As far as popular opinion around the world is concerned, the Secretary General of the United Nations is the leader of the organization. Whenever a massive natural disaster strikes or negotiations are being held to terminate a military conflict, you can always count on seeing the Secretary General hovering about somewhere. But in truth, the role of the Secretary General is largely symbolic and his duties are primarily administrative. The real power in the United Nations lies in the hands of the Security Council. At best, the Secretary General is the CEO of the U.N., with the Security Council playing the role of an unusually active and engaged Board of Directors.
The Secretary General is nominated by the Security Council, whose selection is then approved or rejected by the General Assembly. While there are no official requirements specified in the Charter, tradition dictates that the Secretary-General not be a national of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council and, for some reason, that the Secretary-General speak French as well as English. Every permanent member of the Security Council thus has a veto over the choice of the Secretary-General, which makes for some hefty horse trading among the great powers. The General Assembly has generally gone along with whomever the Security Council has decided upon.
Because the Great Powers that make up the permanent membership of the Security Council benefit greatly from maintaining the status quo, they have always chosen Secretaries-General who are unlikely to rock the boat. The only exception to this rule was Dag Hammarskjold (1953-1961), whose forceful and effective leadership came as an unwelcome surprise to the Security Council. For the most part, the Secretaries-General pretty much fit the mold of a joke told about Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar: they couldn't make a splash if they fell out of a canoe.
The current system of selection the U.N. Secretary-General is ridiculous. The person who eventually ascends to the top slot is simply the product of negotiations between the permanent members of the Security-Council, who are always striving to find the candidate least likely to shake things up. If the United Nations is ever to live up to its full potential, it must have more dynamic and charismatic leadership at the top. Equally, the Secretary-General has to be able to credibly claim to be a representative of the entire world, rather than just the powers-that-be in the world's most powerful nations.
There is an elegant solution to this problem. In the past, we have discussed on this blog the urgent need for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, whose delegates will be directly elected by the people of their nations rather than chosen by the governments. If we truly want to see the leadership of the United Nations be chosen by the people it is supposed to represent, there can be no better way to select the Secretary-General than by having the UNPA make the decision.
In practice, it would probably work in roughly the same manner as the selection of a prime minister the parliamentary Westminster system, which is used by legislative bodies all over the world (the greatest legacy of the British Empire, except perhaps for association football). If a single party controls a majority of the seats in the parliament, their leader becomes the prime minister. If no single party holds a majority, coalitions among two or more parties may be crafted, and the prime minister will be chosen through negotiations among the parties making up the coalition. Something similar might emerge as the manner in which the UNPA selects the Secretary-General, if it is decided that this should be the UNPA's job.
Under the Westminster system, a party or coalition must have a majority in order to form the government. But the UNPA will be a special case, because organized world-spanning political parties are practically nonexistent. The Global Greens and the Socialist International might qualify, but they are more akin to loosely-affiliated associations than genuine political organizations. While this would seem to be a recipe for complete confusion, it actually will create an enormous opportunity to advance the Global Civic vision.
Take, for example, the two major political parties of the United States, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. From the perspective of public policy, the Republican Party has more in common with the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, the Grand National Party of South Korea, and (its name notwithstanding) the Liberal Party of Australia than it does with the Democratic Party. The Democrats, in turn, have more in common with the Liberal Democrats of the United Kingdom, the Socialist Party of France and Indian National Congress than it does with the Republicans.
In trying to influence the decision as to who the next Secretary-General should be, as the Republicans and Democrats more likely to enter into a coalition with one another, or with political parties from other countries whose policy platforms more closely align with theirs? In the beginning, geographic politics may be the deciding factor (Western nations teaming up to nominate a Westerner, African nations and African, and so on). But as time passes and increasingly policy-driven matters are dealt with by the UNPA, we will almost certainly see the rise of global political organizations pursuing common aims within the assembly. This, in turn, would powerfully strengthen the Global Civic outlook.
Just as important, having the Secretary-General chosen by election from the UNPA would help ensure that the top leadership at the U.N. would be more dynamic and energetic than has been the case up this point. The U.N. has bureaucrats aplenty within the Secretariat. What it needs in its Secretary-General is a popular figure with charisma, who will also be able to stand up when necessary to the great powers on the Security Council. A political leader skillful enough to navigate the coalition-building and electioneering necessary to emerge triumphant from a leadership contest within the UNPA would have an excellent chance of fitting the bill.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
District of Columbia Deserves Representation in the United States Congress
The ideas about democracy and equality which today inspire Global Citizens the world over were largely born in the fire of the American Revolution, a conflict which was sparked by a belief among the American colonists that the British had no right to tax them directly, as they themselves were not represented in the British Parliament. Strangely, however, the capital of the republic created by that very Revolution today suffers the very fate that their ancestors fought so long and hard against.
