Beware of false friends!

Despite the sobering experience of the last UN Summit of the Future and its completely inadequate results, some civil society actors still seem to believe that they can achieve something to reform the UN Charter. Their goals are noble and right. They should not be slowed down. Perhaps they will succeed after all. They write in the latest UN Charter Reform Coalition newsletter:

Brazil, South Africa and India join the call for Charter Reform!

On 19 November, the IBSA Dialogue Forum - which brings together India, Brazil and South Africa, released a statement encouraging a “wide-ranging reform of the UN Charter, including the convening of a review conference, in accordance with its Article 109”.

“We cannot wait,” the statement says, “for another global tragedy, like the Second World War, to build a new global governance on its ruins.”

The Coalition is now actively reaching out to each of the three countries to explore how we can support them in advancing the agenda.

However, caution is urgently advised here. The current governments of India, Brazil and South Africa are by no means trustworthy. After all, they are in a political alliance with the biggest liars, thieves and murderers in the world at the moment, the Putin regime in Russia, which is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine and constantly threatening to use nuclear weapons. The second rotten egg in the basket is the Chinese Communist Party, which wants to take away Taiwan's freedom with its military expansion policy, threatens the South Pacific and has qualified as a world champion in the disregard for human rights. And then there are others, such as Iran, the nightmare of every freedom-loving woman. These are the BRICS states. They have a slightly different world order in mind. Anyone who makes common cause with such powers cannot possibly be trustworthy.

So people, pay attention, also in the interest of your own credibility!

The 'Great Filter' in front of us

A strong explanation of the ‘Fermi paradox’ is provided by the theory of the 'Great Filter'. The filter can also be described as a barrier or hurdle. The assumption arises from the many possible catastrophes that can put an abrupt end to the further development of a species during its long evolutionary history. Just think of the dinosaurs here on earth. According to a controversial theory, the eruption of a supervolcano on the island of Sumatra 75,000 years ago reduced humanity to a few thousand people. In this way, the development of intelligent life on other planets in the universe can also be impeded and the progress of civilisations made impossible. We know from human history just how much natural disasters can influence the world. If the Tunguska event in 1908 had not taken place over Siberia, but over the Ruhr area in Germany, the First World War would almost certainly not have happened. The world would probably look a little different today.

Apocalypse - Painting by Albert Goodwin, 1903

Even if humanity could end all wars and realise world peace, the biggest hurdle for the survival of our species would still have to be overcome. It is climate change caused by global warming. This threatening situation is a result of our civilisation and began at a time when people were not yet aware of it. In principle, it started when our ancestors made fires in their caves to keep warm. The climate crisis is expected to worsen significantly in the coming years. The current storms, floods, droughts and wildfires are just a foretaste of what is to come.

If the United Nations system collapses in the course of increasing catastrophes, authoritarian powers will attempt to take over the world order. The Chinese Communist Party and Putin's Russia are already fantasising about it. India, Brazil and South Africa are not averse. There are many smaller dictatorships that will be happy to join in. ‘America first’ will then become the arse of the world. It's hard to imagine the chaos that will ensue. Only the iron fist of a ‘dictatorship of reason’ will be able to control it. However, this will not be able to solve the world's problems either, but will lead to even more death and destruction. I have already addressed this scenario in my article ‘Global empire or federal world union?' A tolerable passage through the ‘Great Filter’ is only conceivable for humanity in the form of a democratic world federation. Whether it will succeed depends on us humans.

Please read my detailed article at Substack:

Can mankind survive? - by Richard Maxheim

Why I'm not at X

It's a general weakness of social media that political muddleheads, conspiracy ideologues and fanatics of all kinds can spread their rubbish unhindered under the guise of freedom of opinion. The damage caused by disinformation is considerable. But unfortunately the problem cannot be completely avoided without strict censorship. Nobody wants that, of course. On Twitter, however, it reached a level that prompted me to delete my account there in 2022.

