The Trojan Horse Plan for UN Reform

UNITED NATIONS, 9 Dec 2024

Klaus Schlichtmann – TRANSCEND Media Service

7 Dec 2024 – Article 106 of the UN Charter provides for a Transition from armed peace to a disarmed peace. Political scientist Quincy Wright (1890-1970) wrote about the transition:

“The activities of the transitional period should be guided by four preeminent purposes:

1. the general discrediting of aggression;
2.  the demonstration of the capacity of democracy;
3. the efficient administration of emergency tasks; and
4. the establishment of the foundations of a peaceful world order.” (Wright 267)

Unfortunately so far no definite steps have been taken to transition toward an empowered United Nations. Originally, as Chicago University Professor Quincy Wright anticipated in 1942, it was “believed a period of four or five years should be envisaged” for the process. (Wright 271)

None of this has come to pass, we are dealing with a largely “undemocratic United Nations” that is “unable to protect the Palestinians” (Roger Kotila) or for that matter the Russian speaking minorities in East Ukraine. War has not been abolished and the anarchic nation-state system provides for powerful military institutions and an arms race that results again and again in deadly wars. What Harry S. Truman had envisaged has not happened; Truman said on June 26, 1945:

“This Charter … will be expanded and improved as time goes on. No one claims that it is now a final or a perfect instrument. It has not been poured into any fixed mold. Changing world conditions will require readjustments—but they will be the readjustments of peace and not of war.”

The short window of opportunity that existed for a few years after the end of the Second World War soon closed. The 1949 US RESOLUTION 64 adopted in both Houses of Congress appears as a broad hint to the international community, and especially the Europeans, to take action, stating:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law.

German Diplomat Ernst von Weizsäcker, while awaiting trial as a war criminal, wrote his memoirs, saying that a world federal state would be a good idea. Perhaps there was some interaction between von Weizsäcker and the Americans regarding this issue. In his book Erinnerungen (Recollections), published in 1950, von Weizsäcker wrote he favoured the “peaceful and solidarity movement toward a federal superstate.” And not only that, The German Constitution adopted in 1949 appeared to complement the Americans, stating:

1. The Federation may by legislation transfer sovereign powers to international
2. With a view to maintaining peace, the Federation may enter into a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it will consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the nations of the world.
3. For the settlement of disputes between states, the Federation shall accede to agreements providing for general, comprehensive and compulsory international arbitration.

This most striking German Constitution’s Article 24 must be seen as the lever to initiate the UN’s empowerment. France had already made preliminary arrangements, stating in its 1946 Constitution:

“On condition of reciprocity, France accepts the limitations of sovereignty necessary for the organisation and defence of peace. (Preamble of the Constitution of 27 October 1946, stands reconfirmed in Constitution of 4 October 1958)

The Japanese people followed suit with a severe sovereignty restriction, aiming at an international peace based on justice and order, and denying the state the right of belligerency:

“We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. (Preamble) … the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means for settling international disputes … land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential will never be maintained.” (Article 9 of the Constitution of 3 May 1947)

What is the history behind these developments?

After the failure of the Hague Confederation of States (1899 to 1914), and as the League of Nations appeared increasingly ineffective, international lawyers started to consider the possibility of including the “outlawry of war” into national constitutions. (Wehberg 1931) Hans Wehberg said:

“If the states are to be asked to outlaw war, they should not only be asked to do so by an international convention and in a manner which is constantly to be perfected. If the states are sincere in their desire to eliminate war, as we do not doubt, then they should consider the question whether they are ready to introduce in their constitutions a renunciation of war … Almost all the constitutions of the world are in need of improvement so far as the question of the outlawry of war is concerned. ” (Wehberg 108)

An early example which Wehberg sites is the French Constitution’s proviso adopted at the French National Convention of May 22, 1790, which was later Included in the constitution of September 3, 1791, stating: “The National Assembly declares that the French nation renounces the undertaking of any war with a view to making conquests, and that it will never employ its forces against the liberty [p. 109] of any people.” (Wehberg 108/9)

The provision lost its significance during the Napoleonic wars, but was later taken up by the South American states. The constitutions of Venezuela, Ecuador, the Central American Republic

