Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 8. december 2012 / Time Line December 8, 2012
Version 3.57. December 2012, 9. December 2012
12/08/2012
Federalism and
global governance
By John Scales Avery
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept of the
absolutely sovereign nation-state is a dangerous anachronism in a
world of thermonuclear weapons, instantaneous communication, and
economic interdependence. Probably our best hope for the future
lies in developing the United Nations into a World Federation. The
strengthened United Nations should have a legislature with the
power to make laws that are binding on individuals, and the ability
to arrest and try individual political leaders for violations of
these laws. The world federation should also have the power of
taxation, and the military and legal powers necessary to guarantee
the human rights of ethnic minorities within nations.
Making the United Nations Into a Federation
A federation of states is, by definition, a limited union where the
federal government has the power to make laws that are binding on
individuals, but where the laws are confined to interstate matters,
and where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal
government are retained by the individual states. In other words,
in a federation each of the member states runs its own internal
affairs according to its own laws and customs; but in certain
agreed-on matters, where the interests of the states overlap,
authority is specifically delegated to the federal government.
Since the federal structure seems well suited to a world government
with limited and carefully-defined powers that would preserve as
much local autonomy as possible, it is worthwhile to look at the
histories of a few of the federations. There is much that we can
learn from their experiences.
The Success of Federations
Historically, the federal form of government has proved to be
extremely robust and successful. Many of today’s nations are
federations of smaller, partially autonomous, member states. Among
these nations are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, Russia, Spain, South Africa and the
United States.
The Swiss Federation is an interesting example, because it’s
regions speak three different languages: German, French and
Italian. In 1291, citizens of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, standing
on the top of a small mountain called Rütli, swore allegiance
to the first Swiss federation with the words “we will be a
one and only nation of brothers”. During the 14th century,
Luzern, Zürich, Glarus, Zug and Bern also joined. Later
additions during the 15th and 16th centuries included Fribourg,
Solothurn, Basel, Schaffhausen and Appenzell. In 1648 Switzerland
declared itself to be an independent nation, and in 1812, the Swiss
Federation declared its neutrality. In 1815, the French-speaking
regions Valais, Neuchatel and Genève were added, giving
Switzerland its final boundaries.
In some ways, Switzerland is a very advanced democracy, and many
issues are decided by the people of the cantons in direct
referendums. On the other hand, Switzerland was very late in
granting votes to women (1971), and it was only in 1990 that a
Swiss federal court forced Appenzell Innerrhoden to comply with
this ruling. Switzerland was also very late in joining the United
Nations (10 September, 2002).
The Federal Constitution of United States of America is one of the
most important and influential constitutions in history. It later
formed a model for many other governments, especially in South
America. The example of the United States is especially interesting
because the original union of states formed by the Articles of
Confederation in 1777 proved to be too weak, and it had to be
replaced eleven years later by a federal constitution.
During the revolutionary war against England the 13 former colonies
sent representatives to a Continental Congress, and on May 10,
1776, the Congress authorized each of the colonies to form its own
local provincial government. On July 4, 1776 it published a formal
Declaration of Independence. The following year, the Congress
adopted the Articles of Confederation defining a government of the
new United States of America. The revolutionary war continued until
1783, when the Treaty of Paris was signed by the combatants, ending
the war and giving independence to the United States. However, the
Articles of Confederation soon proved to be too weak. The main
problem with the Articles was that laws of the Union acted on its
member states rather than on individual citizens.
In 1887, a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia with
the aim of drafting a new and stronger constitution. In the same
year, Alexander Hamilton began to publish the Federalist Papers, a
penetrating analysis of the problems of creating a workable
government uniting a number of semi independent states. The key
idea of the Federalist Papers is that the coercion of states is
neither just nor feasible, and that a government uniting several
states must function by acting on individuals. This central idea
was incorporated into the Federal Constitution of the United
States, which was adopted in 1788. Another important feature of the
new Constitution was that legislative power was divided between the
Senate, where the states had equal representation regardless of
their size, and the House of Representatives, where representation
was proportional to the populations of the states. The functions of
the executive, the legislature and the judiciary were separated in
the Constitution, and in 1789 a Bill of Rights was added.