After X-man Elon bought Twitter, things got a lot worse. Decent people, reputable organisations and companies are leaving the platform, which has since been renamed X, in droves. As a result, the proportion of negative elements is growing. This is why the German football club FC St. Pauli has also withdrawn from X. The sports fans explain their decision as follows:

‘Owner Elon Musk has turned a debate space into a hate amplifier that can also influence the federal election campaign’, ... ‘Racism and conspiracy theories spread unhindered or are even curated. Insults and threats are barely sanctioned and sold as supposed freedom of expression’, ... Musk had ‘turned X into a hate machine’ and had already ‘actively supported’ Donald Trump in the US election campaign, it said. ‘It can be assumed that X is also promoting authoritarian, misanthropic and right-wing extremist content in the German parliamentary election campaign and thus manipulating public discourse.’ Source: t-online

Unfortunately, I have to note that various civil society organisations - especially world federations - are still publishing their memes on X. Have they not yet realised what a disgusting swamp this is? How can they credibly campaign for a better world if they destroy their own reputation by doing so?

Here's an alternative:

The exodus from X to Bluesky has happened – the era of mass social media platforms is over | Gaby Hinsliff | The Guardian

United Nations reform is cancelled

As I noted in my article ‘World Parliament not now’ from 18 October, the desire for the rapid realisation of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations seems to have been frozen among its supporters. As none of the demands of the ‘We The Peoples’ coalition were mentioned in the ‘Pact for the Future’ adopted by the UN General Assembly, it can be assumed that all of this will now be on ice for the unforeseeable future

The ‘Civil society letter to UN Member States on inclusive and accountable global governance’ did not bring the desired result either. Perhaps there are some states that agree with this. But that is a small minority. The well-intentioned attempt to support the open letter with a petition failed miserably. Even AVAAZ, ‘The world's largest and most effective online campaigning community for change’ with over 69 million members worldwide, had just 1157 signatures after two months. Perhaps one more signature is added every day. This result documents all too clearly how little interest there is in the democratisation of the United Nations among the general public. The campaign simply lacks people. The photo of the empty meeting room fits like a lid on a bucket.

Even if existing or newly forming coalitions try to squeeze something in their favour out of the meagre UN Pact for the Future, their efforts will be no more than another race on the hamster wheel of the pretended co-determination of civil society in the UN system. But a possible alternative path is already emerging. More on this in my latest Substack article

Democracy ist not a law of nature - by Richard Maxheim

For a dream without substance

Nobel Peace Prize 2024 goes to the anti-nuclear weapons organisation Nihon Hidankyo

'Nihon Hidankyo is the only national organization of A-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Hibakusha) in Japan. It is formed with Hibakusha organizations in all 47 prefectures. It was founded on August 10, 1956, during the 2nd World Conference against A and H Bombs.' This is what it says on the organisation's website.

Nihon Hidankyo is fully deserving of the prize and the prize money of just over USD 1 million is very much appreciated. Since the 1950s, the organisation has been fighting for recognition and compensation for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as for the Pacific islanders affected by atomic bomb tests. Through education and personal testimony, the ambassadors of Nihon Hidankyo have raised international awareness of the horrific impact of nuclear weapons. This has certainly contributed to the fact that no nuclear bombs have been used militarily since 1945 and can of course also be seen as part of deterrence.

Toshiyuki Mimaki, Chairman of Nihon Hidankyo, said after the award ceremony was announced at Hiroshima City Hall: ‘It really does feel like a dream. I would like to continue to appeal to the people of the world to abolish nuclear weapons and achieve lasting peace.’ (Source SPIEGEL)

As with most other movements for disarmament and peace, this positive dream lacks a realistic vision. I have described in my article ‘World without nuclear weapons’ why this is not so easily possible. In today's world disorder, no nation with nuclear weapons will give up its sovereign self-protection. In fact, more countries will seek nuclear armament. Some of them with aggressive intent, as Russia and North Korea are already demonstrating with their threats.