The District of Columbia has a population of nearly 600,000. This is more people than the state of Wyoming. Although the citizens of the District have the right to cast their votes in Presidential elections, thanks to the 23rd Amendment, they are still denied any meaningful representation in Congress. The District has a single non-voting member in the House of Representatives and no representation at all in the Senate. Despite this lack of congressional representation, the citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to the federal income tax and all other federal taxes just as if they were citizens of New York or Texas. This truly is a case of taxation without representation.
This shameful situation must be properly remedied by providing the citizens of the District with full representation in the United States Congress.
Some have called for this situation to be solved through the simple expedient of making the District of Columbia a state in its own right. Another possible solution is to simply give the district back to Maryland and toss the 600,000 D.C. residents into the political mix of that state. However, either of these two proposals face a particular problem: they would give a state control over the territory housing the federal government. James Madison pointed out in Federalist #43 that "a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." In other words, having the seat of federal government within the confines of a particular state could give that state disproportionate influence over the federal government.
Madison probably wrote this with a particular incident in mind. In late 1783, Congress had been threatened by mutinous soldiers demanding back pay. The Governor of Pennsylvania, in sympathy with the soldiers, had refused to provide adequate protection for Congress, thus forcing them to flee to Annapolis. The lesson had been learned: the seat of the national government had to be under the direct control of the national government, because they could not always depend on the government of a state.
A better option than making D.C. a state or giving it back to Maryland would be to pass legislation that simply states that the District of Columbia should, for the purposes of elections to the House of Representatives, be considered a state. This is the intention behind a bill currently making its way through Congress (giving an extra seat to heavily-Republican Utah to ensure the party balance remains unaffected), but its ultimate fate is uncertain. A report from the Congressional Research Service indicates that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant voting power to the District. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states clearly that only states can send representatives to the House. D.C. is not a state, and therefore the law is unconstitutional.
It seems that giving D.C. representation in Congress would require a constitutional amendment. This was done in 1961 to give D.C. the right to vote in presidential election, when the 23rd Amendment was enacted. Congress did, in act, pass an amendment to give D.C. congressional representation in 1978, but it was not passed by enough state legislatures to become law. We need to do it again, and this time do it right.
Whether D.C. representation in the Senate should be included in this proposal is up for debate. However, given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting record of D.C. residents, any measure that included D.C. representation in the Senate would have a difficult time becoming law, as the Republican party would block any such proposal with all the means at their disposal. It's better to push for legislation that gives you half of what you want and has a chance of actually passing then going to wall for legislation that gives you everything you want and has no chance of passing.
If enacted, this amendment would remove a small stain on the American governmental system that has been ignored for too long.
The District of Columbia has a population of nearly 600,000. This is more people than the state of Wyoming. Although the citizens of the District have the right to cast their votes in Presidential elections, thanks to the 23rd Amendment, they are still denied any meaningful representation in Congress. The District has a single non-voting member in the House of Representatives and no representation at all in the Senate. Despite this lack of congressional representation, the citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to the federal income tax and all other federal taxes just as if they were citizens of New York or Texas. This truly is a case of taxation without representation.
This shameful situation must be properly remedied by providing the citizens of the District with full representation in the United States Congress.
Some have called for this situation to be solved through the simple expedient of making the District of Columbia a state in its own right. Another possible solution is to simply give the district back to Maryland and toss the 600,000 D.C. residents into the political mix of that state. However, either of these two proposals face a particular problem: they would give a state control over the territory housing the federal government. James Madison pointed out in Federalist #43 that "a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." In other words, having the seat of federal government within the confines of a particular state could give that state disproportionate influence over the federal government.
Madison probably wrote this with a particular incident in mind. In late 1783, Congress had been threatened by mutinous soldiers demanding back pay. The Governor of Pennsylvania, in sympathy with the soldiers, had refused to provide adequate protection for Congress, thus forcing them to flee to Annapolis. The lesson had been learned: the seat of the national government had to be under the direct control of the national government, because they could not always depend on the government of a state.
A better option than making D.C. a state or giving it back to Maryland would be to pass legislation that simply states that the District of Columbia should, for the purposes of elections to the House of Representatives, be considered a state. This is the intention behind a bill currently making its way through Congress (giving an extra seat to heavily-Republican Utah to ensure the party balance remains unaffected), but its ultimate fate is uncertain. A report from the Congressional Research Service indicates that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant voting power to the District. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states clearly that only states can send representatives to the House. D.C. is not a state, and therefore the law is unconstitutional.