(founded temporarily in 1895 between Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador) recognized the principle of arbitration. The constitution of San Domingo stated that no war should be declared without a previous attempt to settle the dispute peacefully. The most significant constitutional article was that of Brazil of February 24, 1891, which copied the French Article of 1791. Later Uruguay followed the Brazilian example. (Wehberg)

Apart from Portugal in 1911 and the Netherlands in 1922, there were no other constitutional stipulations containing positive juridical limits to the right to declare war. No doubt, as Hans Wehberg noted, constitutions had become an important source for outlawing war. Hans Wehberg quotes the German professor Wilhelm Kaufmann, who proposed the following article in the new German constitution:

“The German democracy expressly recognizes that under present circumstances it would be a terrible crime against the community of the nations for a people belonging to this community to undertake or provoke a war of aggression.” (Wehberg 111)

The constitutional outlawry of war was greatly supported by the American peace movement.

The aforementioned peace clauses in the constitutions of France, Japan and Germany are based on these historic precedents. And not only the American 1949 Resolution 64, but also France decidedly advocated “the voluntary renunciation by each state of the necessary portion of its own sovereignty.” (Léon Blum, November 1945, 178)

“A world constitution, a world assembly, with, as Bevin puts it, a world moral force and a world police force, makes a world superstate … In international socialism, in fact, no party has been more constantly and strongly attached than we have to the idea of world super-sovereignty … until the day when the Security Council, as provided for in the San Francisco Charter, can take the reins. For in this area, as in all others, international organization is the only way to achieve real solutions.” (Léon Blum, November 1945, 180 in L’oevre de Leon Blum)

The World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), founded in 1957 by Philip (1915-2012) and Margaret Isely (1921-1997), was a follow-up to the unsuccessful American resolution to develop the United Nations into a world federation. I knew Margaret and Philip personally well.

Presently Dr. Glen T. Martin, a Professor of Philosophy—apparently recently ousted in a coup—leads the organisation. Glen Martin is Executive Director of the Earth Constitution Institute (ECI) and President of the World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA). https://earthconstitution.world/

I am one of the original signatories of the Earth Constitution, presented in Innsbruck, Austria in 1977. Proposed by the WCPA, the text can be downloaded:

https://www.wcpa.global/text-of-the-earth-constitution.html/. I am proud Professor Martin put me on the list of ‘Initial Honorary Distinguished Advisors’. I am also a delegate to WCPA’s Provisional World Parliament.

The first session of the Provisional World Parliament, organised by the World Constitution and Parliament Association took place in Brighton, England in 1982, which I was able to attend. On my initiative, we passed a Resolution with the aim of taking steps to implement a specific project, the “RIVER OF DESTINY” project. This project had been presented by Helen Tucker from Canada, Tharyan Abraham from Kerala, India, and me, at the Third Session of the World Constituent Assembly convened by the WCPA in Colombo, Sri Lanka (December 29, 1978 to January 6, 1979).

The text was published in the magazine World Union (Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, India). Among other things, it stated:

“Already in 1971-72 a United Nations team of experts evaluated the subcontinental irrigation and canal project, combining, besides irrigation for food production, hydroelectric power generation and navigation. The American futurologist R. Buckminister Fuller wrote about the project: ‘Thinking in the longest time and biggest way about India’s problems and India’s needs, it becomes dramatically clear that the number one long-distance project to be immediately undertaken and continually served until completion is the building of a North to South chain of great canals and reservoirs leading the waters of the Himalayas southward all the way to the southern tongue of India. The waters that can be impounded in the highlands to produce vast energy generating dams whose waterhead can render India the most favourably energy-served areas in the world while also flowing its water under controlled conditions to all of its fertile fields’.” R. B. Fuller in his foreword to Dinshaw J. Dastur’s This or Else…, Bombay, Jaico Publishing House 1976.

About the book the publishers commented—”We have more wealth in water than Arabia has in oil so says Dinshaw J. Dastur. The above realisation dawned on him as he surveyed the length and breadth of India from the air. Out of the realisation grew a plan: to link all the rivers of India with two giant canals. The Himalayan and the Deccan Garland Canals. These will transform India into a prosperous country, bringing to fruition its tremendous agrarian potential. It is a project of breathtaking simplicity … Implementation of the project could call for global collaboration, planetary planning and a transnational investment policy. The River of Destiny Project for World Unification as a strategy could raise public consciousness. Individuals, organisations, governments and the United Nations could collaborate in the scheme.”