The global abolition of nuclear armament is currently an illusion. To make nuclear disarmament possible, humanity must unite in a federal world union. This is the indispensable prerequisite for lasting world peace. There is no other way. All organisations working for disarmament and peace should finally understand this and become active accordingly. Otherwise they will all remain just dreams without substance.

World without nuclear weapons - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Coalition for a Global Citizens' Assembly founded

In its latest newsletter, the Iswe Foudation announces that the

"Coalition for a Global Citizens’ Assembly is now officially launched (along with a revamped website)! Thank you for joining or supporting us over the past 6 months. We look forward to working with all of you and many more towards a permanent Global Citizens’ Assembly. ..... Backed by the Governments of Brazil, Vanuatu and Ireland, Iswe Foundation and partners launched the Global Citizens’ Assembly for People and Planet alongside the Coalition for a Global Citizens’ Assembly."

I responded to the newsletter with a short email:

Dear colleagues and friends,
In your initiative for a permanent Global Citizens' Assembly, I recognise the embryo of the future 'United Mankind Organisation'. Please read my article
Three pillars for the World Union - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)
With best regards and best wishes

World Parliament not now

But a permanent ‘Global Citizens’ Assembly for People and Planet’ is to come

World Parliament not now - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

From the UN Future Summit to a world free of nuclear weapons?

What I expected from the outset is slowly starting to emerge in the announcements from civil society: The disappointment is there. Some are still trying to disguise it in a positive light. It sounds like ‘it didn't help, but it was nice that we were there’. All of this painted with colourful photos on social networks. The networkers of ‘Abolition 2000’ were able to gain something from the agreed Future Pact after all and want to continue working with it.

At the Summit of the Future, world leaders agreed that “A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all humankind and we must make every effort to avert the danger of such a war… a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. They decided to “Recommit to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons” and to “strengthening the disarmament and non-proliferation architecture and work to prevent any erosion of existing international norms and take all possible steps to prevent nuclear war."

'Abilition 2000' had invited people to a webinar on 1 October. The statements made there did not sound particularly optimistic. These were all arguments that have been known for a long time. The fact that leading politicians from many nations are committed to nuclear disarmament is nothing new. Since 2017, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a binding Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons under international law. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was involved in the treaty, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year. However, neither the disarmament advocates nor the Nobel Prize Committee are decisive here, but the leading politicians of the nations that possess nuclear weapons. And the prohibition of nuclear weapons does not apply to them because they have not agreed to it. So the criminal cannot be held responsible because he rejects the law. This is how international law works.

Is a world without nuclear weapons even possible?
A world free of nuclear weapons - and then what?
The unification of mankind is a prerequisite!

World without nuclear weapons - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

United Religions Organisation

The third pillar for the world federation

Just as UN member states' leading politicians and heads of state are responsible for the well-being of their country's citizens, they also bear a special responsibility for the future of humanity as a whole. This is precisely the ideal foundation of the United Nation. This is why the nations are united at the UN. Unfortunately, many national leaders have not yet realised this.

Just like state leaders, the leaders of religious communities also have a responsibility towards their believers and the peoples among whom their religion is spread. Since in the vast majority of religions the belief in divine creation in its entirety prevails - regardless of whether it was created by one god or by a multitude of gods - they also bear responsibility for the whole world and thus for humanity as a whole. It would therefore be of great benefit to all if they were to unite in a ‘United Religions Organisation’.

This is not about mixing religious beliefs, but about unbiased, tolerant and respectful unity and co-operation in diversity. It should also be possible to speak openly and honestly about serious differences. This is the only way to possibly bridge them. In most cases, they are based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations anyway. There are already interfaith organisations whose goals and projects could easily be integrated into a large ‘United Religions Organisation’.

United Religions - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Three pillars for the World Union

I am writing this article on the occasion of the ‘12 Days of World Federalism’ proclaimed by the Canadian World Federalists.

The political unification of humanity in a federal world union is the great goal of our century. I have explained in my article ‘Global empire or federal world union?’ why this must not become a centralised world state, but a democratic world federation. And in my article ‘The world union of mankind’, I explained why we absolutely need a federal world union if humanity wants to survive in a good future. Today I want to explain the three pillars on which a world federation should be built.

