collective human consciousness?"

Indeed, if consciousness is already global, then simply being human is to be global from birth. An actual "citizen of the world."

Humanity then must be a conscious global "government"! The so-called "brains" of Gaia, the living Earth to which we, as humans, already owe our primal allegiance.

Indeed Einstein's very last words were: "We appeal as human beings to human beings; Remember your humanity, and forget the rest."

Horace Mann, the great educator asked: "What have you done for humanity today?"

Abolitionist Charles Sumner stated that "The age of chivalry has gone; the age of humanity has come."

Transcendentalist Theodore Parker went further: "Humanity is the Son of God."

While Teilhard de Chardin wrote that "The 'noosphere,' was "a global net of self-awareness, instantaneous feedback, and planetary communication..."

And Nataraja Guru, in his epic Memorandum on World Government claimed : "Humanity is one."

That's the mental quantum leap and activist command for 2007! That in fact--and this is the crucial point--humanity is already a biological and conceptual "World Government."

Primal human allegiance to a conscious humanity then is the absolute wisdom criterion for human survival. Not "democracy" or "success" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, the "Middle East" or whatever aggression and militarism by any nation-state anywhere on the planet.

But "Success" by, for and of the people of the world for whom planet Earth is home.

Faithful to our 1948 pledge to the UN General Assembly, and the world's people, as citizenship and government are corollaries, --Emery Reves claimed in 1945: "There is no first step to world government; world government is the first step."(1) --we World Citizens declared our global government in 1953 which has been operating for over half a century. The World Government of World Citizens then is the institutional down-to-earth verification of humanity's "world government."(2)

"Because we can be served by nothing less."(3)

(1) Anatomy of Peace, Harper & Brothers, 1945

(2) Its 4th Edition World Passport is now available with information on a CD-Rom disc distributed to all Member-States of the United Nations (See the Catalogue at www.worldservice.org/cat.html.)

(3) The Oran Declaration (See My Country Is the World, www.worldservice.org/cat.html)

Note: The World Coordinator has addressed a complete documentation on the World Government of World Citizens to the following heads of state:

1. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, Iraq 12/5/06

2. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israel 12/5/06 Acknowledged

3. President George W. Bush, USA 12/5/06

4. President Hu Jintao, China 12/4/06 Acknowledged

5. President Jacques Chirac, France 12/4/06 Acknowledged

6. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran 12/4/06

7. King Abdullah II, Jordan 12/5/06

8. President Emile Lahoud, Lebanon 12/5/06 Acknowledged

9. President Vladimir Putin, Russia 12/5/06

10. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia 12/5/06

11. President Bashar al-Assad, Syria 12/4/06

12. Queen Elizabeth II, United Kingdom 12/4/06

13. President Hosni Mubarrak, Egypt 12/5/06

14. President Roh Moo-hyun, South Korea 12/4/06 Acknowledged

The rest will follow.

Archive of Recent UPDATES:

Injunction against Nuclear Weapons Heads of State

Letter to Heads of State and Press Release

May 1, 2006

To Presidents and Prime Ministers

George W. Bush, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Ehud Olmert, Pervez Musharraf, Abdul Kalam, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il

Conscious of my rights and responsibilities as a member of the total world community, I cannot standby while governments pursue a policy of nuclear attack regardless of the seeming justifications they may devise. Such an attack is not only criminal under international law, but morally and biologically indefensible. Nuclear Weapons are weapons of mass destruction. They are indiscriminately destructive and they poison our atmosphere, causing deaths around the world for many thousands of years. They threaten the very existence of humanity. Prevention of such an attack and eliminating the threat and capability to launch nuclear war is therefore a necessary requirement for the safety and wellbeing of the human community, as well as for its environment on planet Earth. Due to your publicly-declared nuclear policies which threaten humanity, the undersigned, as a stateless World Citizen and as a representative of a global constituency of sovereign citizens, will seek your indictment as individuals for the following crimes under the statutes of the International Criminal Court at The Hague:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

The indictment's Table of Authorities will include, inter alia:

- the St. Petersburg Declaration, 1868;

- the Hague Convention, 1899;

- the IVth Hague Convention, 1907;

- the Aristide Briand Pact, 1909;

- the Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928;

- the Nuremberg Principles, 1945;

- the United Nations Charter, 1945;

- the Tokyo Charter, 1947;

- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948;

- the World Health Organization Constitution, 1948;

- the Covention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948;

- the Geneva Convention, 1949;

- UN Resolution 16653 (XV), Nov. 24, 1961;

- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966;

- the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966;

- UN Resolution 33/71, Dec. 12, 1980;

- the Rights of the Child Convention; 1989

Included in the injunction will be a mandamus for total disarmament of all nuclear weaponry and facilities as well as damages which would be assigned to social needs of the human community along with protection of the global environment. Article 27 of the Statue of the ICC – "Irrelevance of official capacity" - codifies the legal fact, which has been part of the body of international law since 1950, that "...as a Head of State or Government. . .a member of a Government or parliament. . .shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute. . ." In short, you enjoy no personal "immunity" from international legal indictment as individual heads of state.

The Preamble and Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights furthermore mandate that global law and its institutions outlaw war itself throughout the world. Such evolution in the application of law is essential for the safety and well-being of the human community as well as its environment on planet Earth.

Yours sincerely,

Garry Davis

Enclosures:

Writ of Certiorari: SC-81-428 Brief filed March 15, 1985; ICJ: Davis v. Reagan and Gorbachev Dissenting Opinion; W.H.O. (ICJ), 1994: Associate Justice C.G. Weeranamtry

Cc: Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, United Nations; World Judicial Commission, WGWC; Heads of State; World citizenry

PRESS RELEASE

World Citizen Garry Davis to file injunction suit citing 9 nuclear heads of state as "war criminals" in International Criminal Court

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Former B-17 bomber pilot and founder of the World Government of World Citizens, stateless World Citizen Garry Davis (84) will personally file in the International Criminal Court in The Hague an injunction against Presidents and Prime Ministers George W. Bush, Vladimir V. Putin, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Ehud Olmert, Pervez Musharraf, Abdul Kalam, Hu Jintao and Kim Jong Il for their overt nuclear policies which he claims criminally threaten humankind.

In a letter dated May 1 to the nine national leaders, Davis claimed that "In view of the 'indiscriminate destructive' capacity of nuclear weaponry as well as the generational effects which will continue to kill over time, we humans, conscious of our rights and responsibilities as members of the total world community, cannot allow a policy of nuclear attack by whatever seeming justification of states. Such an attack is not only criminal in terms of international law, but morally and biologically indefensible. Prevention of such an attack, therefore, is imperative." He noted that the Nuremberg Principles "in legal fact, since 1950 part of the body of international law, thereby nullify your personal 'immunity' from international legal indictment as individual heads of state. . ." and that "the outlawing and total elimination of all nuclear arsenals are implicit for the safety and well-being of the human community as well as its environment on planet Earth."

In his letter, he listed the Table of Authorities his brief will utilize to buttress the indictment: - St. Petersburg Declaration, 1868; - the Hague Convention, 1899; - the IVth Hague Convention, 1907; - the Aristide Briand Pact, 1909; - the Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928; - the Nuremberg Principles, 1945; - the United Nations Charter, 1945; - the Tokyo Charter, 1947; - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; - the World Health Organization Constitution, 1948; - the Covention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948; - the Geneva Convention, 1949; - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; - the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; - the Rights of the Child Convention, 1989.

