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.
Monday, January 31, 2011
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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Violence Has No Place In Political Discourse
Two high-profile shootings on opposite sides of the planet have captured the news cycles of the world over the last week. On January 4, Salmaan Taseer, a Pakistani politician who served as the Governor of Punjab (the largest province in Pakistan) was ruthlessly gunned down by one of his own security guards. And on January 8, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head at point blank range at a constituency outreach event. Taseer was killed, while Giffords is still fighting for her life.
These two shootings may have taken place in very different countries, but both Governor Taseer and Congresswoman Giffords had one thing in common: they were voices for common sense and moderation in political landscapes that had become increasingly vitrolic and extreme. The death of Governor Taseer and the serious wounding of Congresswoman Giffords are both outrageous atrocities and strike at the heart of all peace-loving, rational human beings.
Governor Taseer was an outspoken opponent of the religious fundamentalists who have become increasingly powerful in Pakistan over the last several years. In particular, he publicly opposed the nation's cruel and absurd blasphemy law, by which Pakistani citizens might be fined, imprisoned, or even executed if they spoke out against Islam. By all accounts, it was Taseer's opposition to the blasphemy law that motivated his assassin to kill him.
The motives of the man who attempted to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords are not entirely clear at this point. He apparently left social network messages indicated a belief in conspiracy theories and expressing a general hatred of government, but it seems entirely possible that he was mentally unbalanced. Nevertheless, only a willfully deluded person would deny that the increasingly harsh and borderline violent rhetoric being spread by certain elements of the American conservative movement probably played a role in the man's actions.
Representative democracy combined with free and fair elections are at the heart of what it means to be a Global Citizen. Violence must never be allowed to replace rational political discourse. Rebellion against unlawful tyranny might be permissable under natural law if there is no other recourse, but not in times and places where one can vote freely for one's representatives in government.
If a revolution can be initiated at the ballot box, there is never any justification for taking up arms. None whatsoever. We must decisively reject all those who would turn to violence to further their own political or religious ideologies in a free society.
These two shootings may have taken place in very different countries, but both Governor Taseer and Congresswoman Giffords had one thing in common: they were voices for common sense and moderation in political landscapes that had become increasingly vitrolic and extreme. The death of Governor Taseer and the serious wounding of Congresswoman Giffords are both outrageous atrocities and strike at the heart of all peace-loving, rational human beings.
Governor Taseer was an outspoken opponent of the religious fundamentalists who have become increasingly powerful in Pakistan over the last several years. In particular, he publicly opposed the nation's cruel and absurd blasphemy law, by which Pakistani citizens might be fined, imprisoned, or even executed if they spoke out against Islam. By all accounts, it was Taseer's opposition to the blasphemy law that motivated his assassin to kill him.
The motives of the man who attempted to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords are not entirely clear at this point. He apparently left social network messages indicated a belief in conspiracy theories and expressing a general hatred of government, but it seems entirely possible that he was mentally unbalanced. Nevertheless, only a willfully deluded person would deny that the increasingly harsh and borderline violent rhetoric being spread by certain elements of the American conservative movement probably played a role in the man's actions.
Representative democracy combined with free and fair elections are at the heart of what it means to be a Global Citizen. Violence must never be allowed to replace rational political discourse. Rebellion against unlawful tyranny might be permissable under natural law if there is no other recourse, but not in times and places where one can vote freely for one's representatives in government.
If a revolution can be initiated at the ballot box, there is never any justification for taking up arms. None whatsoever. We must decisively reject all those who would turn to violence to further their own political or religious ideologies in a free society.
Monday, January 3, 2011
School of the Americas Must Be Closed Immediately
What would Thomas Jefferson have thought if he had been told that the United States would eventually establish a military academy to train agents of oppressive foreign governments in the most effective techniques of murder and torture, to be used against politically-active citizens who were only campaigning for their natural rights? The School of the Americas (renamed in 2001 as the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation", but still better known by its original name) is precisely such an institution. Its very existence is a national disgrace, and it should be closed down immediately.