United Nations – United Mankind – United Religions

Three pillars for the World Union - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Unification of humanity we want

The establishment of the United Mankind Initiative requires a coalition of experienced organisations and groups that are skilled in the various forms of cooperation. They must have the necessary connections and also know how to organise the necessary funding. I think that this could work in a similar way to the ‘Coalition for the UN we need’. Only then it would be a ‘Coalition for the UM we want’. The difference would then be that it would no longer be a question of repairing or improving something old, but of building a new organisation from scratch. The advantage is that the new organisation would be open to all progressive ideas and proposals, whereas the doors of the UN would remain closed. But it will be a hell of a lot of work, more than continuing to run on the UN's hamster wheel.

Let's assume that a coalition of civil society organisations succeeds in founding the United Mankind Initiative. Since the initiative would be open to a certain extent in terms of content, it could expand quickly. It goes without saying that this would require democratic leadership structures. But I don't want to prejudge that here. Branches could be established in countries where this is legally possible. In countries with authoritarian structures, we will have to wait and see. International expansion could focus on smaller countries. Here it would be easier to enter into dialogue with the respective governments.

Over time, the leadership of the initiative should develop into a parliament that corresponds to the concept of the World Parliament propagated by Democracy Without Borders. This would allow the concept to be adapted and optimised in practical application. How should the parliament be elected worldwide? There are many questions that need to be tested and clarified. The preliminary culmination of such a development would then be the period in which the World Parliament, as a general assembly, draws up and adopts a charter on the basis of which the United Mankind Organisation can be officially founded. Then ‘We the Peoples’ would no longer be an empty slogan, but a reality.

United Mankind Initiative – founding and development (substack.com)

Preview of the UN Summit of the Future

The disappointment comes closer. What comes after?

Preparations for the ‘UN Summit often the Future’, which is to take place on 22 and 23 September in New York, are in the final spurt. You don't need to be a clairvoyant to tell you that none of these wishes will come true. There may be some promises that are then celebrated as a great success, but experience has shown that they are not realised or come to nothing. I have already expressed this several times in my articles.

What will it be like after the summit, when everyone involved has realised the results? Will the NGOs continue to run nicely in the hamster wheel of the UN system? Or will some finally come to the realisation that things can't go on like this? Is it time for a new approach, time for a new world organisation alongside the United Nations? A world organisation that actually represents humanity and not the nations?

It wouldn't have to be many at first, but if some of the disappointed NGOs took the initiative to start building the United Mankind Organisation, it would be a start. Such a project is of course huge, but it can start small. The NGOs do not have to give up their previous activities within the framework of the UN. One does not exclude the other. But they would then have a second track that would stabilise their work considerably. Thanks to their experience in many coalitions, they also have the necessary connections. And who other than civil society would be better suited to represent the interests of humanity?

The disappointment comes closer - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Four pathways to world federation

It is not only since yesterday that the global scene of world citizens and world federalists has been characterised by differing ideas about the right path that should lead to the political unification of mankind in a federal world union. There are four recognisable paths that must wind their way through the difficult terrain of an uncertain future in order to get closer to the goal.

Illustration Etienne Bouwie

Unforeseeable lateral connections and shortcuts may also arise. In a group of Young World Federalists on Reddit, the question was posed as to which of the paths users would favour. The answers show some deficits in the assessment of the real world situation. In this article, I want to write my personal view of the four paths and point out a fifth path that is not shown in the illustration. However, it could unite the winding paths into a broad, easy road.

Read article:

Four pathways to world federation - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Pioneers of United Mankind

Plaque on the Pioneer space probes 10 and 11

As I have already stated several times, a second world organisation should be sought alongside the United Nations: the United Mankind Organisation. For this, we need a United Mankind initiative, which should come from suitable NGOs.