It seems that giving D.C. representation in Congress would require a constitutional amendment. This was done in 1961 to give D.C. the right to vote in presidential election, when the 23rd Amendment was enacted. Congress did, in act, pass an amendment to give D.C. congressional representation in 1978, but it was not passed by enough state legislatures to become law. We need to do it again, and this time do it right.
Whether D.C. representation in the Senate should be included in this proposal is up for debate. However, given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting record of D.C. residents, any measure that included D.C. representation in the Senate would have a difficult time becoming law, as the Republican party would block any such proposal with all the means at their disposal. It's better to push for legislation that gives you half of what you want and has a chance of actually passing then going to wall for legislation that gives you everything you want and has no chance of passing.
If enacted, this amendment would remove a small stain on the American governmental system that has been ignored for too long.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Who Are the Enemies of the Global Citizens?
Global Citizens envision a world of vibrant nations, united by global institutions, working together to solve common problems and to preserve the peace of the world. A century from now, if the perspective of Global Citizens prevails, war shall no longer be a scourge on humanity, disease and poverty will be but unpleasant memories, and the true potential for our species can finally be unleashed.
It's a beautiful vision. Unfortunately, it has enemies. The story of the 21st Century is likely to the struggle between the Global Citizens and those who will stop at nothing to see their vision of the world defeated.
Who are the enemies of the Global Citizens? Let's look at a few of them.
1. The Dictators. There are dozens of nations around the world that are ruled with an iron fist by individuals or small groups who have set themselves up as autocratic tyrants. Most of the Arab world, Central Asia, and much of Africa remain under the thumb of the Dictators, who ruthlessly exploit the human and material resources of their nations for their own self-aggrandisement. Generally speaking, the Dictators grow rich while their people starve.
The Dictators fear the Global Citizen vision, which upholds the idea of maximum freedom for all the people of the world. Concerned only with power, the Dictators will do anything necessary to maintain their positions, and deny their people basic freedoms and human rights as a matter of course. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of waging genocide against his own people in Darfur. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (a recipient of American military aid) has been known to execute political dissidents by boiling them alive. In the case of all the dictators, ideas such as freedom of the press or fair elections are a pipe dream.
The Dictators, sad to say, have enablers in many democratic Western nations, include wealth corporations who seek business deals with them in order to gain economic access to valuable natural resources. Many Western governments also provide military aid to the Dictators to further short-sighted strategic aims.
2. Radical Islamists. Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers remain, even nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, a potent enemy of Global Citizens. Their radical and medieval interpretation of Islam, a perversion of that great religion, makes them ferocious enemies to modernity. Democracy, human rights, and religious toleration are subjects worthy of derision to them, and they have nothing but contempt for the values of Global Citizens.
The problem with the Radical Islamists is that they cannot be deterred, since it is only possible to deter a person who fears his own death. Nor can they be defeated in a military sense, any more than organized crime can be. Their funds must be cut off and their leaders killed or apprehended, but in the long run, they can only be defeated in a war of ideas.
3. American Neoconservatives. This sinister segment of the American foreign policy establishment emerged during the 1970s and reached the peak of its power during the Bush Administration. Although sidelines by the election of President Obama in 2008 and discredited by the disaster in Iraq, they still retain substantial influence in Republican circles in the United States, and they are far from finished.
The most prominent names are familiar to anyone who follows the foreign policy of the United States: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, and many others. The movement claims to be the defender of the world's democracies, but what it really seeks (as is apparent from studying its own writings) is American hegemony over the globe. This was a concept that would have been firmly rejected by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who envisioned their creation as a republic, rather than an empire.
The American Neoconservatives disdain the United Nations and have constantly sought to undermine global institutions like the International Criminal Court. They tend to ignore the existence of the European Union, as if anything even hinting at supranationalsm is offensive to them. Motivated by a strange combination of free and a lust for power, they pursue an American foreign policy based on military strength and a rejection of internationalism.
4. The Nationalists. I'm not referring here to people like the Scottish National Party or Bloc Québécois, who are perfectly capable of being Global Citizens, but to those people in Russia, China, and some other countries who still want to play the Great Power game. Whether we're talking about China establishing a military presence in the Indian Ocean and aiming missiles at Taiwan or Russian forces invading the independent nation of Georgia and threatening Ukraine in disputes over natural gas, these Nationalists act as though the world today is pretty much the same as it was in the middle of the 19th Century.