George Mason, one of the architects of the federal constitution of
the United States, believed that “such a government was
necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would
punish those only whose guilt required it”, while James
Madison (another drafter of the U.S. federal constitution) remarked
that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted
“the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when
applied to people collectively, and not individually”.
Finally, Alexander Hamilton, in his Federalist Papers, discussed
the Articles of Confederation with the following words: “To
coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever
devised... Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a
government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting
itself, a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such
war must involve the innocent with the guilty. The single
consideration should be enough to dispose every peaceable citizen
against such a government... What is the cure for this great evil?
Nothing, but to enable the... laws to operate on individuals, in
the same manner as those of states do.”
Because the states were initially distrustful of each other and
jealous of their independence, the powers originally granted to the
US federal government were minimal. However, as it evolved, the
Federal Government of the United States gradually became stronger,
and bit by bit it became involved in an increasingly wide range of
activities.
The formation of the federal government of Australia is interesting
because it illustrates the power of ordinary citizens to influence
the large-scale course of events. In the 19th century, the six
colonies British that were later to be welded into the Commonwealth
of Australia imposed tariffs on each other, so that citizens living
near the Murray River (for example) would have to stop and pay
tolls each time they crossed the river. The tolls, together with
disagreements over railways linking the colonies, control of river
water and other common concerns, finally became so irritating that
citizens’ leagues sprang up everywhere to demand federation.
By the 1890’s such federation leagues could be found in
cities and towns throughout the continent.
In 1893, the citizens’ leagues held a conference in Corowa,
New South Wales, and proposed the “Corowa Plan”,
according to which a Constitutional Convention should be held.
After this, the newly drafted constitution was to be put to a
referendum in all of the colonies. This would be the first time in
history that ordinary citizens would take part in the
nation-building process. In January, 1895, the Carawa Plan was
adopted by a meeting of Premiers in Hobart, and finally, despite
the apathy and inaction of many politicians, the citizens had their
way: The first Australian federal election was held March, 1901,
and on May 9, 1901, the Federal Parliament of Australia opened.
Australia was early in granting votes for women (1903). Its voting
system has evolved gradually. Today there is a system of compulsory
voting by citizens for both the Australian House of Representatives
and the Australian Senate.
The successes and problems of the European Union provide invaluable
experience as we consider the measures that will be needed to make
the United Nations into a federation. On the whole, the EU has been
an enormous success, demonstrating beyond question that it is
possible to begin with a very limited special-purpose federation
and to gradually expand it, judging at each stage whether the
cautiously-taken steps have been successful. The European Union has
today made war between its member states virtually impossible. This
goal, now achieved, was in fact the vision that inspired the
leaders who initiated the European Coal and Steel Community in
1950. The European Union is by no means without its critics or
without problems, but, as we try to think of what is needed for
United Nations reform, these criticisms and problems are just as
valuable to us as are the successes of the EU.
Countries that have advanced legislation protecting the rights of
workers or protecting the environment complain that their
enlightened laws will be nullified if everything is reduced to the
lowest common denominator in the EU. This complaint is a valid one,
and two things can be said about it: Firstly, diversity is
valuable, and therefore it may be undesirable to homogenize
legislation, even if uniform rules make trade easier. Secondly, if
certain rules are to be made uniform, it is the most enlightened
environmental laws or labor laws that ought to be made the
standard, rather than the least enlightened ones. Similar
considerations would hold for a reformed andstrengthened United
Nations.