A team of international lawyers headed by Dr. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University Law School, and Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights are assisting in preparing the brief.

Davis is not new to this legal process. As a stateless person, on August 28 1981, he submitted a writ of certiorari* to the U.S. Supreme Court which presented the case for world citizenship via the 9th and 10th amendments of the US constitution. When denied by the high court, he filed a Petitition for Rehearing in October, 1981 which claimed that the 9th amendment provided the only "legal remedy" for the citizenry to countervale the discretionary powers of the US president when acting as Commander-in-chief.** This too was denied.

His next attempt at building a case against war and for world citizenship was on March 15, 1985 filed with the International Court of Justice in which he cited Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev as "war criminals"*** under the Nuremberg Principles. He was denied "standing" at this UN-mandated court.

The International Criminal Court, founded in 2002 by the Rome Statute, adopted July 17 1998 and ratified by the 60th state on 11 April 2002, opened its legal doors on 1 July 2002 at The Hague. Its Statute granted the court authority to try national citizens for "crimes aganst humanity," "war crimes," and "crimes against peace" defined by the Nuremberg Principles of 1945. As of March 2005 98 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute.

Neither the United States nor Israel have ratified the ICC's Statute. However, Art. 17 denies admissability of a case if "(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."

Support against the nuclear policies of the nine states is worldwide and growing as threats against Iran by the Bush Administration for its avowed nuclear policy have become daily headlines. The world of physicists and scientists in general has grown exponentially in recent years in particular following George W. Bush's Nuclear Posture Review policy of pre-emptive and first-strike nuclear attack against so-called "rogue" states. Over 300 physicists, including 9 Nobel Prize Laureates (appended) have signed petitions condemning the nuclear policies of whatever state. (See letters attached to Senator Dianne Feinstein and George W. Bush signed by 10 members of the US Senate. )

*See www.worldservice.org/petition.html;

**See www.worldservice.org/scpetitn.html;

*** See www.worldservice.org/intcourt.html

Who Represents World Citizens?
2006 Message to World Citizens from World Coordinator

In politics, the nation-state insidiously controls not only the dialogue but also the electoral process.

Note for instance the platforms of the recent United States candidates for president. Neither advocated a world constitution to outlaw war. Quite the contrary, both John Kerry and George W. Bush were for an increased military budget and the updated version of Reagan's "Star Wars," while the Pentagon continually strives to "master" space above all our heads.

Neither candidate endorsed a government beyond the nation to deal with environmental devastation despite the overwhelming dangers the human race itself faces due to global warming, ocean pollution, ozone layer depletion, rain forests burning and species, both plant and animal extermination. It is as if both they and the U.S. voters lived on another planet. But worse, the general public's loyalty to this national political illusion blinds it to the solution of humanity's ills taken together, i.e. world law based on human rights. Small wonder that less than 50% of the U.S. public votes in presidential elections.

The primal question national voters should ask: Can Bush, Blair, Chirac, Barmak, Putin, Khatami, Mubarak, Kirchner, de Silva, Lagos, Chen Shui-bian, Schuessel, Verhofstadt, Paccheco, Klaus, Rasmussen, Gonzales, Koehler, Papoulias, Kalam, Katzav, Talabani, Yudhoyono, Ciampl, McAleese, Koizumi, Abdallah II, Sirajuddin, Al-Qadhafi, Fox, Clark, Balkenende, Obasanjo, Stoltenberg, Musharraf, Macapagal-Arroyo, Kaczynski, Sampaio, Abdallah Al Saud, Mbeki, Juan Carlos, Gustaf, Leuenberger, Bashar al-Asad, Sezer, Khalifa, Chavez, Mauh, Wanawasa, et al, address much less resolve world problems-- your problems --as heads of state? In short, are we humans politically represented on the level where our own and humanity's problems reside?

The question answers itself.

Moreover all national leaders, while sanctimoniously maintaining their own mandate as executors of exclusive law, confess their impotence on the global level. The contradiction is blatant and transparent.

As Heads of State they are only constitutionally sanctioned to preserve the existence of their particular fictional states and not the state of the world in which they and their co-citizens live in reality.

Then why do we, the innocent victims of state domination, continually look to them in their never-ending meetings for solution? Are we not sheep being led to the slaughter all the while wondering who to elect as the next "butcher?"

What is lacking here?

In every other field but politics, individuals operate globally: the post-office, telephone and television being prime examples. Today, the Internet is coming along as a fast fourth.

The world's so-called peace movement lacks global political representation!

Why are "peace" groups all talking only to themselves? What are the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates doing about eliminating war-making...about creating the legal conditions of peace? And the former nuclear scientists? And the former generals and admirals and Peace Corps workers? And the philosophers, poets, gurus, and sages?

How is it that the arms race continues unabated while people starve? How is it that we can communicate with one another instantaneously worldwide and cannot travel without the absurdity of national passports and visas? How is it that all national leaders talk, talk, talk about human rights and yet they are violated by EVERY nation EVERY second?

In short, why are most world citizens not playing hardball politics?

Let's face it, no national parliamentarian, congressperson or state head can represent us, the people of the world.

Why not?

Because millions of us already identify ourselves as World Citizens as an inalienable right.

Well-intentioned peaceniks write and talk of "nations" being unwilling to "relinquish" their national sovereignty. But nations do not have sovereignty. Ultimately, it is you and I -- now reborn into world citizenship -- who have civil sovereignty. This is the axiom of civil democracy. Nations cannot "relinquish sovereignty" because it is not theirs to begin with: sovereignty belongs to the people. Indeed, with amazing insouciance, most national constitutions already declare this obvious truth as its very sanction.

With this axiom in mind, it is necessary also to look at this word "relinquish." If sovereignty already resides in the people, there can be no such thing as "relinquishing" it. It is inherent in us by the very fact of being human. The whole connotation of the words "relinquish" or "cede" is negative and totally unsuited for expressing the immensely creative and historic steps which the people of the earth must now take -- and you have already started to take -- in the direction of evolving a planetary government.

Those steps are 1) declaring your world citizenship publicly; 2) identifying that declaration with documentation; and 3) exercising the franchise of representation on the global level.

For years, the ogre of all the world government "movements" has been the "red herring" of "relinquishing" our rights, "ceding our claims," "renouncing our sovereignty," all of which makes the would-be follower immediately fearful that he or she will be losing something of valuable self-interest. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The people of the earth would lose nothing of real self-interest by a civil world government. Quite the contrary, they would gain enormous freedom from needless suffering and taxation. Indeed, the nation-state has already renounced the citizen when the head of state wears his/her constitutionally-mandated Commander-in-Chief hat in time of war (which has today become quasi-permanent).

The only persons who would lose their usurped rights would be precisely those national leaders whom we are asked to believe in as the initiating-source of world government. Their right to destroy the earth over petty conflicts, for instance, would definitely be taken away from them. And along with that, the need for spies, diplomats, consular personnel, frontier guards not to mention the soldiers, sailors, and marines dedicated to killing each other as well as innocent civilians, and indeed, the army of money changers and profiteers therefrom.

Naive? Yes indeed. But what a boon for humanity!