Part of this initiative could consist of launching a global movement that I would call the "Pioneers of United Mankind". In principle, this would correspond to Arnold Toynbee's recommendation (see previous post). Such a movement could become the strongest driving force for the political unification of mankind in a democratic, federal world union.

Just as for the two interstellar space probes Pioneer 10 and 11, launched in 1972 and 1973, this is a long way off. In contrast to these space probes, however, we have a clear goal: the unity of mankind.

See my detailed article:
Pioneers of United Mankind - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

Arnold Toynbee and the United Mankind

The well-known British cultural historian and philosopher of history Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) made indirect references to a possible United Mankind Organisation in his writings. For example, in his book "Mankind an Mother Earth":

"The present independent regional states are incapable of maintaining peace, protecting the biosphere from human pollution, or conserving their irreplaceable resources. This political anarchy can no longer be allowed to continue in an ecumene that has long since become one in the technical and economic fields. What has been needed for five thousand years - and has proved feasible in technology for a hundred years - is a world-wide political organisation consisting of individual cells on the scale of neolithic village communities - so small and manageable that each member knows the other and yet is a citizen of the world state."

See my article on Substack:
Arnold Toynbee and the unity of mankind

Today is the International Day of Friendship

In 2011, the UN General Assembly officially proclaimed 30 July the International Day of Friendship, with the idea that ‘friendship between peoples, countries, cultures and individuals can inspire peace efforts and build bridges between communities.’

Disney bear Winnie the Pooh as ambassador of friendship

The term ‘friendship’ is very complex and a broad field for sociologists, psychologists and philosophers. It primarily characterises a concrete relationship between individuals that is based on sympathy, affection, appreciation and trust. The desire for friendship between peoples, countries and cultures expressed in the UN General Assembly resolution, on the other hand, is rather abstract. Nevertheless, it is justified, because the opposite of friendship is enmity.

I wrote an article on Substack about the importance of friendship in building a United Mankind Organisation.

The importance of friendship for the unity of mankind (substack.com)

Future world language: Esperanto, English or what?

A common lingua franca would be of great benefit for communication between the citizens of the world. English has long since taken this place. There is no way around English today. Nevertheless, there are still enough reasons to critically scrutinise the dominance of English. Apart from the historical background, English is not a particularly euphonious language. But that is a matter of taste. Better-sounding languages such as French and Spanish are just as negatively charged and even more difficult to learn.

Esperanto flags

Wouldn't it be better to choose a completely unencumbered, constructed planned language that is relatively easy to learn and also sounds good? A language that does not override or even supplant the existing native languages and does not claim to be a cultural language. A whole series of logically structured planned languages were invented in the 19th and 20th centuries. The best known and most widespread is Esperanto. I have written an article on this question at Substack.

I will stick to English for the time being. That's why I write my website, my blog, my articles and my correspondence for the United Mankind Initiative in English, even though I don't speak English at all. I use the online translator from DeepL, which is based on AI. The translations are close to perfection. It's not for nothing that DeepL now has the reputation of being the most accurate translator in the world. The free version is perfectly adequate for my purposes, as long as the communication is not reduced to memes but consists of comprehensible, coherent sentences.

A language of communication for United Mankind (substack.com)

Why the world federation is indispensable

In various articles, one reads again and again about supposedly valid arguments against a political unification of mankind. The spectre of an overly powerful world government is regularly conjured up. I have already written about this nonsense here in the blog. You have to ask such authors whether they are seriously of the opinion that things should continue as before. Do they not realise what devastating consequences the continuation of the current world disorder will have for the future? What really speaks against a better world order? What alternatives would it have to offer?

In a new article at Substack and other articles already published, I have explained why a federal world union is indispensable for the future of mankind and why we need the United Mankind in addition to the United Nations.

The world union of mankind - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

In search of people for the United Mankind

In order to initiate a movement, you first need a personal base. This base does not have to be large, but its participants should be aware of their task and become active for the cause - each according to their possibilities and abilities. The point is to find such people. They would be the first members and companions on the path to United Mankind.