Another frequently heard complaint about the EU is that it takes
decision-making far away from the voters, to a remote site where
direct political will of the people can hardly be felt. This
criticism is also very valid. Often, in practice, the EU has
ignored or misunderstood one of the basic ideas of federalism: A
federation is a compromise between the desirability of local
self-government, balanced against the necessity of making central
decisions on a few carefully selected issues. As few issues as
possible should taken to Bruxelles, but there are certain issues
that are so intrinsically transnational in their implications that
they must be decided centrally. This is the principle of
subsidiarity, so essential for the proper operation of federations:
local government whenever possible, and only a few central
decisions when absolutely necessary. In applying the principle of
subsidiarity to a world government of the future, one should also
remember that UN reform will take us into new and uncharted
territory. Therefore it is prudent to grant only a few carefully
chosen powers, one at a time, to a reformed and strengthened UN, to
see how these work, and then to cautiously grant other powers,
always bearing in mind that wherever possible, local decisions are
the best.
Weaknesses of the UN Charter and Steps Towards a World
Federation
Laws must be made binding on individuals
Among the weaknesses of the present U.N. Charter is the fact that
it does not give the United Nations the power to make laws which
are binding on individuals. At present, in international law, we
treat nations as though they were persons: We punish entire nations
by sanctions when the law is broken, even when only the leaders are
guilty, even though the burdens of the sanctions fall most heavily
on the poorest and least guilty of the citizens, and even though
sanctions often have the effect of uniting the citizens of a
country behind the guilty leaders. To be effective, the United
Nations needs a legislature with the power to make laws which are
binding on individuals, and the power to to arrest individual
political leaders for flagrant violations of international law.
The present United Nations Charter is similar to the United States
Articles of Confederation, a fatally weak union that lasted only
eleven years, from 1777 to 1788. Like it, the UN attempts to act by
coercing states. Although the United Nations Charter has lasted
almost sixty years and has been enormously valuable, its weaknesses
are also apparent, like those of the Articles. One can conclude
that he proper way to reform the United Nations is to make it into
a full federation, with the power to make and enforce laws that are
binding on individuals.
The International Criminal Court, which was established when the
Rome Treaty came into force in 2002, is a step in the right
direction. The ICC’s jurisdiction extends only to the crime
of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and (at some time
in the future) the crime of aggression. In practice, the ICC is
open to the criticisms that it is often unable to enforce its
rulings and that it lacks impartiality. Nevertheless, the
establishment of the ICC is a milestone in humanity’s efforts
to replace the brutal military force of powerful governments by the
rule of law. For the first time in history, individuals are being
held responsible for violating international laws.
The voting system of the UN General Assembly must be reformed
Another weakness of the present United Nations Charter is the
principle of “one nation one vote” in the General
Assembly. This principle seems to establish equality between
nations, but in fact it is very unfair: For example it gives a
citizen of China or India less than a thousandth the voting power
of a citizen of Malta or Iceland. A reform of the voting system is
clearly needed. (A recent and detailed discussion of these issues
has been given by Dr. Francesco Stipo, Reference 1.)
One possible plan (proposed by Bertrand Russell) would be for final
votes to be cast by regional blocks, each block having one vote.
The blocks might be: 1) Latin America 2) Africa 3) Europe 4) North
America 5) Russia and Central Asia 6) China 7) India and Southeast
Asia 8) The Middle East and 9) Japan, Korea and Oceania.
Today, Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives at the United
Nations are appointed by national governments. However, in the
long-term future, this system may evolve into a more democratic
one, where citizens will vote directly for their representatives,
as they do in many federations, such as Australia, Germany, the
United States and the European Union.
The United Nations must be given the power to impose
taxes
If the UN is to become an effective World Federation, it will need
a reliable source of income to make the organization less dependent
on wealthy countries, which tend to give support only to those
interventions of which they approve. A promising solution to this
problem is the so-called “Tobin tax”, named after the
Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin of Yale University. Tobin
proposed that international currency exchanges should be taxed at a
rate between 0.1 and 0.25 percent. He believed that even this
extremely low rate of taxation would have the beneficial effect of
damping speculative transactions, thus stabilizing the rates of
exchange between currencies. When asked what should be done with
the proceeds of the tax, Tobin said, almost as an afterthought,
“Let the United Nations have it.”