This is precisely what our Resolution aimed for.

In 1985, the Second Session of the Provisional World Parliament was inaugurated at New Delhi, India, on March 17, with 900 people attending, and active participation of the Indian Government. Opening addresses were delivered by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (Parliament), the Hon. Balram Jakhar, who accepted to serve as Honorary Speaker of the Provisional World Parliament, H. E. Zail Singh, the President of India, who applauded the aims of the Parliament, and many others.

Unfortunately I had not been able to attend.

During this session of the Provisional World Parliament, which continued until March 25, three “world legislative bills” and two Resolutions were adopted, among others, to carry out the program of the Emergency Earth Rescue Administration. A comprehensive legislative bill on the environment was also approved. The adopted bills included massive reforestation worldwide, a rapid transition from burning fossil, ratification of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, outlawing nuclear weapons together with other weapons of mass destruction, establishing a World Disarmament Agency, a World Economic Development Organization and a Graduate School of World Problems and developing a World Government Corporation. In addition, a WORLD COMMISSION ON TERRORISM was initiated. A Resolution For ZONES OF PEACE AND NUCLEAR FREE ZONES was as follows:

“This Second Session of the Provisional World Parliament recognizes, supports and encourages the declaration and implementation of Zones of Peace and Nuclear Free Zones by any and all countries, cities and other governmental bodies which will adopt such declarations, so that such countries and other areas can freely pursue policies of economic and social development in a peaceful and friendly manner, with the ultimate aim that the entire Earth, together with surrounding space, will become a Zone of Peace, free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, in the context of a non-military democratic World Federation.”

A Bill for a GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY was introduced by Emil Peter of the Greens Party of West Germany, hailing from Wolfach.

This ambitious program gave rise to hope in the International Community and in India.

As a delegate to the Provisional World Parliament I have attended several sessions in the 1990s and later in India. Recently, I have also participated in some WCPA webinars, for example in 2020, discussing ‘India and Global Peace’, which an Indian newspaper, Sach Kahoon, wrote about (in Hindi). In my introduction I had said that India has a leading role to play in building effective models of peaceful global governance; I had referred to Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo, Dr.

Radhakrishnan, Rabindranath Tagore, Arnold Toynbee and Maharaja Pratap Singh. India had been a founding member of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. I pointed to Article 109 of the UN Charter, which allows for a Review of the United Nations Charter. If the UN Members decide so and if 2/3 of its members support an amendment, then it can be implemented. However, although no country has thought in this direction, India as a nation could start the review process, I said. Patron Swami Agnivesh, President of World Constitution and Parliament Association (Delhi Chapter), Rakesh Chhokar, International Member Dr. Sanjeev Kumari, Surabhi Bhati, Lokesh Singh Tilakdhari, Dr. Rama Sharma, Frederick Iger, Dr. Ushri Dutta etc., who participated in the Webinar, seemed to agree.

*

Since so far no country has signed on to the world constitution, I had been thinking about how to introduce the Earth Constitution in the UN and initiate the process of ratification.

The United Nations Charter provides for a Transition toward an International Peace based on Justice and Order. Could this perhaps be used to initiate the process of ratification? Article 106 of the UN Charter states:

“Pending the coming into force of such special agreements referred to in Article 43 as in the opinion of the Security Council enable it to begin the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 42, the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, October 30, 1943, and France, shall, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that Declaration, consult with one another and as occasion requires with other Members of the United Nations with a view to such joint action on behalf of the Organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”

This should be seen in connection with article 24 of the UN Charter:

“In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”

Interestingly, in 1950, at the time of the Korean crisis, the Russians passed a Resolution, Resolution 85, asking to implement Charter Article 106. This would have allowed them to participate in the collective security action against the North Korean aggressor. (See https://legal.un.org/repertory/art106/english/rep_orig_vol5_art106.pdf)

Unfortunately, so far no country has signed up to the world constitution, and likewise, no UN Member state has conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of International Peace and Security on the UN.