There are many places all over the world where you can find these companions. You could do it like the international Registry of World Citizens. But that would be too much bureaucracy to start with. Also, the benefits of world citizen ID cards are disproportionate to the effort required for them.

Perhaps the simplest method could be to look for companions on social networks on the Internet. I have started a trial on Facebook. Anyone who is interested can join the side United Mankind Pioneers.

See also the article at Substack: Is mankind worth it?

Global empire or federal world union?

 

The idea of a comprehensive, centralised world empire has fuelled the imagination of authors of dystopian future literature since the beginning of the modern era. For conspiracy theorists, they are still big business. For nationalists, it's a nightmare. Unless, of course, their own nation were to take over world domination.

Such a world empire would not necessarily mean a world dictatorship. Everything could also go well. However, knowing human nature, this is hardly conceivable. The interests are too different and could hardly be reconciled by a centralised world government. The result would be unrest, uprisings and the replacement of world wars with world civil wars. We already have all that.

That is why democratic world federalism seems to me to be the only logical way to get a grip on the future of mankind. I have published a detailed article about this on Substack:

Global empire or federal world union? - by Richard Maxheim (substack.com)

I have also started building a new website:

United Mankind Initiative (google.com)

A system of global justice and solidarity

 A recent blog article at Democracy Without Borders deals with a survey which came to the following conclusion: majorities in G20+ countries support global democracy proposals. I am always sceptical about such surveys, especially when they distort the results. In this case, the G20 was only able to analyse data from 18 member states. You can guess which two countries are missing.

Nevertheless, the analyses are interesting overall, as they clearly show the biggest obstacles to a functioning democracy at international level. This is one of the reasons why civil society campaigns such as "We the Peoples" are being slowed down. This is less about formal democracy and more about economic justice.

"Progressive taxation is seen as a crucial tool for addressing economic inequality and funding public goods and services."

"These policy preferences reflect a comprehensive vision of a more equitable, sustainable, and participatory society."

Taxes may be an effective instrument at national level. However, they can also burden the wrong people and lead to injustice, unrest and the strengthening of populist forces. Domestic political disputes in many democratic countries show this. At a global level, there is perhaps a better method: pseudo-lease instead of taxes. I have published an article on this at Stubstack:

KOMPENSO - a conceivable system of global justice and solidarity

The problem of world government

In theoretical discussions about a possible better world order, the term "world government" often comes up very quickly. People of international renown, including Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi and many others, have advocated it without having expressed a more precise idea. In science fiction literature, the unified government of planet Earth is widespread. It all sounds mostly positive.

In reality, however, negative opinions predominate. Very few people love their governments, even if they are democratically legitimised. And then a world government on top of that, no thanks. The 1906 novel "Lord of the World" describes a superficially good world government that leads to misery and ruin. Many warlords in history had such ambitions and would have liked to rule the world. Adolf Hitler and his entourage took it to the extreme. At present, there are also some dark figures on the loose again who are keeping the world on tenterhooks. They also have nuclear bombs. The greatest enemies of any idea of a world government, however positive, are the nationalists of all the countries of the world, who fortunately cannot unite because that is against their nature.

I would therefore strongly advise against using the prospect of a world government to promote a better future for mankind. This is simply about the term, because it is misleading and offers too much room for wild fantasies. There are better options. I have published an article about this on Substack:

World Government - is that necessary? Please stop this nonsense!

Continue to tread water?

The Democracy Without Borders blog has a detailed report on the recent UN Civil Society Conference, with a clear statement from an official UN diplomat:

Discussion with the Pact’s co-facilitator

A large part of the session on the second day was dedicated to an interaction with the German UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse, one of the co-facilitators of the Pact for the Future. Following a presentation of the proposals, she pointed out that in her view they all “have the right direction of creating a global democratic space”. However, in her assessment, none of the proposals can be included in the Pact as a number of member states were explicitly against civil society involvement and the negotiations were based on consensus. But she said she would explore the possibility of including stronger language on protecting civic space.