Russian and Chinese Nationalists play a dangerous game. In the Nuclear Age, major powers can no longer operate in the same manner that they did before 1945, because the rules changed the moment the first nuclear weapon was detonated. It will only be through collective security, provided by strong global institutions, that the nations of the Earth will avoid a self-inflicted nuclear disaster, which is otherwise inevitable.
These groups entirely reject the perspective of Global Citizens, looking to their own interests and either unable or unwilling to see the human race as a collective whole. When the story of the 21st Century is written, we can only hope that the historians are able to write about their complete defeat, after which humanity could begin to move into what Winston Churchill called the "broad, sunlit uplands."
It's a beautiful vision. Unfortunately, it has enemies. The story of the 21st Century is likely to the struggle between the Global Citizens and those who will stop at nothing to see their vision of the world defeated.
Who are the enemies of the Global Citizens? Let's look at a few of them.
1. The Dictators. There are dozens of nations around the world that are ruled with an iron fist by individuals or small groups who have set themselves up as autocratic tyrants. Most of the Arab world, Central Asia, and much of Africa remain under the thumb of the Dictators, who ruthlessly exploit the human and material resources of their nations for their own self-aggrandisement. Generally speaking, the Dictators grow rich while their people starve.
The Dictators fear the Global Citizen vision, which upholds the idea of maximum freedom for all the people of the world. Concerned only with power, the Dictators will do anything necessary to maintain their positions, and deny their people basic freedoms and human rights as a matter of course. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of waging genocide against his own people in Darfur. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (a recipient of American military aid) has been known to execute political dissidents by boiling them alive. In the case of all the dictators, ideas such as freedom of the press or fair elections are a pipe dream.
The Dictators, sad to say, have enablers in many democratic Western nations, include wealth corporations who seek business deals with them in order to gain economic access to valuable natural resources. Many Western governments also provide military aid to the Dictators to further short-sighted strategic aims.
2. Radical Islamists. Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers remain, even nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, a potent enemy of Global Citizens. Their radical and medieval interpretation of Islam, a perversion of that great religion, makes them ferocious enemies to modernity. Democracy, human rights, and religious toleration are subjects worthy of derision to them, and they have nothing but contempt for the values of Global Citizens.
The problem with the Radical Islamists is that they cannot be deterred, since it is only possible to deter a person who fears his own death. Nor can they be defeated in a military sense, any more than organized crime can be. Their funds must be cut off and their leaders killed or apprehended, but in the long run, they can only be defeated in a war of ideas.
3. American Neoconservatives. This sinister segment of the American foreign policy establishment emerged during the 1970s and reached the peak of its power during the Bush Administration. Although sidelines by the election of President Obama in 2008 and discredited by the disaster in Iraq, they still retain substantial influence in Republican circles in the United States, and they are far from finished.
The most prominent names are familiar to anyone who follows the foreign policy of the United States: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, and many others. The movement claims to be the defender of the world's democracies, but what it really seeks (as is apparent from studying its own writings) is American hegemony over the globe. This was a concept that would have been firmly rejected by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who envisioned their creation as a republic, rather than an empire.
The American Neoconservatives disdain the United Nations and have constantly sought to undermine global institutions like the International Criminal Court. They tend to ignore the existence of the European Union, as if anything even hinting at supranationalsm is offensive to them. Motivated by a strange combination of free and a lust for power, they pursue an American foreign policy based on military strength and a rejection of internationalism.
4. The Nationalists. I'm not referring here to people like the Scottish National Party or Bloc Québécois, who are perfectly capable of being Global Citizens, but to those people in Russia, China, and some other countries who still want to play the Great Power game. Whether we're talking about China establishing a military presence in the Indian Ocean and aiming missiles at Taiwan or Russian forces invading the independent nation of Georgia and threatening Ukraine in disputes over natural gas, these Nationalists act as though the world today is pretty much the same as it was in the middle of the 19th Century.
Russian and Chinese Nationalists play a dangerous game. In the Nuclear Age, major powers can no longer operate in the same manner that they did before 1945, because the rules changed the moment the first nuclear weapon was detonated. It will only be through collective security, provided by strong global institutions, that the nations of the Earth will avoid a self-inflicted nuclear disaster, which is otherwise inevitable.
These groups entirely reject the perspective of Global Citizens, looking to their own interests and either unable or unwilling to see the human race as a collective whole. When the story of the 21st Century is written, we can only hope that the historians are able to write about their complete defeat, after which humanity could begin to move into what Winston Churchill called the "broad, sunlit uplands."
