NEEDED: A TRULY GLOBAL AMERICAN POLICY

Open letter to President George W. Bush   

During your Administration, which starts at the launching of the 21st Century, America must adapt to a global situation where USA-USSR Big Power confrontation has been replaced by dozens of wars and ethnic conflicts, especially in Asia and Africa. Thus, in order to act responsibly in world affairs, the mindset of most national leaders and their citizens throughout the world, including those in the United States, must change.   

Vitally needed are real global statesmen, such as Franklin Roosevelt, Mohandas Gandhi, Jean Monnet, Willy Brandt, and Mikhail Gorbachev, who overcome nationalistic prejudices and exhibit concern for the whole world and its peoples. This calls for a thorough reforming of the relationship of the United States with the rest of the world and a restructuring of the United Nations.  

 Although currently the most powerful nation-state, the United States acting alone cannot and would not solve the multinational and transitional problems of the world. Instead of sitting on our hands reflecting political apathy, awaiting an occasional "target of opportunity" for our intervention, such as Haiti and Kosovo, we need to exercise partnership, not just with leaders of a few other "major powers," but also with representatives of other parts of our world community. Instead of depending on often unenforceable bilateral or multilateral treaties or other agreements, the United States - the sole remaining "superpower" - should cooperate with Global Statesman Kofi Annan (the best Secretary General ever, says Ambassador Holbrooke) and along with other nations gradually defer, refer, and transfer power to global institutions starting with a restructured, democratized, and empowered United Nations. Among many institutions for achieving this, I'll mention a few.  

 First, a reformed Security Council. The weak Charter of the U.N. - modeled somewhat after the weak Covenant of the League of Nations - was largely drafted by three victors of a war that ended over a half-century ago, one of whom - Stalin - continued to kill off tens of millions of his own and neighboring peoples. A United Nations that divided nation-states into two classes - the "haves," with permanent membership and the veto, and the "have nots" - may have been suitable for totalitarian regimes or for countries forced to deal with them in the 1940's. However, that anti-democratic system must be replaced by elimination of the veto and reorganization of the Security Council membership to better represent the People of the world during the 21st Century.   

Second, a UN People's Assembly. At present, agents of governments, often authoritarian, represent nation-states in the UN General Assembly - not unlike our Senate before 1913.   

To help the UN become democratic and to empower it with the authority and will of the citizens of the world community, it is essential to establish a Second House representing the People. Just as countries of Eastern Europe are democratizing in order to join the European Union, only countries whose representatives are chosen in fair elections would qualify for seats in the People's Assembly. Nevertheless, supported by favorable world opinion this could work not only in democratizing the UN, but also in helping the People in countries under autocratic regimes to force through democratic reforms (a long term US foreign policy goal), and thereby qualify for participation in the People's Assembly.   The People's Assembly must have the authority to pass enforceable laws limited to dealing with global or transnational problems. At the same time governments at the relevant levels would retain powers to address most national, provincial, or local problems.  

 Third, an International Criminal Court. There will always be disputes between human actors, but conflicts need not be resolved through violence. The world community needs a conflict resolution system. However, so long as there are international criminals - not just tyrants like Idi Amin, Saddam Hussain, Slobodan Milosevic, and Foday Sankoh - but also international gangsters, e.g., terrorists, pirates, traffickers in narcotics and human beings, a strengthened - not a weakened - I.C.C. is badly needed.   

Following the negotiation in 1998 of the I.C.C. treaty, whose draft was initiated by the International Law Commission with inputs by the American Bar Association, it is being signed and ratified by most of the countries of the world, including virtually all of our allies, none of whom appear concerned about the red herring of "irresponsible" prosecutors or judges. In fact, the prosecutors and judges at the international tribunals (not just their American members) have been of high caliber. Now that the United States has belatedly signed the I.C.C. treaty, we as primus inter pares should demonstrate global leadership and work to ratify it, instead of siding again with pariah states like Iraq and North Korea and claiming unseemly special privileges of an ultranationalistic Master Race.   