A procedure is required to guide UN Member states on how to implement Article 24 of the Charter; this guidance is provided for in several European constitutions. The most striking among these is the German Constitution’s Article 24, already quoted, which provides for legislation to embark on the transition towards genuine collective security and disarmament. Similar Provisions are found in the Italian, Norwegian, Austrian, Portuguese, Greek and several other European constitutions.

In the 1980s the German Constitution’s Article 24, Paragraph 1 in particular had got me thinking about what such a legislation or parliamentary BILL might look like in reality. I came up with several versions which I propagated and proposed to politicians and the Government.

Recently, to adapt the draft BILL to achieve the purpose of introducing the Constitution for the Federation of Earth in the UN, this tentative proposition was formulated:

THE PARLIAMENT

• conscious of its responsibility,
• animated by the resolve to initiate the process of Charter Review under Article 109 of the UN Charter,

• aiming at embarking on the transition toward an organisation which will ensure peace and justice among nations,
• animated by the resolve to initiate a process, in the course of which the United Nations Organization may evolve into an efficacious instrument for securing peace and security, endowed with a limited supranational sovereignty of her own,
• for the organisation and defence of peace,
• recognizing the fact that concrete, confidence-building measures and legal steps are required in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,
• aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order,
• pursuing the strengthening of peace, and of justice and the development of friendly relations between peoples and states, and in order to serve an important national interest and promote cooperation with other states,
• to maintain international legal order and cooperation, and for this purpose
• introducing the Earth Constitution as a basis for discussing issues of disarmament and the effective functioning of the United Nations Organisation, including
• establishing a World Parliament and an efficient international police organisation to replace and/or effectively integrate NATO, hereby transfers sovereign powers concerning the right of belligerency of the state and national and international security and world peace to the Security Council of the United Nations (Article 24 I UN Charter).

In most countries such a BILL can be passed with a simple majority in the national assembly. How many people, having signed the Earth Constitution, would be willing to support such a BILL?

*

Pooling Security Sovereignty with the UN

In 1987 the United Nations Conference on the Relationship between Development and Disarmament invited non-governmental organisations to give them an opportunity to make themselves heard. This was the time when NGOs had just begun to have a voice within the UN, granted them under Rule 45 of the provisional rules of procedure. Representing the German World Federalists (Weltföderalisten Deutschlands e.V.) I was able to present a Resolution, titled “Pooling Security Sovereignty with the United Nations.” Our Written Statement with the code A/CONF.130/NGO/41 was distributed to the UN Missions represented in New York.

The term ‘security sovereignty’ denotes that part of national sovereignty which, in a legal sense, makes the individual nation-state the sole guarantor for its subjects’ peace and security, not accepting any superior authority or rule of law in its external affairs. It is the sovereign

nation-state, as subject under international law, that declares war and frequently spends up to 50% of its annual budget on defence. Even in a democracy the original sovereign, the people, have no say in the matter; conscientious objectors to military service may not always be recognized.

Individuals or groups are, strictly speaking, not subjects under international law. They are a mere means to an end, i.e. to serve the purpose of the state. Political structures worldwide do not allow them to participate in decision-making processes regarding national defence, military planning (such as on what kind of weapons or strategy money should be spent) etc. This is where our global system is stuck. A third world war seems inevitable, if we cannot find a way out of the present predicament.

H.G. Wells in his book ‘The Way to Peace’ (London and Aylesbury 1930) anticipated that “Pax is only to be attained by pooling sovereignty in relation to the main causes of stress between the originally separated communities” (p. 14). “Peace, in fact, has its price. The price of world peace is the abandonment of the idea … of sovereign independence.” (p. 22) “We have to put world peace now before patriotism, and train ourselves to a new and wider loyalty” (p. 23).

During World War II the Polish Prime Minister in exile, General Wladislaw Sikorski, in an interview published in ‘Collier’s Magazine’ on 3 April 1943, expressed a similar sentiment:

“There must be, above and beyond … (regional) federations, a world government, based on the present alliance of the United Nations. The United States, the British Commonwealth, Russia, China, the South American republics, the European confederations and the other nations of the world must pool their will-to-peace in this organisation. This world government must go beyond anything that has been tried before…”