The volume of money involved in international currency transactions
is so enormous that even the tiny tax proposed by Tobin would
provide the United Nations with between 100 billion and 300 billion
dollars annually. By strengthening the activities of various UN
agencies, the additional income would add to the prestige of the
United Nations and thus make the organization more effective when
it is called upon to resolve international political conflicts.
The budgets of UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization,
the Food and Agricultural Organization, UNESCO and the UN
Development Programme, should not just be doubled but should be
multiplied by a factor of at least twenty. With increased budgets
the UN agencies could sponsor research and other actions aimed at
solving the world’s most pressing problems - AIDS,
drug-resistant infections diseases, tropical diseases, food
insufficiencies, pollution, climate change, alternative energy
strategies, population stabilization, peace education, as well as
combating poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, lack of safe water and
so on. Scientists would would be less tempted to find jobs with
arms related industries if offered the chance to work on idealistic
projects. The United Nations could be given its own television
channel, with unbiased news programs, cultural programs, and
“State of the World” addresses by the UN Secretary
General.
Besides the Tobin tax, other measure have been proposed to increase
the income of the United Nations. For example, it has been proposed
that income from resources of the sea bed be given to the UN, and
that the UN be given the power to tax carbon dioxide emissions. All
of the proposals for giving the United Nations an adequate income
have been strongly opposed by a few nations that wish to control
the UN through its purse strings, especially by the United States,
which has threatened to withdraw from the UN if a Tobin tax is
introduced. However, it is absolutely essential for the future
development of the United Nations that the organization be given
the power to impose taxes. No true government can exist without
this power. It is just as essential as is the power to make and
enforce laws that are binding on individuals.
The United Nations must be given a standing military
force
At present, when the United Nations is called upon to meet an
emergency, such as preventing genocide, an ad hoc force must be
raised, and the time required to do this often means that the
emergency action is fatally delayed. The UN should immediately be
given a standing force of volunteers from all nations, ready to
meet emergencies. The members of this force would owe their primary
loyalty to the UN, and one of its important duties would be to
prevent gross violations of human rights.
In the perspective of a longer time-frame, we need to work for a
world where national armies will be very much reduced in size,
where the United Nations will have a monopoly on heavy armaments,
and where the manufacture or possession of nuclear weapons, as well
as the export of arms and ammunition from industrialized countries
to the developing countries, will be prohibited. (See reference
3).
Looking towards the future, we can foresee a time when the United
Nations will have the power to make and enforce international laws
which are binding on individuals. Under such circumstances, true
police action will be possible, incorporating all of the needed
safeguards for lives and property of the innocent.
One can hope for a future world where public opinion will support
international law to such an extent that a new Hitler or Saddam
Hussein or a future Milosevic will not be able to organize
large-scale resistance to arrest, a world where international law
will be seen by all to be just, impartial and necessary, a
well-governed global community within which each person will owe
his or her ultimate loyalty to humanity as a whole.
The veto power of the Security Council must be
eliminated
We should remember that the UN Charter was drafted and signed
before the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; and it also
could not anticipate the extraordinary development of international
trade and communication which characterizes the world today. The
five permanent members of the Security Council, China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, were the victors
of World War II, and were given special privileges by the Charter
as it was established in 1945, among these the power to veto UN
actions on security issues. In practice, the veto power of the P5
nations has made the UN ineffective, and it has become clear that
changes are needed. If the Security Council is retained in a World
Federation, the veto power must be eliminated.
Subsidiarity
The need for international law must be balanced against the
desirability of local self-government. Like biological diversity,
the cultural diversity of humankind is a treasure to be carefully
guarded. A balance or compromise between these two desirable goals
can be achieved by granting only a few carefully chosen powers to a
World Federation with sovereignty over all other issues retained by
the member states. This leaves us with a question: Which issues
should be decided centrally, and which locally?