The phrase we should use instead is "delegate sovereignty." People, as declared World Citizens, can then delegate their decision-making functions, their functional sovereignty, to others -- declared world legislative candidates -- to perform and exercise the immense benefits and services of a democratic world government.

Up to this point in history -- starting in recent centuries -- people have seen fit to delegate their sovereignty only to the level of national governments. But now, it is necessary that the people not "relinquish" their sovereignty, but reassert and extend it to the level of functional human unity as a legal and political institution.

Happily, the communicative tools now exist to perform this vital function.

World government, then, need not occur only when nations begin to "relinquish" their "national sovereignty." It begins when citizens wake up to the fact that they are by every right world citizens, that they have not only the right but the imperative to set up their own political machinery on the world level, and when they then take that step can actually begin to prosper and benefit from a world government into action.

We must be clear therefore that the formation of world government need not in any way depend on the actions or "recognition" of national governments. (See Memorandum on World Government by Nataraja Guru in "Document" section).

In essence, we must stop being a slave to the mentality of nationalism and the word "nation." We must stop falling into the mind-set that affirms old world order relationships even as it seeks to transcend them. Who then represents us, the sovereign world citizens?

The question is as self-evident as the answer. We, the human beings concerned, are not represented in our entirety, as members of the human race, because we have not yet democratically chosen our own world citizen representatives! And why is that?

BECAUSE NO WORLD CITIZEN CANDIDATES HAVE YET DECLARED THEMSELVES PUBLICLY AVAILABLE!

Governments start by individuals claiming de facto citizenship. Ref., the United States of America. That is precisely what my candidacy for World President, declared in 1983, is all about. The office of World President of our government would be largely ceremonial and symbolic. (George Washington was an "amateur" president being the first!) Once established, with follow-up subsidiary instruments: a world parliament, world judiciary, world executive, etc., it follows that positive law has been finally allied with the perennial truths of unity and universality taught by humanity's sages from time immemorial. In other words, a vote for World President is not only a vote for a person, not even a vote only for a political office, but a vote for a set of truths or conceptual values such as justice, freedom, benevolence, cooperation, and the gamut of social and economic rights as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (See http://www.garrydavis.org for a World Ballot).

The specific mandate for global government as well as global elections is already provided for by Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"The will of the people shall be the base of the authority of government; 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 free voting procedures."

This is a global sanction and mandate for declared and registered World Citizens to elect declared and registered fellow World Citizens.

It may come as very exciting -- or perhaps quixotic --news to the world public that such a government, though embryonic, will be 53 years old as of September 4, 2006. (See The Ellsworth Declaration in the "Document" section).

A number of world identity documents, including so far a World Citizen Card, a World Birth Certificate, and a World Passport (upgraded in January to ICAO* standards) issued by the government via its executive agency, the World Service Authority, are already recognized by many nations.**

Taking its initial lead from such documents as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol to the latter Covenant, and other basic doctrines of international law, and having adopted the neutral international language Esperanto as its future official language, this legitimate government bids well to represent the most significant civil world democratic initiative of this new century.

The missing link to complete the instrumentation of world representation will soon become available: an Internet site, sponsored by the World Service Authority.

Declared candidates for world public office will be able to signify their availability to the world citizen constituency: http://www.worldcandidates.org (under construction) mandated by the aforementioned human rights article.

The site will not only provide a place for candidates to expose their program, experience, educational qualifications, etc., but also the actual ballots for both World President and World Parliamentarian can be downloaded. A link to the World Government site will access on-line individual registration, the fee paid by a recognized credit card.

The Internet is already being utilized for local and national electoral processes, three U.S. states permitting registration of citizens directly on their state websites. Every nation and every candidate for national political office must have a website in these days of electronic politicking. Indeed, this World Government site included from the outset (1995) the World Referendum, its five questions dealing with global subjects never asked by national pollsters.

Numerous world constitutions written since 1945 will be reproduced on the above-mentioned site along with references to fundamental human rights in both national constitutions and international covenants. A section on historical references to world citizenship and a world state will lend substance and credibility to the concept throughout humankind's evolution to a peaceful world. A library of excerpts from rare books dealing with the subject of world law will be accessible. An index of individual advocates throughout history to the present will complete the site.

If this millennium has any historical mission, it is evidently both to protect the planetary environment and to eliminate the scourge of war from the human community. Otherwise, as Einstein and James Lovelock have warned us, war or Mother Earth or both will eliminate us humans in toto.

*International Civil Aviation Organization standards for Machine-Readable Travel Documents
**http://www.worldservice.org/visas.html

World Citizen Garry Davis Launches New Ebook: World Peace Starts With You!

If you want world peace, says 84-year-old peace activist Garry Davis, it starts with your claim to world citizenship first and foremost. "We, the people, are the ultimate source of sovereignty," he writes in the opening email to his vast internet list. The nation-state leaders, he claims, "are on the wrong level."

His latest book,* World Peace Starts With You! can be downloaded for $9.95 at http://www.worldpeaceisyou.com.

The 34-page book makes the case for personal world peacemaking with graphic explanations of world law--biological and conceptual--, a modern history of how world citizenship evolved, why human rights and world territory are corollaries, the new global concept of political asylum, the documentary proof of being a human, why world government is neither domination nor illusory but eminently serviceable and already in practical use through its issuance of documentary evidence--based on fundamental human rights--such as the World Passport, World Birth Certificate, World Citizen Card, World Political Asylum Card, World Marriage Certificate and World ID Card.

"Whole libraries are filled with books about world peace," says the former B-17 bomber pilot, "but none relate this problem directly to the individual's initiative or action. Yet the opposite of world peace is obviously world war which concerns every person on the planet. So shouldn't we, the world's people, have the choice between the two?"

Davis founded the World Government of World Citizens in 1953 following the registration in 1949 of over 750,000 individuals in over 50 countries as "citizens of the world" in the International Registry of World Citizens in Paris. "This claim was the exercise of personal sovereignty," he maintained, "from which all governments derive."

The mandate for the claim of global citizenship, he adds, was provided by article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government..."

World Peace Starts With You! is a "How to..." book which includes application forms for world citizenship avowal and registration with the World Service Authority(R), the service organization or "global city hall" of the new government. Also included are forms for applying for the World Passport (based on Article 13, UDHR) which has been upgraded to conform to modern norms of identity documents, world birth certificates, world political asylum certificates, world marriage certificates and world (picture) IDs.

Testimonials and quotes from past and present notables about world government, humanity and world peace including Einstein, Tom Paine, Stafford Beer, Horace Mann and E.B.White, etc. complete the timely contents.

For a download sale, Davis includes a free bonus of his 1988 US presidential candidate speech at Middlebury College, VT in which he presents his global political platform. Present-day politicians as well as national voters would be well-advised to check it out given the potential of a global holocaust using nuclear weaponry.

A final section outlines the programs and activities of the World Service Authority, headquartered in Washington, DC.

An "Affiliate" program for the resale of the book is included for those readers who wish to pass it along to their friends. The internet banking facility, Clickbank, provides a free membership to service this profitable program.

*See www.worldgovernmenthouse.com or www.worldservice.org/cat.html for a complete list of books

A World Citizen Looks at Iraq Today

I am writing the day before the "deadline" for the announcement of the new Iraqi constitution. How does a world citizen interpret this event? First, the writing of a national constitution in a century of instantaneous world communication plus the possibility of nuclear destruction of humanity seems an exercise in futility.