Established in 1946, the School of the Americas has trained an estimated 60,000 members of the military and police forces of Latin American nations. In addition to basic military training, the academy provides instruction in specialized counter-insurgency tactics, interrogation techniques, and other such subjects. Whether intentionally or not, the School of the Americas has equipped the worst villains in Latin America with the knowledge to wage war on their own people, and it continues to do so.
A quick glance at some of the graduates of the School of the Americas should chill the blood of every decent American citizen. There is Efrain Montt, the military dictator who ruled Guatemala with an iron fist and conducted a campaign of genocide against the Mayan population of his country. There is Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran army officer and politician who tortured and killed thousands of his political opponents during the 1980s. There is Hugo Banzer, who was dictator of Bolivia in the 1970s; during his rule thousands of political enemies were tortured, killed, or simply vanished. In addition, many of the underlings of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet were trained at the School of the Americas.
Perhaps the clearest example of the evil that has come out of the School for the Americas is the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army, which was organized by men trained at the academy. This unit was primarily responsible for the El Mozote Massacre of 1981, in which nearly a thousand civilians were brutally killed. They also were involved in the infamous murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989, an event which sparked widespread public condemnation of the School of the Americas.
This facility trains brutal agents of undemocratic regimes in the tactics of murder and torture, yet it is run by the American military and is funded by the American taxpayer. Its very existence is an outrage and violates the Enlightenment values on which America was founded. The School of the Americas must be eradicated root and branch.
During the last session of Congress, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) introduced House Resolution 2567, which would abolish the School of the Americas and establish a commission to investigate human rights abuses committed at the institution. Over a hundred other House members signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. It is imperative that the pressure be kept up in order to ensure that this legislation is reintroduced in the new congressional session.
To answer the question asked by the opening paragraph, Jefferson would lament for his country had he seen the School of the Americas. In our time, however, action should take the place of lamentation. Global Citizens in the United States should not tolerate the existence of the School of the Americas, and should use every means at their disposal to ensure that this stain on the honor of the American republic is removed forever.
Established in 1946, the School of the Americas has trained an estimated 60,000 members of the military and police forces of Latin American nations. In addition to basic military training, the academy provides instruction in specialized counter-insurgency tactics, interrogation techniques, and other such subjects. Whether intentionally or not, the School of the Americas has equipped the worst villains in Latin America with the knowledge to wage war on their own people, and it continues to do so.
A quick glance at some of the graduates of the School of the Americas should chill the blood of every decent American citizen. There is Efrain Montt, the military dictator who ruled Guatemala with an iron fist and conducted a campaign of genocide against the Mayan population of his country. There is Roberto D'Aubuisson, the Salvadoran army officer and politician who tortured and killed thousands of his political opponents during the 1980s. There is Hugo Banzer, who was dictator of Bolivia in the 1970s; during his rule thousands of political enemies were tortured, killed, or simply vanished. In addition, many of the underlings of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet were trained at the School of the Americas.
Perhaps the clearest example of the evil that has come out of the School for the Americas is the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army, which was organized by men trained at the academy. This unit was primarily responsible for the El Mozote Massacre of 1981, in which nearly a thousand civilians were brutally killed. They also were involved in the infamous murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989, an event which sparked widespread public condemnation of the School of the Americas.
This facility trains brutal agents of undemocratic regimes in the tactics of murder and torture, yet it is run by the American military and is funded by the American taxpayer. Its very existence is an outrage and violates the Enlightenment values on which America was founded. The School of the Americas must be eradicated root and branch.
During the last session of Congress, Representative James McGovern (D-MA) introduced House Resolution 2567, which would abolish the School of the Americas and establish a commission to investigate human rights abuses committed at the institution. Over a hundred other House members signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. It is imperative that the pressure be kept up in order to ensure that this legislation is reintroduced in the new congressional session.
To answer the question asked by the opening paragraph, Jefferson would lament for his country had he seen the School of the Americas. In our time, however, action should take the place of lamentation. Global Citizens in the United States should not tolerate the existence of the School of the Americas, and should use every means at their disposal to ensure that this stain on the honor of the American republic is removed forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)