It is very nice when civil society is tolerated at the very least. The only question is what the whole theatre of conferences is supposed to achieve. DWB sums up in the latest newsletter from 14 June:

Pact for the Future // Following the Nairobi UN conference, a new draft of the so-called Pact for the Future was presented and is now discussed by UN Member States. The draft does not acknowledge the UN's support of democracy and does not propose meaningful changes for better inclusion of civil society, elected representatives or citizens.

That is unmistakable. If civil society groups no longer want to give themselves false hope and tread water, they need to come up with something else.

My suggestion: United Mankind Initiative.

Substack: What does consultative status at the United Nations mean? - Is it more than a hamster wheel for do-gooders?

When must the initiative come?

It is foreseeable that the planned UN Future Summit will not adopt the urgently needed reforms of the United Nations. The proposals of civil society will hardly be taken into consideration. Even if there are signs of improvements to the UN system at the summit, their realisation remains uncertain. Let's not fool ourselves! As is so often the case, many things will come to nothing. Then there is a risk of frustration and resignation.

That is why the United Mankind Initiative for a new world organisation should be launched by the end of September / beginning of October 2024 at the latest. It would definitely strengthen civil society. The time until then must be used to find people and organisations that are ready for this. Ideas and proposals for a concept can already be collected and discussed now. Let's just get started!

Who wants to be involved? Who can provide a platform for it? Please write it here in the comments, or to mondialisten@gmail.com

See also the article at Substack !

Can mankind be united?

The global problems that threaten us all are getting worse by the day. They are largely the result of human activities in the past and present. If mankind wants to survive in the future, it must respond correctly to this comprehensive threat. This can only be done together and not against each other.

The unity of mankind is not about naive philanthropy or utopian conformity, but about just solidarity and co-operation. And that transcends ethnic, cultural and religious differences and nationalities. Unity in diversity is the order of the day. United Mankind will not be an easy task. But for a good future, we have no other choice.

Of course, it is not so easy to unite people. Not all people need to be united, but only those who seriously want to be. All it takes is a sufficiently large minority with moral strength, political influence and effective organisation.

What is needed is a concept, a plan and an initiative.

Can the UN be reformed?

It would be possible if the member states had the will for unity. But that is not the case. For decades, committed organisations have been trying to persuade the United Nations to reform. Unfortunately, with little success.

In the run-up to the UN Future Summit planned for September 2024, the proposals of the ‘We the Peoples’ campaign (the first three words of the UN Charter) were also presented at the UN Civil Society Conference in Nairobi. Colombe Cahen-Salvador writes about her experiences:

I attended the United Nations Civil Society Conference in Nairobi two weeks ago, and what I witnessed was heartbreaking. Thousands of people, activists and civil society organisations attended this conference with the promise that it would be the moment to change the multilateral system. But at every small push, however incremental, UN representatives explained during closed-door meetings it would never happen. They would not back any change capable of doing good. Why then bother to organise such a massive conference, and waste people's time?!

It is therefore questionable whether the proposals of ‘We the Peoples’ will be considered at the upcoming Future Summit. It is time to make a start on a new world organisation.

It's time for the United Mankind Initiative.

United Nations or United Mankind?

Design of a possible flag for a
United Mankind Organisation

The United Nations Organisation has been in existence since the end of the Second World War in 1945. It has still not achieved the goal it set itself back then of "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" (Preamble to the UN Charter). Its history is also a succession of failures in other endeavours.

This is because the United Nations is in fact not united. The organisation should not be described as completely useless. However, its member states make it impossible to realise its full potential. Excessive sovereignty and nationalism, national egoism and the desire for supremacy are the biggest obstacles. This is currently getting worse. Plans for a reform of the United Nations are being prevented or are coming to nothing. This makes it impossible to solve the great problems of our time. Without unity, we are threatened with ruin.

It is time to think about a new world organisation. It should not focus on nations, but on people as part of mankind. It should not compete with the United Nations, but complement it.

It is time for a new vision and a new initiative.

United Mankind Initiative