The obvious question supposes: Is a national constitution given the absence of a world constitution endorsed by the sovereign people of the world for peace IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY relevant at all? Put another way, is a national constitution spelling out the modes of order for a particular people relevant to that people's biological and conceptual unity with humanity without at the same time acknowledging that overarching unity?

I have not seen the Preamble to the proposed Iraqi constitution. Does it mention the sovereignty of the people of Iraq itself as the sanction for such an enterprise? Does it recognize the need for and reality of de facto world law as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? (Ref. Article 21[3]: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." And Article 28: "Everyone is entitled to a social and internationa order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declarartion can be fully realized").

The news today in the New York Times is principally on the US troops fighting an "insurgency" in Iraq, whether there should be a "timeline" for withdrawal or as a top general, Peter Shoomaker claims in the same story, that the army is prepared for the "worst case" scenario, that the "required level of (US) troops in Iraq would last until 2009."

No commentary on this subject has put the Iraqi war in the context of a global community in which humanity is a viable and dynamic species poised on the brink of a nuclear holocaust amidst other environmental problems led by global warming and radio-active pollution due to nuclear waste.

The myopic view expressed by opponents of a "deadline" for a pullout or an extended occupation of Iraq by US troops is exposed by the argument that a "vacuum" would be generated by a pullout leading to a civil war among the various contending religious and political forces inside Iraq.

Let us suppose, however, that a new force representing world law would replace the military troops. Such a force has already been created. It is called the Sovereign Order of World Guards. Its recruitment began in 1956. But its history is ancient beginning ages ago with the women of Greece and told by the story of Lysistrata. Peace "armies" of concerned individuals abound throughout history. Today, in Sri Lanka a "peace army," under extremely limiting conditions, has been instrumental in maintaining a quasi-peace between the Tamils of the North and the rest of that country. Civilian peace groups even gathered in Iraq prior to the US invasion in 2001.

The SOWG, unarmed and willing as are the US troops as well as the suicide bombers to consider themselves dispensable in the name, not of a nation-state or a religious fanaticism, but of sovereign humanity itself, would constitute a moral and rational counterbalance to the now-opposing local forces. Representing the wellbeing of all the Iraqi people dynamically allied with their brothers and sister humans throughout the world would instantly change the character of the internal struggle for superiority. Killing an unarmed Sovereign World Guard would constitute not only an act of moral deprecation but be useless in terms of advancing a relative politics on the ground, as it were.

As for instituting "democracy" IN Iraq, minus a recognition of the essential oneness of the human family NOW, that goal is utopic and irrational.

The "cradle of civilization" which identifies the land between the Euphraties and Tigres rivers from which historically present-day humanity derives, must claim its age-old heritage by recognizing and enshrining in the forthcoming constitution its partnership with the world as such. Otherwise, it cannot but be relegated to that dustbin of history.

Garry Davis

What is your most important question concerning world peace?

World Service Authority(R) 1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 205 Washington, DC. 20005

FOR GENERAL RELEASE May 19, 2005 Contact David Gallup 202-638-2662

World Citizen Garry Davis Launches Teleseminar Web Site To Promote World Government

www.askgarrydavis.org seeks questions from Internet public on subject: "World Peace Starts With You"

WASHINGTON, DC At 9 pm (est) May 25th, 2005 callers from around the world can call 866-414-2828, enter code no. 641848 and listen to World Citizen Garry Davis speak on the theme: "World Peace Starts With You."

Davis, a World War II veteren, with over half a century's experience in individualist peacemaking, an array of books on the subject* and founder of a government of World Citizens**, stated from his South Burlington, Vermont office, "World peacemakers must utilize the latest marketing techniques to reach the world public where the real solution to human problems is to be found in, by, and for the individual human."

Emails have already been sent to individuals in numerous databases including those of voters in the World Referendum posted on the World Government Web site, www.worldservice.org. asking: "What is your most important question concerning the subject of world peace?" Davis promises to answer the questions, time permitting, on the upcoming teleseminar, a first of many.

The teleseminar marketing system is being used extensively by authors, lecturers, merchants of all categories, to promote and sell books, products and self-help income-producing techniques to anyone with a telephone and an email. Given the ubiquitous nature of cyberspace, and the quasi-universal use of the telephone worldwide, promoters of every kind have eagerly adopted the new technique reaping virtually instant awards from the waiting public.

Web sites already abound on the subject of world citizenship and world government. Davis' numerous radio and TV appearance as well as his talks on the university circuits (see bio) bespeak his credibility and experience in this critical domain heretofore lacking a voice in this growing medium.

The opening email minces no words of the former B-17 bomber pilot's basic premise: "You must raise your political sights if you want a peaceful world," he claims. "It is our world. It is our lives at stake. The nation-state system is dysfunctional. War itself is the major symptom. And exclusive national citizenship perpetuates war, a collective suicide pact. Human rights, by definition, are global."

Davis maintains that the very nature of teleseminars wherein 100, 500, or 1000 individuals wherever they are in the world can "unite" in time and space permits an instant "world peace action" by the callers claiming to be world citizens then and there and that by so doing they are "making world peace" between themselves.

The www.askgarrydavis.org site also informs the caller that Davis will attend the Book Expo America on June 3-5 in New York at the BookSurge Booth where he will sign his latest book, Letters to World Citizens, at 11-11:30 Sunday, June 5th.

*www.worldgovernmenthouse.com

**www.worldservice.org

Letter to Prospective US State Department Public Diplomacy Officer

March 19, 2005

Ambassador-designate Karen Hughes
Department of State
Washington, DC

Dear Karen Hughes,

We listened with great attention to your acceptance speech, televised on CNN, to head the "Public Diplomacy" office of the United States State Department.

We were especially pleased to hear that "The United States has much to learn about being better global citizens." and that "we have much to learn about becoming better citizens of the world." We were immediately reminded of the first secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson?s words written in 1790 that "Every man possesses the right of self-government--Individuals exercise it by their single will." Tom Paine, whose political philosophy was summated by "my country is the world, all men are my brothers and my religion is to do good," would have been rightfully proud of your statements.

The geopolitical corollary of world citizenship is, of course, world government the lack of which assigns "citizenship" to mere verbiage or at worst, obfuscation. Nonetheless, we, who have already claimed our right to world citizenship and therefore world government, are encouraged by your statement that, in your new appointment, you will "look forward to working with my fellow citizens to share our country's good heart and our idealism and our values with the world."

As Secretary Rice prefaced in her introduction to your candidacy, "Karen Hughes is uniquely qualified for nurturing America's dialogue with the world and advancing universal values." Responding to the Secretary?s compliment, you confirmed that "Too few know of the values we place on international institutions and the rule of law." That core value, the rule of law of, by and for the people, implied by the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" of the 9th Amendment, is, of course, the sine qua non of a peaceful world.

Moreover, should you be confirmed, as all government officials, you will, of course, be obliged to take the formal oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution derived originally from the sovereign people as noted in the opening three words. While swearing to defend it "against all enemies foreign and domestic" so help you God, you will, however, not be constrained nor prohibited by it to add world citizenship as a complement to your lesser citizenships from the municipal to the national.

That which is not prohibited by law is of course tacitly condoned. Indeed the very constitutional principle implies its extension to the anarchic global level in order that the rule of law protects freedom for one and all. As the Founders wisely and uniformly agreed, the 10th amendment itself sanctions and enshrines the principle of dual or concentric citizenship thereby eliminating the anarchic condition between the several states yet preserving each citizen's state allegiance within the fledgling American community.

We add that freedom, without the sanction and framework of law as the Founders constitutionally provided, is the breeding ground of fear, division, distrust and eventually, war. United States' history, unfortunately, is a testament to that perennial truth.

In our modern times when global problems abound, when communication is quasi instantaneous, and war itself, since 1914, has gone global with nuclear instruments threatening humanity itself, the 1948 human rights declaration of the United Nations provides in article 15(2) the sovereign right of the individual to exercise his or her political choice while article 21(3) confirms unequivocally that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

Your proposed noble mission then, Ambassador-designate Karen Hughes, as you yourself aver and as we World Citizens interpret it, is to "advance not only the cause of greater peace and security but also the cause of greater opportunity and a better life for all the world's people."

Know that, as fellow citizens of the world, you have our full support and appreciation in the firm conviction that humanity itself will be beneficially served by your forthcoming vital human trust.

Please accept, Ms. Hughes, the expression of our most respectful and highest regards.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed)

Garry Davis
World Coordinator

Cc: George W. Bush, President, United States
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Members of Congress
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, United Nations
Heads of State
Coordinators, Commssions of World Government

Enclosures

Sovereignty & the Iraqi People

The Iraqi people did not "lose" their sovereignty because of the US attack and occupation. Saddam Hussein, as dictator, had prevented their exercise of it long before the US invasion.. The United States government, therefore, did not "gain" sovereignty over the Iraqi people by invading Iraq. One nation invading another for whatever reason does not "gain" sovereignty over that nation's people by default.

The United States government, therefore, cannot "turn over sovereignty" to the Iraqi people on June 30th. It never possessed it.

Sovereignty derives from the people, not an occupying state power nor an oppressive regime. The U.S. Constitution, ironically, enshrines and confirms that inalienable principle in its opening words: "We, the people? " Once composed, the founders had to take the document to the sovereign people for ratification.

In short, governments come from people, not vice versa.

The Bush administration is merely the executive branch of a national government. Therefore it possesses no sovereignthy to "turn over" or "relinquish." Indeed, the United States citizenry despite the congressional vote of October 11, 2002.had no direct role in the Bush's administration decision to go to war with Iraq in the first place. Polls revealed that upwards of 70% of the public were opposed. Moreover, in that Bush's mandate as President is, as well, contraversial with only 24% of the electorate having turned out to vote in the 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court finally assuring his presidency by its 5-4 vote to halt the recounting of the Florida electoral ballots, his claim to represent Iraqi's "sovereignty" is at best a blatant subterfuge and at worst an inexcusable confession of ignorance of its meaning.

Thus the June 30th alleged "turnover" of sovereignty by the Bush administration is a fraud and a tacit admission of its guilt in starting the war in the first place. Moreover, in its awkward attempt to smooth over its incredibly inept foreign adventure, it now spins the "deadline" by assuring both the Iraqi and American people that it will "build the largest US embassy in the world" in Baghdad as if that diplomatic white elephant?which will cost the US taxpayer another $40b?will somehow guarantee a "peaceful transition." No adult Iraqi can fail to see through the scam and feel increasingly hostile.

U.S. politicians have recently been comparing Iraq with Vietnam but for the wrong reasons. The comparison is valid but only in terms of the fundamental principle of sovereignty itself. The Vietnamese did not "lose" their sovereignty during the Vietnam war despite the US invasion and benighted attempt to conquer that nation by force. Recognizing belatedly that the Vietnamese people, however divided between North and South, were and still sovereign, resolutely defending their home soil against "foreignors," the United States had to shamefacedly resign its fraudulent mission?after terrible losses of innocent both male and female lives?and flee in disgrace and undignified chaos.

Emery Reves, in Anatomy of Peace*, spelled out succinctly how to "make" peace:

"Just as there is one and only one cause for wars between men on this earth, so history shows that peace - not peace in an absolute and Utopian sense, but concrete peace between given social groups which had previously been at war - has always been established in one way and only one: by setting up some sovereign power over and above the clashing social units, integrating the warring units into a higher sovereignty." (Emphasis added)

The conclusion is clear and self-evident. The Iraqi people do not live on the moon. And like everyone else, they are born of human wombs and die as humans, however they nominally, religiously and relatively divide themselves. And they live together in our common global "village" with us. We welcome them as such. Indeed, whatever happens in Iraq on a daily, even hourly basis is instantaneously transmitted to the entire Earth's human population via satellites above all our heads..

Writers of a national Iraqi constitution, while necessarily defining the housekeeping requirement of local civic power, are thus obliged in this century to acknowledge intrinsically the global citizenship already extant and mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21(3) which provides the sanction for such an inclusion:

"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage or by equivalent free voting procedures."

The mandate is clear: humanity is the ultimate sovereign on planet Earth.

The term "cradle of civilization" identifying this ancient land peopled by today's humans can be defended only by bold and wise exercise of their innate sovereignty in a new constitutional framework as world citizens together with whatever lower levels they themselves choose. In today's anarchic national world community this recognition of interdependence would mirror that human "civilization" already united in our century by technology, communications, travel, etc. thus justifying the prophetic words of unity of humanity's sages from time immemorial.

Garry Davis

*Harper & Brothers, (1945)

2004 New Year's Message

From World Citizen Garry Davis

2004 ? Humanity's Legitimate Power

By sheer reasoning and biological fact, the only "superpower" on planet earth is humanity.

Each and every human, despite relative differences, is already bonded at birth to humanity's existence, well-being and survival.

Today, with the threat of Armageddon facing humanity itself by virtue of nuclear weaponry being used as a threat by the dysfunctional, belligerent nation-state system, its fundamental legitimacy is by definition self-evident and irrefutable. The human family cannot war against itself.

Each and every individual in today's 21st century world is thus in a dynamic, civic contract with humanity to insure its very survival.

The individual political acknowledgement of that unconditional and sovereign contract is world citizenship.

Millions of ordinary citizens, therefore, having recognized their sovereign right of political choice, and claimed world citizenship, in so doing have not only legitimized themselves on the planetary level but have protected in principle all lower levels of civic accord.

In short, the individual's claim and assertion of world citizenship viewed communally is the public confirmation of humanity's inalienable legitimacy.

As the corollary of citizenship is government, the socio/political manifestation of world citizenship is world government so declared into existence on September 4, 1953.1

Moreover, the two and a half billion children of the world, innocent of adult folly, likewise have the inalienable right and will to grow up in a world of peace, justice and freedom from the threat of nuclear holocaust as well as war itself. They too are legitimate members of the human family in one human world.

Already, following the end of World War II, numerous popular initiatives throughout the world community have attempted to evolve political instruments in the name of sovereign humanity.

In the coming year, certain of these will act as democratically-elected world parliaments reflecting the public will for peace, well-being and freedom. "World laws" will be enacted by these global parliamentarians outlawing war itself, protecting the world's environnent and recognizing politically the perennial geo-dialectical principle of one for all and all for one on the planetary level.

In short, humanity's inherent power and legitimacy will finally begin to manifest itself fully on planet Earth.

The ancient prophecy of the Millenium will thus come to pass.