This is precisely what WCPA and the Earth Constitution are aiming for. It is also what the UN Charter wanted to accomplish. The problem is that it has been unjustly and unduly criticised precisely by those nations who continue to understand “human life as composed of rationally self-interested individuals who, both individually and collectively through their businesses and corporations, compet[e] … with one another for the accumulation of profit in the service of satisfaction of their ultimate desires.” (Martin, p. 5) Obviously it is not the veto power the five permanent members of the Security Council are wielding that causes the United Nations not to function effectively (as we have been told to believe), but the fact that Member states have not agreed to limitations of their national sovereignty in favour of the UN. As Glen Martin points out: “The sovereign nation-state system integrated with monopoly capitalism leads to mayhem not only between countries but within countries,” (Martin p. 37) thus preventing governments from

taking necessary political decisions to ensure their own as well as international peace and security. He quotes social scientist Christopher Chase-Dunn:

“This state and the interstate system are not separate from capitalism, but rather are the main institutional supports of capitalist production relations. The system of unequally powerful and competing nation states is part of the competitive struggle of capitalism, and thus wars and geopolitics are a systematic part of capitalist dynamics, not exogenous forces.” (Martin, p. 7)

Confronted with the BILL conferring primary responsibility for peace and security to the UN, countries will be made painfully aware of the disadvantages and dangers of the present system, a realisation to which the Constitution for the Federation of Earth will contribute and offer a solution. Let us remember that in 1945, when the UN Charter was introduced, it was anticipated that it “will be expanded and improved as time goes on,” and as many people and politicians around the world, including in the US, had hoped, would lead to “its development into a world federation.” (House Concurrent Resolution 64)

*

If we want to make progress and achieve the desired end, this would be a feasible way to proceed. Not only India, but perhaps China, too, would welcome such an initiative as suggested in this paper! China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs H.E. Wang Yi, in a statement at the General Debate of the 79th Session of The United Nations General Assembly in New York, on September 28, 2024 said:

“This institution, the United Nations, embodies the aspirations of people across the world for lasting peace and common prosperity, and bears witness to the glorious journey of the international community coming together in pursuit of progress. President Xi Jinping stressed on multiple occasions that the role of the U.N. should be strengthened, not weakened. Amid global transformation not seen in a century, what China calls for is to follow the trend of the times, keep to the direction of human progress, and make the right choices of history. What China proposes is to uphold peaceful coexistence and put in place a security architecture that ensures enduring stability … Countries need to be guided by a vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.” (https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/202409/t20240929_11499995.html)

The Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, established in July 2021 in New York, composed of 18 Member States, too, could very well be willing to support the peaceful change proposed by the World Constitution and Parliament Association.

Considering the wide support for a peaceful world, the expanding ‘BRICS’ intergovernmental organisation, comprising nine members as of date, searching for ways toward creating a just international order, should be considered as a positive as well.

“Human beings face many planetary crises, beyond the climate emergency: the continuing threat of nuclear holocaust, global poverty and misery for 50% of humanity, the waste of trillions of dollars annually on worldwide militarism, and a spectrum of injustices. Addressing these threats will require not just cooperation and good will, but systematic agreements: an Earth Constitution. This Constitution exists—it’s ready to go!” (Hank Stone)

“All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people … The people have an unalienable right to reform or change their government, whenever it be inadequate to the purposes of its institution.” (James Madison’s original draft of his First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, 1789)

*

Summing up

I can agree and am willing to believe that the “Constitution for the Federation of Earth provides the Earth (and humankind) with a brain,” adequate to the task, and “ends the war system in the world just as it ends the Injustice system and the environmental destruction system.” I agree that “peace is a direct consequence of institutionalising the unity in diversity of humanity,” and that “law needs to be both universal and planetary,” and the “Earth Constitution actualizes our planetary community of unity in diversity,” as Glen Martin has written. But this I believe is likely to happen only through the United Nations and making use of the mechanisms prescribed in the UN Charter.

Indeed, “understanding the role of the Earth Constitution in human affairs requires seeing it within the context of several principles concerning our human situation that have emerged since the early 20th century. These include the principles of unity in diversity, of holism, and of the nature of constitutional law itself … the Earth Constitution embodies the positive features of this paradigm-shift in human consciousness and … can also function as a catalyst for further transformations that will solve our most basic human problems concerning war, social justice, human rights, and the destruction of nature.” (Glen Martin) No doubt, the “great transition” requires the Earth Constitution. https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/earth-constitution-martin/.