Monday, February 7, 2011
Author Recommendation: Michael Pollan
One of the greatest concerns for Global Citizens should be the fact that the vast majority of our food supply has been taken over by multinational corporations and that citizens who grow their own food are about as common as dogs that can talk. Not only that, but our food is now so overly-processed and loaded with chemicals that our people from the 18th Century would probably not recognize 95% of what is on sale in the average grocery as even being food.
Indeed, what passes for food in most of the West (especially America) in the early 21st Century is not really food at all, but chemically-infused high fructose corn syrup spoon fed to us by agribusiness corporations. This so-called "food" is making us sick, making us fat, and making us dependent upon their model of industrialized food production. It is destructive of the environment and degrading to our sense of human dignity.
More than anyone else, the American author Michael Pollan has been putting these issues front and center in recent years. In his outstanding books, particularly In Defense of Food and An Omnivore's Dilemma, he has done a great public service in raising awareness about the need for all of us to reassess our relationship with what we eat and question whether or not it makes sense for us to continue eating whatever it is the multinational corporations continue to serve up for us. All Global Citizens should read these books and become that much more enlightened.
Below is the video of a talk that Michael Pollan gave for the Authors-At-Google lecture series.
Indeed, what passes for food in most of the West (especially America) in the early 21st Century is not really food at all, but chemically-infused high fructose corn syrup spoon fed to us by agribusiness corporations. This so-called "food" is making us sick, making us fat, and making us dependent upon their model of industrialized food production. It is destructive of the environment and degrading to our sense of human dignity.
More than anyone else, the American author Michael Pollan has been putting these issues front and center in recent years. In his outstanding books, particularly In Defense of Food and An Omnivore's Dilemma, he has done a great public service in raising awareness about the need for all of us to reassess our relationship with what we eat and question whether or not it makes sense for us to continue eating whatever it is the multinational corporations continue to serve up for us. All Global Citizens should read these books and become that much more enlightened.
Below is the video of a talk that Michael Pollan gave for the Authors-At-Google lecture series.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Experiment a Triumph of International Cooperation
If all goes as planned, the American space shuttle Endeavour will lift off within the next few months in what will possibly be the final flight of the space shuttle program. Fittingly, this last mission will carry one of the most important scientific experiments in the history of the space program: the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS).
Except for the Large Hadron Collider, the AMS is probably the greatest physics experiment in human history. After being flown into orbit by Endeavour and attached to the International Space Station, it will spend years gathering data on cosmic rays, antimatter, and the mysterious "dark matter" which makes up the majority of mass in the universe and about which we know next to nothing. The AMS will help answer fundamental questions about theoretical physics, and will hopefully shed light on the nature of dark matter and what happened to the primordial antimatter which, according to our current theoretical models, should have been created at the moment of the Big Bang.
The AMS is not only an amazing scientific experiment that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and its origin, but it also represents a great achievement in international cooperation. Scientists from sixteen different nations worked together to devise and construct the experiment: China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Such international cooperation is a testament to the way in which the scientific enterprise can unite the human family. It is especially nice to see scientists from China and Taiwan, so often divided by politics, working together on such a glorious project. The overall head of the project is Chinese-American physicist Dr. Samuel Ting, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The project has been in the works since 1995, and has cost well over a billion dollars. But for a time after the 2003 Columbia disaster, it appeared for a time as though all the money and effort had been in vain, as NASA decided against flying an "unnecessary" shuttle mission to transport the AMS to the International Space Station (ISS). Luckily, in a rare example of politicians placing a proper value on scientific enterprises, wiser heads prevailed in Congress and NASA was directed to send the AMS to the ISS.
Both the Space Shuttle Program and the ISS have been expensive distractions from what should be the process course of long-term human space exploration. The shuttle program, lest we forget, has also cost the lives of fourteen brave men and women. But by making the AMS experiment possible, and therefore helping to advance the collective knowledge of humanity, both programs go a significant way towards redeeming themselves.
The AMS represents much of what is good in the human spirit, and is a project in the best traditions of Global Citizenship. Is it not better for us to use our intellectual powers and financial resources to solve fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it, rather than turning them towards developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons? Is it not better for our most brilliant scientific minds to work together on collective scientific enterprises, rather than devising means to destroy one another's countries?
Best wishes to the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavour as they embark on their final mission, and to the men and women behind the AMS experiment as they strive to advance the knowledge of humanity.