********************

References:

"When in the course of human events?.." begins the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world?" begins the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Pope John Paul II in his homily of January 2, called for a "new world order?based on the dignity of human beings" and "an integrated development of society?"

Jesus Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, prayed that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?"

Baha'u'llah: "The earth is but one country and all mankind its citizens."

Jurists the world over have already endorsed the concept of world law and its institutional framework.. Former vice-president of the International Court of Justice from 1997 to 2000, C. G. Weeramantry, for instance, acknowledges that. "Every person today is not only a citizen of his or her own country but a citizen of the world. And it is in that context that a modicum of information about world governmnet needs to be communicated."

Unlawful by Definition

"No legal system can confer on any of its members the right to annhiliate the community which engenders it and whose activities it seeks to regulate; in other words, there cannot be a legal rule, which permits the threat or use of nuclear weapons. In sum, nuclear weapons are an unprecedented event which calls for rethinking the self-understanding of traditional international law. Such rethinking would reveal that the question is not whether one interpretation of existing laws of war prohibits the threat or use of of nuclear weapons and another permits. Rather, the issue is whether the debate can take place at all in the world of law. The question is in fact one which cannot be legitimately addressed by law at all since it cannot tolerate an interpretation which negates its very essence. The end of law is a rational order of things, with survival as its core, whereas nuclear weapons eliminate all hopes of realising it. In this sense, nuclear weapons are unlawful by definition."

Judge Weeramantry, quoting B.S.Chimni, "Nuclear Weapons and International Law: Some Reflections."

The World Government House

POB 9390

South Burlington, VT 05407

Email: worldlaw@globalnetisp.net

Internet: www.worldservice.org

50th Anniversary of the World Citizen Government

World Government of World Citizens, 1012 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

Press Release

For General Release: September 3, 2003

World Government Passes Half Century Mark

A half century ago on September 4, from the city hall of Ellsworth, Maine, a new government was declared by a stateless World Citizen: the World Government (of World Citizens). It was based on three common world "laws": One God (or Absolute Value); one world; one humanity.

It was mandated by over 750,000 individuals from over 150 countries who had already claimed the sovereign civic status of world citizenship via the International Registry of World Citizens opened January 1, 1949 in Paris. It was therefore premised on the actuality and legitimacy of the human race beyond the alleged sovereign nation.

The new government also claimed "territory" which encompassed the world itself thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Millenium.

The Nuclear Age had begun 8 years prior on August 6, 1945 with the United States bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocking the world public into awareness of its indiscriminate destructive power.

Thus began a "contract with humanity" to which each human was bound whether conscious of it or not. For if humanity died, all humans died whereas when individual humans died, humanity still survived. Einstein the "father" of the Nuclear Age warned at the time that if the human race did not now eliminate war itself, then war would eliminate the human race.

The new government certified the global contract overtly by providing individuals with documents based on fundamental human rights sanctioned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, December 10, 1948.

As individuals become aware of the new government's existence, they take advantage of its global identification services and legal assistance provided by its World Judicial Commission. Today, millions of human rights documents have been issued by the government's administrative agency, the World Service Authority(R), with main offices in Washington, DC and Tokyo, Japan.

On the negative side, humanity still faces grave threats. Nuclear proliferation among 9 nations has grown to over 20,000. Seventy-five wars, large and small have been fought between nations killing over 25 million with a refugee population exploding to over 50 million. Air, water and soil pollution is increasing. Rain forests are burning. Global warming is a scientific fact. Cultures clothed by national fictions clash where humans kill humans indiscriminately. Mass poverty amidst excessive wealth of the few creates explosive social crises resulting in increasing acts of vengeance.

Yet positive signs of human ingenuity and fellowship abound. Communication is virtually instantaneous globally. Thus awareness cannot be stopped at national frontiers. Laws are promoting justice beyond the national jurisdictions. Space itself is inviting human exploration. The Space Station makes a global revolution every 29 minutes. While still rampant in parts of the world disease is slowly giving way to scientific breakthough cures. While national leaders remain enmeshed in 18th century fictional feudalisms, nongovernmental organizations representing every human interest abound. Finally, humanity's sages have come roaring from their forest and monistic retreats to sound the prophetic alarm of Armageddon if the perennial principles of unity and universality are not manifested politically.

Should humanity survive the next 50 years, it can thank today's citizens of the embryonic world government.

New Year's Message 2003

New Years's Message

January 2003

by Garry Davis

A half century ago, come September 4, a new government was declared on planet Earth, the World Government (of World Citizens). It was the fulfillment of an age-old prophecy for it was based on the sovereignty of God's laws, the oneness of humanity and the reality of one world.

The locale was the City Hall of Ellsworth, Maine. A mere hundred people were in attendance. But the popular mandate was over 750,000 individuals in 50 countries who had already exercised their sovereign right to choose the status of world citizenship along with their lower levels of civic allegiances.

The member-states of the United Nations through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ?proclaimed by its General Assembly December 10, 1948?have also implicitly endorsed its founding provided by article 21(3): "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

A further sanction of its creation came from one of humanity's latter-day sages, Nataraja Guru, the parampara disciple of the revered Shri Narayana Guru of Travancore, India. The perenniel social contract of "one for all and all for one" politically identifying the new government is the key geo-dialectical formula raised to the global level.

Since that 50-year-old sovereign declaration, hundreds of thousands have registered their claim to world citizenship and been identified as such by the global government's administrative agency, the World Service Authority.

By claiming citizenship of the world, each and all are making peace with and between fellow humans beyond all artificial and institutionalized divisions.

As of August 6, 1945, with the advent of the so-called Nuclear Age, the very survival of humanity became questionable.

The only valid message at the outset of this new year relevant to humanity's survival therefore is the urgent reiteration of the World Government's sovereign existence and dynamic evolution.

For, if war between nations is to be avoided?whose breeding-ground is anarchy ?the number of declared and registered World Citizens must be increased by millions.

I myself have been, since May 25, 1948, both politically stateless and a declared world citizen.

Statelessness is also the political condition of humanity.

And to all registered World Citizens, you must ACT NOW in that capacity as representatives of humanity's and your own survival, security and happiness.

The destiny of the human race along with our fellow species on Earth depends on each of us.

Yours for peace in one world,

Garry Davis

Our Global Anti-Terrorism Question

Our Global Anti-Terrorism Question for the 21st Century

January 2002

by Garry Davis

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!

*****************************

Garry Davis
garrydavis@worldservice.org or info@worldservice.org Internet: http://www.worldservice.org; www.worldcitnews.org

The Language is Out of Synch:
Notes for a "Middle East Peace"

The Language is Out of Synch?

Notes for a "Middle East Peace"

August 2001

by Garry Davis

The language is wrong, out of synch with reality: "Palestinian," "Jewish," "Arab," "Israel," "Moslem," "nation-state," and all weaving around the holistic word, "Peace."

Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, along with their myriad supporters, keep dwelling on "peace negotiations" when the very two words are irreconcilable: an oxymoron.

To negotiate means to "deal with or bargain with another or others, as in the preparation of a treaty or contract."* In other words, it implies two or more sides. But peace cannot be "negotiated" between opposing and factious elements. The very word implies an a priori unity, a given commonality. "Palestinians" and "Jews" as such, cannot, by definition, be united. The very language separates and opposes them. But are they already united by another term? Well, yes. It's banal, being self-evident, but true nonetheless: "human." Hearts beat in rhythm, red blood courses throughout the body, sleep returns nightly, energy flows again daily, organic functions go on despite temporal, cosmically irrelevant politics. And further up the scale, they both respond to human values: justice, fairness, reason, love.