Let’s imagine a country like Mexico, for example, were to pass such a BILL as I have suggested in its national parliament, the Congress of the Union (Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos), this would immediately create a sensation! Mexico would become the centre of international attention and speculation. How would the European nations react, whose constitutions provide for limiting national sovereignty in favour of the UN? France can be expected to react favourably and consider this as a (partial) fulfilment of its Constitution’s condition of reciprocity. Italy’s Constitution’s Article 11, considered a national treasure and an asset by the people, states:

“Italy renounces war as an instrument of offence to the liberty of other peoples or as a means of settlement in international disputes, and, on conditions of equality with other states, agrees to the limitations of her sovereignty necessary to an organisation which will ensure peace and justice among nations…” (See in Italian Luigi Bonanate, Costituzione Italiana: articolo 11, Roma 2018)

The Italians might also remember their Gaetano Meale (‘UMANO’, 1858-1927). (See the Umano Foundation, https://www.thomgambino.com/umano.html)

Denmark may remember its engagement with the Interparliamentary Union (IPU) in 1952, out of which came this provision:

“Powers which according to this constitution rest with the authorities of the kingdom, can, through a bill, to a specifically defined extent, be transferred to international authorities, which are instituted by mutual agreement with other states to promote international legal order and cooperation.” (Art. 20, of June 5, 1953).

Limitations of national sovereignty, intended to benefit the international organisation of peace, were an issue at the IPU Conference in Switzerland in 1952. As a result, Denmark and Norway declared their willingness to adopt similar measures in their constitutions. The Conference pointed out that already

“many recent constitutions, such as the French Constitution of October 27, 1946, that of Italy of December 27, 1947, and that of Western Germany of May 8, 1949, have by constitutional provision decreed the subordination of internal public law to international law, and have thus taken into consideration the possibility of limiting national sovereignty without its being necessary to have recourse to the procedure provided for the amendment of constitutional norms.”

Several constitutions provide for similar measures such as the Japanese 1947 Constitution, “forever renouncing war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means for settling international disputes,” and in Europe the 1971 Belgian Constitution saying “powers may be conferred by a pact or law on institutions coming under international civil law” (Article 34), the 1973 Luxembourg Constitution stating: “powers … may be temporarily vested by treaty in institutions governed by international law,” the 1975 Greek Constitution providing for “cooperation with other states” and for that purpose “authorities may be vested … in agencies of an international organisation … to limit the exercise of national sovereignty,” the 1976 Swedish Constitution stating authority may be “transferred to a limited extent, to an international organisation for peaceful cooperation,” the 1976 Portuguese Constitution commending “the abolition of all forms of imperialism, colonialism and aggression … dissolution of political-military blocs and the establishment of a system of collective security, in order to create an international order capable of assuring peace and justice in relations among peoples,” the 1978 Spanish Constitution stipulating that “authorization may be established for the conclusion of treaties which attribute to an international organisation or institution the exercise of competencies derived from the constitution … to guarantee compliance with … the international or supranational organisations who have been entitled by this cession,” the 1981 Austrian Constitution stipulating “sovereign rights of the Bund [federation] can be transferred to intergovernmental institutions and their organs,” the 1983 Dutch Constitution promising to “promote the development of the international rule of law” and saying that “legislative, executive and judicial powers may be conferred on international institutions by or pursuant to a treaty,” and the Irish Constitution providing for taking legislative action “for the purpose of international cooperation in matters of common concern.” These European countries would be inclined (or even compelled) to follow suit and pass similar Bills. However, In following up they may or may not want to mention or support/endorse the Earth Constitution. For them other issues and proposals might have precedence and be included in their own national BILL. The Europeans might have forgotten their good intentions, but they basically knew and understood what they owed the rest of the world.

Speaking of plans, Dr. Kotila suggests adopting the Earth Constitution (EC) as the “Ideal Model for a ‘new UN’ … If and when the charter review process gets underway … We would present our plan to merge the UN system with a genuine democratic world federal government operating under the authority of the Earth Constitution. We believe the EC is compelling enough that the UNGA may indeed use part, or all of it, as a guide, model, and authority for creating a ‘new UN’.”