Fourth, a standing UN All Volunteer Security Force. Countering perpetrators of wars and crimes against humanity requires a force stronger than the UN "Peacekeepers" who, in the past, frequently were thwarted by the heavily armed aggressor in an international dispute. Consequently, a sufficiently well-armed Security Force should be developed to prevent or settle international or intranational armed conflicts where needed anywhere in the world - as determined by an appropriate UN authority. Although national or regional contingents (including those of NATO) might be used at the outset, as a combat veteran I feel that the goal should be to build up the UN Force with volunteers from around the world.  

As large and expensive war-making establishments (used by many rulers to oppress their own or neighboring peoples) are no longer needed and are wound down, far smaller sums for military outlays - say, 10-25% of the world's current military budgets - could enable the UN to assure real global peace and common security for the People around the world - including Americans.   

Fifth, a UN Transitional Authority. Unlike the League of Nations Mandates and UN Trusteeships, where colonies of the defeated powers became in effect colonies of the victors of the World Wars, the world needs an ongoing Transitional Authority operated by the UN to administer countries that have fallen into a state of tyranny or anarchy and are unable to provide for the welfare of their own people. (Haiti, Iraq, Congo, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo are examples.) A UN Authority might also administer Jerusalem, as provided for under UN Resolution 194 (III) passed in 1948.

 Sixth, a Global Marshall Plan. There is no security without relative prosperity. After World War II, the United States invested in the peaceful reconstruction of Western Europe (Stalin opted out) through the heroic Marshall Plan. The countries devastated by war, thanks to the US not turning its back on them, are now among the most prosperous on Earth. Now that the Cold War has ended, the tools of war can be turned into plowshares, not only in the United States and the former Soviet Union, but also elsewhere throughout the world, including impoverished countries ruled by militaristic regimes. A compassionate United States chould then play a key role in setting up an economic and social recovery plan under UN auspices to tackle the huge task of sustainable development among the less fortunate members of our global community.

* * * * *  

Patriotism and Citizenship. President Bush, some of your backers, who loudly claim to be American patriots, are afraid that global institutions - even well-operated ones - will impinge on our "national sovereignty." Patriots consider a particular geopolitical region to be their homeland. As a citizen and Governor of the autonomous State of Texas, Mr. Bush, you were proud to be a Texan and to join with other Texas citizens in delegating some of your sovereignty to a democratically-elected government for Texas. That did not make you less of an American patriot and citizen. In fact, at the same time you joined with other American citizens in delegating some of your sovereingty to a democratically-elected government of the USA.  

Look at Europe! Citizens of Bavaria (who are also citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany), citizens of Scotland (who are also citizens of the United Kingdom), citizens of the Netherlands, France, Italy, etc. are joining together with citizens of other European states to form a European entity that is becoming more democratic and federalist (similar to the US). It is evident that one can have patriotic feelings not only towards one's state and country, but also towards one's international community.

Pres. Bush, early in 1776, when few subjects in the 13 American colonies felt themselves to be patriotic "Americans" (Patrick Henry was foremost a Virginian), Founding Father Tom Paine in his writings promoted independence for the colonies as part of an American country. Now being an American is taken for granted. But Paine and Founding Father-cum-Elder Statesman Benjamin Franklin were also proud Citizens of the World and felt that the world was their country, too. Eventually we can be patriots and citizens not only of our state (be it Texas or California) and our country (be it the U.S.A., Switzerland, etc.), but also of our world. Here is your opportunity to emulate the 18th Century Founding Fathers and be a 21st Century Founding Father in promoting a larger democratically-governed federal entity - for the Earth.

  Let's not be spendthrift and squander the taxpayer's money on preparing for two regional conflicts and a 21st Century Maginot Line ostensibly to defend against missile attacks by "rogue states," while individual "terrorists" continue to wreak havoc with bombs transported by surface. Instead, let's work to transplant the model of our Founding Fathers to a world governed along democratic federal lines, ultimately with a popularly elected legislature, an executive (the specific form of which could be worked out at a global summit), and a judiciary to adjudicate world law. &nbsp 

Concepts such as these should be considered in the planning by the Bush Administration for the future security and well-being of the American people - which cannot be separated from the security and well-being of the rest of our global community. Here is an opportunity for the US Government to demonstrate global leadership in the name of global interests and security, instead of worrying about picking and choosing into which conflicts the US should intervene, artfully rationalized in the name of "national interest" or "national security." - -- By John O. Sutter