Except for the Large Hadron Collider, the AMS is probably the greatest physics experiment in human history. After being flown into orbit by Endeavour and attached to the International Space Station, it will spend years gathering data on cosmic rays, antimatter, and the mysterious "dark matter" which makes up the majority of mass in the universe and about which we know next to nothing. The AMS will help answer fundamental questions about theoretical physics, and will hopefully shed light on the nature of dark matter and what happened to the primordial antimatter which, according to our current theoretical models, should have been created at the moment of the Big Bang.
The AMS is not only an amazing scientific experiment that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and its origin, but it also represents a great achievement in international cooperation. Scientists from sixteen different nations worked together to devise and construct the experiment: China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Such international cooperation is a testament to the way in which the scientific enterprise can unite the human family. It is especially nice to see scientists from China and Taiwan, so often divided by politics, working together on such a glorious project. The overall head of the project is Chinese-American physicist Dr. Samuel Ting, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The project has been in the works since 1995, and has cost well over a billion dollars. But for a time after the 2003 Columbia disaster, it appeared for a time as though all the money and effort had been in vain, as NASA decided against flying an "unnecessary" shuttle mission to transport the AMS to the International Space Station (ISS). Luckily, in a rare example of politicians placing a proper value on scientific enterprises, wiser heads prevailed in Congress and NASA was directed to send the AMS to the ISS.
Both the Space Shuttle Program and the ISS have been expensive distractions from what should be the process course of long-term human space exploration. The shuttle program, lest we forget, has also cost the lives of fourteen brave men and women. But by making the AMS experiment possible, and therefore helping to advance the collective knowledge of humanity, both programs go a significant way towards redeeming themselves.
The AMS represents much of what is good in the human spirit, and is a project in the best traditions of Global Citizenship. Is it not better for us to use our intellectual powers and financial resources to solve fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it, rather than turning them towards developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons? Is it not better for our most brilliant scientific minds to work together on collective scientific enterprises, rather than devising means to destroy one another's countries?
Best wishes to the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavour as they embark on their final mission, and to the men and women behind the AMS experiment as they strive to advance the knowledge of humanity.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What Electoral System Should Be Used For a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly?
We have previously discussed the need for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), a new body of delegates at the U.N. whose members will be directly elected by the people rather than selected by the governments, with the numbers allocated to each nation decided by the Schwartzberg system of weighted voting, so that the undemocratic "one-state-one-vote" paradox will be avoided, but the largest nations will be unable to completely dominate the proceedings. The creation of such an assembly would go far in eliminating the "democratic deficit" at the U.N. and vastly improve the ability of the world to establish the rule of international law. Consequently, it should be a major priority of Global Citizens in all countries.
But assuming that the UNPA becomes a reality, what sort of election system should be used to select its delegates? Presumably, each nation will decide this matter for itself, but all should carefully consider the question. After all, the creation of the UNPA would present an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with voting systems that have been developed in the last few decades in order to maximize the level of genuine democracy. It would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass by.
Let's look at a few of the possibilities.
1. First-Past-The-Post. This system (known as Winner-Take-All in the United States) is the most simple voting system imaginable, and the one currently in use for congressional and state legislative elections in the United States and to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. If this system was adopted, each country would be divided up into constituency districts, each of which would elect a single candidate, the winner being whichever candidate gets the most votes. While simply, it is also profoundly undemocratic. If there are more than two candidates, the winner can be a person who did not have an actual majority of the vote, and all the constituents who voted for a different candidate are denied meaningful representation.
There are other problems with FPTP. Voters may decide against voting for the candidate or party they truly support, in order to "tactically" vote in a way calculated to defeat a particularly distasteful candidate. Furthermore, the presence of "spoiler" candidates who represent a tiny portion of the electorate can deny victory to the candidate who actually represents the genuine interest of the constituency.
While simple, FPTP is simply too undemocratic and has too many problems. It should be firmly rejected for UNPA elections.
2. Alternative Voting. This system (known in the United States as Instant-Runoff-Voting) is considerably better than FPTP. In AV elections, voters rank the candidates by preference rather than casting a single voter for a single individual. Over a series of ballots, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated each round, with the secondary votes for that candidate going to the other candidates, until a candidate obtains a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.
This system, which is already being used successfully in Australia, largely eliminates the problems of tactical voting and spoiler candidates. However, it still leaves the constituency with the conundrum of a single candidate being selected, against whom many of the people will have voted. So, while superior to FPTP, it is still imperfect. Nevertheless, for those nations which will be sending a single delegate to the UNPA, it is probably the best option available.