*

The Foreword to the Earth Constitution’s online numeric edition (2009) says it “has had quite an uphill climb. To date, thousands of individual citizens have ratified the Earth Constitution. However, the response from nations has been weak. After a half dozen occasions where national heads have agreed to the Earth Constitution, in each case there has been an early retraction, abandonment or change in head of state.” That is where the Trojan Horse plan comes in.

In his elaborate Introduction to the 2016 printed edition of The Constitution for the Federation of Earth Glen T. Martin writes:

“The 20th century produced what may well be the most important document for the 21st century and the future of human civilization: the Constitution for the Federation of Earth … I hope to illuminate the truth of this statement and to show why a decent future, even a possible future, for humanity almost certainly involves ratification of the Earth Constitution or some document very much like it.” (p. 1, emphasis added)

Besides the known example of a world constitution, e.g. the Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution (University of Chicago, 1947), WCPA’s model is the only draft in existence, as the Wikipedia entry confirms, a draft that is relevant, comprehensive and conclusive.

No doubt: “Establishing and implementing a global constitution on a meaningful scale presents significant practical challenges, including political, legal, and logistical complexities … The aim is to create a framework that promotes unity, justice, and sustainability on a global scale.” (Wikipedia)

To achieve this, Glen Martin points out: “The Constitution can serve as a practical, common sense guide to establishing a decent planetary civilization (for the first time in history) of peace, prosperity, justice, freedom, and sustainability.” (p. 1)

In his Conclusion Dr. Glen Martin writes:

“Throughout our model … we have assumed the creative input of the human being with integrity, vision, and creative energy who must enliven the system outlined by the Constitution and the Parliament. The Earth Federation needs Parliamentarians, Judges, Administrators, Police, and Ombudsmen who are capable of cooperatively working as part of an open ended, democratic learning community informed by the dynamics of systems thinking and the principles of holism. We need dedicated people who are willing to begin living from the moment forward according to the ethical and legal principles embodied in the Earth Constitution.” (p. 63)

It makes sense that he doesn’t want to completely eliminate all UN agencies.

“As people begin to understand the vision, there’s a tremendous urgency that they also act on that vision with creativity, integrity, and energy. The Constitution must be ratified in a founding ratification convention according to the Protocols already developed by the Provisional World Parliament. It converts the present failed world system to peace, prosperity, justice, freedom, and sustainability. It replaces the U.N. Charter, with real democratic government keeping the valuable agencies of the U.N. as ministries of the Earth Federation. You are about to read the most important document produced by the 20th century–the document that will provide the foundation stone for the paradigm shift of the 21st century. Nothing less than the fate of humanity and our precious planet Earth are at stake. We invite your participation. We invite you to a life of ‘civil obedience’.” (p. 65)

President of the Coalition for Democratic World Government (CDWG) Hank Stone writes:

“Now is the time for collective action to address the big global problems, including nuclear threats and climate change. Now there is a way to force governments to act … It’s hard to believe we can be wrong about things we KNOW are true. We all have the sensation that our view of things is the objective TRUTH. But our beliefs can trick us. We do not think the ‘unthinkable’. Global cooperation is required. New thinking now favours our survival … Changing direction is unthinkable, but has become necessary. We need the humility to think the unthinkable, and believe the unbelievable. We need new visions. New traditions. New expectations. And hopeful new ‘stories’ to live by.” (UNITED WORLD, CDWG News & Views, Vol. 37, No. 2 and 5)

Watch Professor Glen T. Martin about Earth Constitution and World Parliament, with the poet and writer Tarik Günersel 2021 on YouTube:

__________________________________________

  Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann is author of numerous scholarly articles and several books, including Japan in the World. Shidehara Kijuro, Pacifism and the Abolition of War (Lexington 2009), and A Peace History of India. From Ashoka Maurya to Mahatma Gandhi (Vij Books 2016). Born in Hamburg, in the 1960s he traveled overland to India, and returning to Germany he became a peace activist and environmentalist. As a world federalist and a member of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA) he participated in many international conferences. Having received a scholarship to do research in Japan, his Ph.D. dissertation on Shidehara and Article 9 was published in German in 1997.  He can be reached at unfor2007@hotmail.com – Contact: klaus.san@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 9 Dec 2024.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The Trojan Horse Plan for UN Reform, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.