The present United Nations Charter contains guarantees of human
rights, but there is no effective mechanism for enforcing these
guarantees. In fact there is a conflict between the parts of the
Charter protecting human rights and the concept of absolute
national sovereignty. Recent history has given us many examples of
atrocities committed against ethnic minorities by leaders of
nation-states, who claim that sovereignty gives them the right to
run their internal affairs as they wish, free from outside
interference. One feels that it ought to be the responsibility of
the international community to prevent gross violations of human
rights, such as genocide; and if this is in conflict with the
concept of national sovereignty, then sovereignty must yield.
In the future, overpopulation and famine are likely to become
increasingly difficult and painful problems in several parts of the
world. Since various cultures take widely different attitudes
towards birth control and family size, the problem of population
stabilization seems to be one which should be decided locally. At
the same time, aid for local family planning programs, as well as
famine relief, might appropriately come from global agencies, such
as WHO and FAO. With respect to large-scale migration, it would be
unfair for a country which has successfully stabilized its own
population, and which has eliminated poverty within its own
borders, to be forced to accept a flood of migrants from regions of
high fertility. Therefore the extent of immigration should be among
those issues to be decided locally.
Security, and controls on the manufacture and export of armaments
will require an effective authority at the global level.
The steps needed to convert the United Nations into a World
Federation can be taken cautiously, one at a time. Having see the
results of of a particular step, one can move on to the next. The
establishment of the International Criminal Court is an important
first step towards a system of international laws that acts on
individuals. Another important step would be to give the UN a much
larger and more reliable source of income. The establishment of a
standing UN emergency military force is another step that ought to
be taken in the near future.
Obstacles to a World Federation
It is easy to write down what is needed to convert the United
Nations into a World Federation. But will not the necessary steps
towards a future world of peace and law be blocked by the
powerholders of today? Not everyone wants peace. Not everyone wants
international law. The United Nations was established at the end of
the most destructive war the world had ever seen, and its horrors
were fresh in the minds of th delegates to the 1945 San Francisco
Conference. The main purpose of the Charter that they drafted was
to put an end to the institution of war. It was hoped that as a
consequence, the UN would also end the colonial era, since war is
needed to maintain the unequal relationships of colonialism.
Neither of these things happened. War is still with us, and war is
still used to maintain the intolerable economic inequalities of
neocolonialism.
The fact that military might is still used by powerful
industrialized nations to maintain economic hegemony over less
developed countries has been amply documented by Professor Michael
Klare in his books on Resource Wars. Today 2.7 billion people live
on less than $2 a day - 1.1 billion on less than $1 per day. 18
million of our fellow humans die each year from poverty-related
causes. In 2006, 1.1 billion people lacked safe drinking water, and
waterborne diseases killed an estimated 1.8 million people. The
developing countries are also the scene of a resurgence of other
infectious diseases, such as malaria, drug-resistant tuberculosis
and HIV/AIDS.
Meanwhile, in 2011, world military budgets reached a total of 1.7
trillion dollars (i.e. 1.7 million million dollars). This amount of
money is almost too large to be imagined. The fact that it is being
spent means that many people are making a living from the
institution of war. Wealthy and powerful lobbies from the
military-industrial complex are able to influence mass media and
governments. Thus the institution of war persists, although we know
very well that it is a threat to civilization and that it
responsible for much of the suffering that humans experience.
Today’s military spending of almost two trillion US dollars
per year would be more than enough to finance safe drinking water
for the entire world, and to bring primary health care and family
planning advice to all. If used constructively, the money now
wasted (or worse than wasted) on the institution of war could also
help the world to make the transition from fossil fuel use to
renewable energy systems.