3. Single Transferable Vote. This system is similar to AV in that voters rank their candidates by preference rather than casting a single vote for a single individual, but it differs in that constituency districts elect more than one delegate, thus adding an element of proportional representation into the picture. Rather than a single candidate winning after receiving a majority vote on a ballot, multiple candidates are elected after receiving a sufficient number of votes (i.e. if a district elects four people, a candidate is elected upon receiving 25% of the votes).
This has all the advantages of AV, with the added benefit of electing a slate of representatives who better represent the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of the district. It should be strongly considered for elections to the UNPA. Nations with ten or fewer delegates might consider treating the entire nation as a single STV district, while larger countries that will be sending dozens of delegates could divide the nation up into multiple STV districts.
Obtaining a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is going to be a tremendously difficult struggle. Should Global Citizens achieve this objctive, they must ensure that elections to the UNPA are as democratic and representative as possible, and the choice of what form of electoral system to use will be crucial.
Clearly, FPTP systems should be rejected because they are undemocratic. Thse nations which will send only one delegate should use an AV system, which is the most democratic system possible for elections choosing a single person. Nations sending between two and ten delegates should use STV systems that treat the entire country as a single constituency, while nations sending more than ten should divide their nation up into different constituencies that select delegates by STV.
If this is done, we not only will have a UNPA, but we can make sure that it represents the human family in the most genuine and democratic manner possible.
But assuming that the UNPA becomes a reality, what sort of election system should be used to select its delegates? Presumably, each nation will decide this matter for itself, but all should carefully consider the question. After all, the creation of the UNPA would present an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with voting systems that have been developed in the last few decades in order to maximize the level of genuine democracy. It would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass by.
Let's look at a few of the possibilities.
1. First-Past-The-Post. This system (known as Winner-Take-All in the United States) is the most simple voting system imaginable, and the one currently in use for congressional and state legislative elections in the United States and to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. If this system was adopted, each country would be divided up into constituency districts, each of which would elect a single candidate, the winner being whichever candidate gets the most votes. While simply, it is also profoundly undemocratic. If there are more than two candidates, the winner can be a person who did not have an actual majority of the vote, and all the constituents who voted for a different candidate are denied meaningful representation.
There are other problems with FPTP. Voters may decide against voting for the candidate or party they truly support, in order to "tactically" vote in a way calculated to defeat a particularly distasteful candidate. Furthermore, the presence of "spoiler" candidates who represent a tiny portion of the electorate can deny victory to the candidate who actually represents the genuine interest of the constituency.
While simple, FPTP is simply too undemocratic and has too many problems. It should be firmly rejected for UNPA elections.
2. Alternative Voting. This system (known in the United States as Instant-Runoff-Voting) is considerably better than FPTP. In AV elections, voters rank the candidates by preference rather than casting a single voter for a single individual. Over a series of ballots, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated each round, with the secondary votes for that candidate going to the other candidates, until a candidate obtains a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.
This system, which is already being used successfully in Australia, largely eliminates the problems of tactical voting and spoiler candidates. However, it still leaves the constituency with the conundrum of a single candidate being selected, against whom many of the people will have voted. So, while superior to FPTP, it is still imperfect. Nevertheless, for those nations which will be sending a single delegate to the UNPA, it is probably the best option available.
3. Single Transferable Vote. This system is similar to AV in that voters rank their candidates by preference rather than casting a single vote for a single individual, but it differs in that constituency districts elect more than one delegate, thus adding an element of proportional representation into the picture. Rather than a single candidate winning after receiving a majority vote on a ballot, multiple candidates are elected after receiving a sufficient number of votes (i.e. if a district elects four people, a candidate is elected upon receiving 25% of the votes).
This has all the advantages of AV, with the added benefit of electing a slate of representatives who better represent the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of the district. It should be strongly considered for elections to the UNPA. Nations with ten or fewer delegates might consider treating the entire nation as a single STV district, while larger countries that will be sending dozens of delegates could divide the nation up into multiple STV districts.
Obtaining a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly is going to be a tremendously difficult struggle. Should Global Citizens achieve this objctive, they must ensure that elections to the UNPA are as democratic and representative as possible, and the choice of what form of electoral system to use will be crucial.
Clearly, FPTP systems should be rejected because they are undemocratic. Thse nations which will send only one delegate should use an AV system, which is the most democratic system possible for elections choosing a single person. Nations sending between two and ten delegates should use STV systems that treat the entire country as a single constituency, while nations sending more than ten should divide their nation up into different constituencies that select delegates by STV.
