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