"Peace" then is the consequence of a lawful contract between humans abiding in the same area. The area in question is part of a larger area called "Planet Earth." Both Jews and Arabs share a common humanity and live on planet Earth. Banal but true. As for the word "Israel," three simple questions will reveal its fictional character: 1, Do you have to be a Jew to live in "Israel"? 2. Does the state of "Israel" define a Jew? 3. Can the state of Israel defend judaism?

Then take the words "Allah," and "Jehovah." as a language issue. Two Gods? Of course not. Both Judaism and Islam are monotheistic, i.e. one God. Are not then synagogues and mosques, not to speak of temples and churches, all devoted to the same Deity? God's territory on earth? Are they not all sacred "territory?" How then can they be separated by man-made states? "God" and "world law" are consistent. "God" and "nation-state" are contradictory. Again, the language is out of sync. When Jews and Arabs pray to "Allah/Jehovah" do they seek His/Her help in promoting their particular political positions? Do they really think the Creator of the universe cares about their insignificant problems? Or when they pass from this realm, do they go to a Jewish or Palestinian "heaven?" I understand the seeming irreverence of these questions to the religious-minded. But then such a reaction is part of the language problem.

Then what about "Abraham." The Patriarch? The forefather of both Jews and Arabs. Now there's a common link. But who talks of him, Who wants to be reminded? The same family tree? Cousins all? That thought would surely expose the artificial dividing-lines. What would The Father say about a "Jewish" state or a "Palestinian" state, each with its own "defense" department with incidentally the Israel PM's finger today on 2-300 nuclear bombs almost enough to eliminate humanity itself? ("Nuclear defense," the ultimate oxymoron, is the most entrapping and insidious misuse of language.)

I suggest a "peace" language to respect the common ancestor: "The Abraham Federation" uniting both Palestinians and Jews as part of a "world citizen state!" After all, he would opine that cousins feuding over the same territory is a no-win situation.

Then what about that of-so-familiar "Middle East peace" language? Is there such a thing in a "nuclear instant communication age?" We all accept the term "interdependent world." How can there be "peace" in the "Middle East" while there is potential war in the rest of the world? You'd think in listening to the recent trialogues of Camp David and succeeding statements from both leaders that Arafat and Sharon were living alone on planet X rather than on Planet Earth while host Clinton, with his thumb poised on 7,000 online nuclear warheads only wanted to get his name on the plus side of the history books?.if there are any.

If it's peace people really want, the language must be consistent with the word. "Peace" is not a condition in itself; it is a consequence of prior conditions. These are four in number. The first is in terms of a Principle. Referring back historically, the US Founding Fathers had to find a unifying principle before they could propose an ideology, a strategy and tactics for evolving a new meta-government over the separate states. "E pluribus Unum" sufficed "From many, one." The last word defines the principle: Unity. Connotations of morality, social and political as well as biological conditions are intrinsic in the word. Once agreed on Unity, they could then turn to the second condition: ideology.

They came up with "natural law" connoting "natural (human) rights." All 3 million humans on the eastern seaboard whatever their state affiliations (except blacks, Indians and women) possessed natural (human) rights. From there it was an easy step to the third condition for peace: strategy. How to turn "natural rights" into political rights? They already knew all about the simple legal process from having applied it on lower levels of political organization: evolve a common code of conduct or laws, give it a "housekeeping" format to prevent abuse. Ipso facto: the "constitution" of the embryonic-only agreed to at first by the 55 convention members-"United States of America."

From there the fourth condition came naturally and finally into play: "tactics." Enter the public, the grassroots, the sovereign people, the ultimate beneficiaries of the process. It's all there in the history books. The Federalist Papers, constitutional conventions in every state; public debates, articles in the press, statements by elders; reference to precedents like the Iroquois Federation, and finally, popular ratification by peoples' congresses. In short, effective and beneficial utilization of the communication tools of the day. Remember, in 1787, no radio, no television, no satellites, no Internet. Yet they managed to pull it together: PEACE. (Until the Civil War, in which the first principle: Unity was denied).

Do you understand now how confused and totally inadequate is the language politicians use today?

Then what about Jerusalem? Do I, as a World Citizen, have any say as to its status? Do you, the reader? Does the world public? You'd better believe it! Jerusalem, like Mecca, like Benares, Amritsar, indigenous burial grounds, temples, mosques, churches, synagogues, indeed, like the Earth itself, is beyond sects, beyond religion, beyond relativist claims. It is sacred territory, held in trust for humanity, a world city. It cannot be assigned in perpetuity to a particular people no matter how spiritual they consider themselves or what historic claims they make. Like hereditary monarchy, both claims are absurdities. Spirituality is by definition universal, not secular or even religious, certainly not political. Only the living have a right to governorship. And the living are defined holistically, humanly, not partially or relativistically. The Jewish, Muslim and Christian prophets all knew and taught this truth.

Pertinent questions to both Arafat and Sharon would be: Are you more interested in preserving the State of Israel and in declaring the State of Palestine than in a real condition of peace between the humans living in that part of the world called the "Holy Land?" And do you both not have a responsibility as fellow humans to consider "peace" on the level of the world since you both will either suffer or enjoy its lack or benefits? Obviously, if the whole is in danger, all the parts are also in danger. What is Israel's and/or Palestinian's security in a world where war is still a dominant legal option? The bottom line question is: Are you really speaking for your "people" in language consistent with their real problems?

In short, a meta-language (read: global) is required for peace. The technical/environment/biological world already uses one: cyberspace, space age. Genomes, bioregions, synergy, humanity, etc. But the political language is still a carryover from the 18th horse-and-buggy, gas lamps century,: "nation-state," "political parties," "national constitutions," As Einstein wrote parenthetically: "As of August 6, 1945, a mental paradigm shift is required." Translation: a "meta-language" is required to meet the new world complexity and common danger of elimination.

The time is late. We, the sovereign world public, by sheer will to survive, have finally figured things out. Our world is already one; humanity is already one, and we partake of a common history, destiny and Origin, call it what you will. Identified appropriately, Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Sharon, we-together with your people, our fellow world citizens-will have peace.

*Webster's College Dictionary, 1990

"Unite the Electric Grids!" -- Buckminster Fuller's Vision for a Peaceful World

November 1999

The visionary engineer, dubbed "the Leonardo da Vinci of our century." wrote in "Critical Path," "The energy grid is the World Game's highest priority objective."

When asked by a 12-year-old what one thing he would do to save the world, his immediate reply was "Unite the electric grids!" To the bewildered questioner, he explained. "There is no want of energy in the world, only a want of vision. The sun is pouring billions of kilowatts of power on the Earth every second. Then there is hydro, geo-thermal, bio-mass, wind, ocean differential and other sources of clean renewable power. About half of the grids that exist in the world today are connected and one-half remain unconnected. The latter are in the developing world. Link up all the electric grids and you would have a continuous source of abundant and clean renewable energy immediately available throughout the planet. The immense benefits of unlimited energy for all is immediately apparent. First, you protect the environment. No need to cut down the rain forests or pollute the ground and oceans with oil, coal and radio-activity from nuclear plants. Then when everyone has sufficient energy, birthrate decreases at exactly the same rate that the per capita consumption of inanimate electrical energy increases. Living standards rise as population declines especially in the developing countries. In short, the world's population will stop increasing when and if the integrated world electrical grid is realized. With everyone sufficient in energy needs, poverty disappears, greed, crime, strife is reduced to zero. Wars become unnecessary and therefore obsolete. Peace reigns on Earth."