The way in which some industrialized countries maintain their
control over less developed nations can be illustrated by the
resource curse, i.e. the fact that resource-rich developing
countries are no better off economically than those that lack
resources, but are cursed with corrupt and undemocratic
governments. This is because foreign corporations extracting local
resources under unfair agreements exist in a symbiotic relationship
with corrupt local officials.
As long as enormous gaps exist between the rich and poor nations of
the world, the task turning the United Nations into an equitable
and just federation will be blocked. Thus we are faced with the
challenge of breaking the links between poverty and war. Civil
society throughout the world must question the need for colossal
military budgets, since, according to the present UN Charter, as
well as the Nuremberg Principles, war is a violation of
international law, except when sanctioned by the Security Council.
By following this path we can free the world from the intolerable
suffering caused by poverty and from the equally intolerable
suffering caused by war.
Governments of Large Nations Compared With Global
Government
The problem of achieving internal peace over a large geographical
area is not insoluble. It has already been solved. There exist
today many nations or regions within each of which there is
internal peace, and some of these are so large that they are almost
worlds in themselves. One thinks of China, India, Brazil,
Australia, the Russian Federation, the United States, and the
European Union. Many of these enormous societies contain a variety
of ethnic groups, a variety of religions and a variety of
languages, as well as striking contrasts between wealth and
poverty. If these great land areas have been forged into peaceful
and cooperative societies, cannot the same methods of government be
applied globally?
Today there is a pressing need to enlarge the size of the political
unit from the nation-state to the entire world. The need to do so
results from the terrible dangers of modern weapons and from global
economic interdependence. The progress of science has created this
need, but science has also given us the means to enlarge the
political unit: Our almost miraculous modern communications media,
if properly used, have the power to weld all of humankind into a
single supportive and cooperative society.
Bibliography
1 Francesco Stipo, “World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to
Political Globalization”, (April 10, 2007), pages 1, 3, 21
and 136.
2 Francesco Stipo, “United Nations Reorganization. The
Unification of the UN System”, (April 21, 2007).
3 International Commission on Peace and Food, “Uncommon
Opportunities: An Agenda for Peace and Equitable Development, 2nd
Edition”, pages 43-46, www.icpd.org, (2004).
4 Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, “The
Federalist Papers, (1787-1788)”, Project Gutenberg.
5 Edith Wynner, “World Federal Government in Maximum Terms:
Proposals for United Nations Charter Revision”, Fedonat
Press, Afton N.Y., (1954).
6 Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn, “World Peace Through
World Law,” Harvard University Press, (1958).
7 Bertrand Russell, “Has Man A Future?”, Penguin,
Hammondsworth, (1961).
8 Michael Klare, “Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global
Conflict” Owl Books, New York, (reprint edition 2002).
9 Michael Klare, “Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New
Geopolitics of Energy”, Henry Holt & Company, (2008).
10 Michael Klare, “The Race for What’s Left: The Global
Scramble for the World’s Last Resources”, Metropolitan
Books, (2012).
11 United Nations General Assembly, “Principles of
International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg
Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal”, (1950).
12 Bengt Broms, “United Nations”, Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki, (1990).
13 S. Rosenne, “The Law and Practice at the International
Court”, Dordrecht, (1985).
14 S. Rosenne, “The World Court - What It Is and How It
Works”, Dordrecht, (1995).
15 J. D’Arcy and D. Harris, “The Procedural Aspects of
International Law” (Book Series), Volume 25, Transnational
Publishers, Ardsley, New York, (2001).
16 H. Cullen, “The Collective Complaints Mechanism Under the
European Social Charter”, European Law Review, Human Rights
Survey, p. 18-30, (2000).
17 S.D. Bailey, “The Procedure of the Security
Council”, Oxford, (1988).
18 R.A. Akindale, “The Organization and Promotion of World
Peace: A Study of Universal-Regional Relationships”, Univ.
Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont., (1976).
19 J.S. Applegate, “The UN Peace Imperative”, Vantage
Press, New York, (1992).
 |
 |