If this is done, we not only will have a UNPA, but we can make sure that it represents the human family in the most genuine and democratic manner possible.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Can Scottish and Welsh Nationalists Also Be Global Citizens?
On May 5, voters in Scotland and Wales will be going to the polls to vote for representatives to the devolved assembles, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. These elections are distinct from the general elections to the House of Commons, and usually represent the biggest electoral opportunities for the nationalist parties in both countries: the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales.
The SNP and Plaid have a lot in common. They both favor the independence of their respective nations from the United Kingdom, while also working within the present British political system to further their generally left-leaning policies. Both are heavily represented in their devolved assemblies (indeed, the SNP is currently the largest party in the Scottish Parliament) and also have representatives in the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
An interesting question is whether or not these Scottish and Welsh nationalists can simultaneously be Global Citizens, who generally see themselves as citizens of the world first and citizens of individual nations second. Since they want to break up the United Kingdom and reassert the independence of Scotland and Wales, is it possible for members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to also be Global Citizens?
The answer is not only yes, but it is a resounding yes. In fact, members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru often are Global Citizens par excellence. Internationalism is at the center of the policy platforms of both parties, which desire for their nations to be full participants in the United Nations and European Union. And their strong advocacy of environmentalism, their belief in nuclear disarmament, their opposition to war, and their general promotion of egalitarianism and democracy around the world place them firmly in the Global Citizen camp.
While Global Citizens indeed seek a world which sees itself as a single entity, they also believe firmly in the need to protect local and national cultural identities. This means protecting and promoting revitalizing traditional languages like Gaelic and Welsh, as well as working to preserve the unique cultural traditions of the various peoples of the world. The existence of political groups like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are a priceless asset in this struggle.
There are separatist organizations all over the world. Many, such as Bloc Québécois in Canada, are similar to the SNP and Plaid Cymru in that are legal political parties, operating within existing democratic systems and accepting the concept of popular sovereignty. Unfortunately there are other separatist groups, such as the Basque terrorist group known as the ETA, turn to extremism in misguided efforts to advance their aims through undemocratic and violent means. The former can be Global Citizens, while the latter cannot.
Global Citizens do not want to abolish nations, and not just because the World Cup would be much less interesting without them. Instead, we seek a global framework in which all the nations of the world pool their resources and work together to address common problems. After all, global problems can only have global solutions. Global Citizens can be strong national patriots, as the members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru clearly are, but they also hold to the developing global perspective which recognizes that we are all members of the same human family and we shall rise or fall together.
The SNP and Plaid have a lot in common. They both favor the independence of their respective nations from the United Kingdom, while also working within the present British political system to further their generally left-leaning policies. Both are heavily represented in their devolved assemblies (indeed, the SNP is currently the largest party in the Scottish Parliament) and also have representatives in the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
An interesting question is whether or not these Scottish and Welsh nationalists can simultaneously be Global Citizens, who generally see themselves as citizens of the world first and citizens of individual nations second. Since they want to break up the United Kingdom and reassert the independence of Scotland and Wales, is it possible for members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to also be Global Citizens?
The answer is not only yes, but it is a resounding yes. In fact, members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru often are Global Citizens par excellence. Internationalism is at the center of the policy platforms of both parties, which desire for their nations to be full participants in the United Nations and European Union. And their strong advocacy of environmentalism, their belief in nuclear disarmament, their opposition to war, and their general promotion of egalitarianism and democracy around the world place them firmly in the Global Citizen camp.
While Global Citizens indeed seek a world which sees itself as a single entity, they also believe firmly in the need to protect local and national cultural identities. This means protecting and promoting revitalizing traditional languages like Gaelic and Welsh, as well as working to preserve the unique cultural traditions of the various peoples of the world. The existence of political groups like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are a priceless asset in this struggle.
There are separatist organizations all over the world. Many, such as Bloc Québécois in Canada, are similar to the SNP and Plaid Cymru in that are legal political parties, operating within existing democratic systems and accepting the concept of popular sovereignty. Unfortunately there are other separatist groups, such as the Basque terrorist group known as the ETA, turn to extremism in misguided efforts to advance their aims through undemocratic and violent means. The former can be Global Citizens, while the latter cannot.
Global Citizens do not want to abolish nations, and not just because the World Cup would be much less interesting without them. Instead, we seek a global framework in which all the nations of the world pool their resources and work together to address common problems. After all, global problems can only have global solutions. Global Citizens can be strong national patriots, as the members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru clearly are, but they also hold to the developing global perspective which recognizes that we are all members of the same human family and we shall rise or fall together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)