National Energy Ministries and electrical engineers throughout the world are slowly becoming aware through a non-profit San Diego organization, G.E.N.I. (Global Energy Network Institute) that Fuller's solutions to major human problems depend to a large extent on clean renewable energy supplies.

According to Peter Meisen, founder/president of G.E.N.I., only 28 per cent of the annual world military expenditures could pay to end hunger, stabilize populations growth, prevent soil erosion, provide clear energy, retire developing nations debt, stop ozone depletion, prevent acid rains and climate change, provide safe water, eliminate illiteracy, stop deforestation, eliminate nuclear weapons, provide health care and AIDS control, remove land mines and provide refugee relief and shelter.

A U.S. Africa Energy Conference-"A Partnership for the 21st Century- is scheduled for December 13-15 in Tucson, Arizona, co-hosted by US Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. Major objectives will be to address "citicial issues on investment in clean energy development and use, energy integration, sustainable energy development..."

"Tool designers change the world, not politicians," was one of Buckminster Fuller's favorite assertions.

He was a passionate advocate of world citizenship and world government.

For further information about G.E.N.I.and Fuller's work: www.geni.org; www.bfi.org; www.cruzio.com/~joemoore; www.worldgame.org

WORLD CITIZEN UPDATE

November 3, 1997

The Cassini Launch - A Crime Against Humanity?

Has President Clinton committed a "crime against humanity" in authorizing the launch of the Cassini Space Probe? Does the US president's constitutional powers vest him with the legal authority to threaten humanity with plutonium pollution? How far "out" does national law extend? To outer space? Were the sovereign citizens of the world consulted before the U.S. president pushed the Cassini launch button?

Let's back up to 1945 when the Nuremberg Trials indicted, tried and convicted Nazi leaders after World War II. Seven Principles were defined by the victorious Allied powers. Among these, the first states that "any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment." Then Principle VI provides that "crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are punishable as crimes under international law."

In a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1950, the Nuremberg Principles became part of international law.

Until the Cassini launch, the accusation of "crimes against humanity" has only been applied to individuals committing acts of violence against other individuals during wartime: Klaus Barbie, Karl Eichman, Papon are prominent examples besides the original Nazi leaders. Never mind that when humanity itself is assigned the role of "plaintiff," the accused is by definition guilty since no defense is valid against humanity's security. And never mind that for a crime to be committed, there must first be a code of enforceable law defining the crime. Positive world law does not yet exist. Moreover war itself is not considered criminal under the same international law since nations consider war a legal option for their so-called security.

But the Cassini launch itself is recognized by experts both inside and outside of NASA as a real, not theoretical threat to humanity itself. Its navigational program will use the planet Earth as a giant "sling-shot" when it swings back from Venus in order to gain enough momentum from earth's gravity to propel it to Saturn. The distance from the Earth on the "fly-by"? A mere 496 miles. Its speed as it makes the turn? 42,300 mph. Its cargo? 72.3 pounds of Plutonium-238, the deadliest man-made substance in existence. "One pound of Plutonium," says Dr. Helen Caldicott, "if uniformly distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on Earth." NASA itself has estimated the chances of a Cassini accident that would release plutonium as one in three hundred and forty-five. How it arrives at the figure is not public knowledge. In its own "Environmental Impact Statement" for the mission, it states "In a worst case scenario, decontamination costs would be as high as $200 million per square kilometer...Up to 50,000 kilometers could be impacted involving a total decontamination cost of $10 trillion." It doesn't say where you put the contaminated soil or indeed how long it would remain contaminated and as for the civilian population, it claims that "approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 to 8 billion world population at the time could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure."

Numerous experts warned President Clinton of the dangers to humanity if he authorized the launch. Myriad NGOs protested to no avail. Former NASA safety experts consider Cassini a catastrophe. Horst Poehler, NASA contact scientist wrote "Remember the old Hollywood movies when a mad scientist would risk the world to carry out his particular project? Well those mad scientists have moved to NASA." Alan Kohn, NASA safety expert from 1964-1968, says that "the plans for the Cassini Flyby with a Plutonium package is unconscionable. No space mission is as important as the life and health of the public." Under the international law describing "crimes against humanity" President Clinton is solely indictable. The buck stopped at his presidential desk despite the Pentagon's insistence. Of course, if the actual crime is committed, it is too late for humanity. There may not be anyone around to bring the charge, even Bill Clinton himself though no doubt high government officials will be safely tucked away in some hollowed-out mountain retreat . However, the threat itself is already a global felony.

But where is humanity's court of law? Not the International Court of Justice to which neither humanity nor any individual has legal standing. Not even the national supreme courts whose mandate stops at national borders. No, we must go where humanity lives...in the municipal courts, worldwide. The carefully crafted brief must be introduced simultaneously in local courts preferably in cities which have already declared themselves "global" or "mundialized." Local judges may either throw the case out claiming it "frivolous," or simply reject jurisdiction. Then we appeal. And appeal. And appeal. In the meantime, public opinion is being alerted and focused. The top level-a "World Court of Human Rights" for which the statute has been already written-will be evolving with public, NGOs and even certain national government support.

Nineteen ninety-eight is the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to life is codified in Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.? It is also the 50th anniversary of the birth of the modern-day world citizenship movement.

There is no time to lose. The Cassini spacecraft is already on its deadly mission and due for the "flyby" in 1999. World public opinion must now focus on this historic and potentially lethal issue. The spiritual overtones of this indefensible launch into space just three years before the 3rd millennium merits the full attention, concern and energy of every conscientious human being on the home planet. President Clinton must be legally forced either to abort this deadly mission or to order its navigation program altered so that Earth and its population are no longer endangered.

WORLD CITIZEN UPDATE

2007 New Year's Message Sovereign Humanity Is In Mortal Danger! from Garry Davis

Archive of Recent UPDATES:

Injunction against Nuclear Weapons Heads of State

Who Represents World Citizens? 2006 Message to World Citizens from World Coordinator

World Citizen Garry Davis Launches New Ebook: World Peace Starts With You!

A World Citizen Looks at Iraq Today

What is your most important question concerning world peace?

Letter to Prospective US State Department Public Diplomacy Officer

Sovereignty & the Iraqi People

2004 New Year's Message

50th Anniversary of the World Citizen Government

New Year's Message 2003

Our Global Anti-Terrorism Question

The Language is Out of Synch: Notes for a "Middle East Peace"

"Unite the Electric Grids!" -- Buckminster Fuller's Vision for a Peaceful World

WORLD CITIZEN UPDATE

November 3, 1997

The Cassini Launch - A Crime Against Humanity?

Quote of the day

2007 New Year's Message
Sovereign Humanity Is In Mortal Danger!
from Garry Davis

Who Represents World Citizens?
2006 Message to World Citizens from World Coordinator

The Language is Out of Synch:
Notes for a "Middle East Peace"