BEWARE: Madeleine Albright’s Commission on Global Security, Justice, & Governance

UN Commission ReportAn Open Letter from Roger Kotila, Ph.D.

 

Good morning friends,

I just finished reading the report of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance. The report is advertised as “Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance.” I am not impressed.

The Commission co-chairs are former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and a former Foreign Minister of Nigeria and past UN Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, Ibrahim Gambari.

Madeline Albright has been described by investigative journalist and author William Blum as “ethically challenged.”

Albright is best remembered by her critics for a “60 Minutes” television interview with Lesley Stahl in May 12, 1996. Stahl asked about US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Granted it is unfair to evaluate a report by attacking the integrity of one of its sponsors, but the Iraq nightmare caused by US sanctions (and invasion) leaves me questioning Albright’s value system and judgment.

Unless I read the report wrong, I’m guessing it is another (well-meaning?) ploy to postpone having authentic global democracy for all nations and for “we, the people” – an often used strategy to keep civil society (you and me) feeling like we are making “progress,” when in fact nothing of real significance is being offered.

The euphemisms in this report would make a snake oil salesman puff up with pride.   

The report, like the UN Charter, uses the right language (“justice”, “security”, and yes, of course, “PEACE”).  These are feel good words–but alas, missing is a plan for a strong enough geopolitical structure to be able to deliver (except in ways that don’t alter the good life for the 1%). 

There are no world federalist solutions here, except at the weak margins.  

Rather than recommend eliminating the permanent veto in the Security Council which would be a step toward democracy, the report only recommends that the P-5 nations consider “use of restraint in the use of the veto.” This is laughable, an insult to any thoughtful world federalist.

I’m having trouble finding the word “democracy” anywhere, only the empty phrase “global governance.”

From the Commission recommendations we can conclude that militarization will remain, but with some frosting on the cake so it tastes better. How will they end wars? By establishing a “UN Peacebuilding Council.” Leaders of powerful bully nations who commit world crimes will remain above the law, with no seriously effective enforcement system under consideration.

There is no adequate plan to end war and proxy wars; no plan that would eliminate nuclear weapons.  Resources will continue to be siphoned off to the military/industrial complex and to covert operations; hence, it will be hard to reduce poverty in the world despite the report’S call for “global economic cooperation.”

No proposed structure to give “we, the people” democratic control over multinational corporations and international Big Money.  The Wall Street Journal investor class (the 1%) and private equity firms will continue business as usual.  Your country could be up for sale next!

Climate change solutions will remain voluntary with no provision for enforceable universal legislative authority by the world community.   

No proposal to fundamentally change the UN Charter–the heart and soul of “modern” (medieval) geopolitics.  Bully nations and Big Money stay firmly in control, and global democracy is nowhere in sight.

There may be an opening for real change from all of this, but I’m not sure where a point of entry might be.  Perhaps through the proposed UN Parliamentary Network especially if that “network” demands Charter Review, and join forces with the Earth Federation Movement’s Provisional World Parliament under the Earth Constitution.

At least then we would know we are headed toward establishing a democratic world federal union government – what we all know is what is realistically needed.  

Your feedback?  (Am I being too harsh?)

By Roger Kotila, Ph.D.

Editor, Earth Federation News & Views


NOTE: The Democratic World Federalists are committed to expressing a wide range of views on the vision of creating a peaceful, just, and sustainable world through a democratic World Federation. The views expressed in this article represents that commitment and not necessarily our official position.


 

Share This:

Lively Debate on UN Commission’s Report

Our readers may recall the coverage we gave to the recent report of the UN’s Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance. Since then, a healthy debate has been growing in our immediate circle. Tad Daley’s recent essay at Huffington Post offers a bit of praise for the report, calling it “visionary.” But he’s also not shy to point out what they forgot to mention: the need to abolish the veto, establish a UN citizen’s assembly, and create a permanent all-volunteer UN rapid deployment force. He also suggests that we can begin right now to advocate such provisions in time for the UN’s 75th anniversary year in 2020, the date that the Commission suggests for convening a “World Conference on Global Institutions.” Board member and DWF Vice President Roger Kotila could find very little that was positive in the report . . .

 


NOTE: The Democratic World Federalists are committed to expressing a wide range of views on the vision of creating a peaceful, just, and sustainable world through a democratic World Federation. The views expressed in this article represents that commitment and not necessarily our official position.


 

Share This: