American Movement for World Government

Global problems are so serious, so urgent, so complicated and so interwoven that we do not have the time to engage in gradualism. We face poverty, war and terrorism, human rights abuses, environmental degradation, increasingly extreme natural disasters, destruction of the rain forests, and atmospheric and ocean pollution.

AMWG

BOARD MEMBERS

A History

The American Movement for World Government (AMWG), is a "not for profit" organization established in 1955 by William H.D. Cox, Jr., who became its first president. Mr. Cox, a graduate of Columbia University was a navy fighter pilot in WWII. After leaving the service Mr. Cox entered Yale University Medical School. It was at this time that he became interested in World Federalism. When the professors a Yale Medical School refused to sign a United World Federalist petition, he left the medical school to work in the movement, and began flying for United Airlines. As a senior Captain for United, he served on the Air Lines "Hazardous Affairs Committee."

Amongst Mr. Cox's role models were: Albert Einstein, Carl Van Doren, and Emery Reves. Mr. Cox, like many veterans, understood the futility of War.

Mr. Cox retired in the mid 1980's, after he became ill with Alzheimer's disease. His dream lives on.

Other founding board members were: Charles Anderson, Mildred Riorden Blake, Courtland Hastings, Donald Higgins, Mortimer Lipsky and Shirley Radl.

The early Advisory Board had many distinguished members: Lawrence Abbott, Isaac Asimov, Edward Asner, Dr. Stringfellow Barr, Cass Canfield, Prof. Richard Falk, John R. Logue, Hugh Nash, Robert S. Nyburg, Stewart M. Ogilvy, Dore Schary, Prof. Bennet Skewes-Cox, Louis Untermeyer, and Edith Wynner.

Relevant Readings

Carl Van Doren,"The Great Rehearsal

Albert Einstein, "Essays in Humanism"
Glen T. Martin, "Millennium Dawn"

Emery Reves,"The Anatomy of Peace"
Jerry Tetalman and Byron Belitsos,"One World Democracy"

Officers

Hal Schaffer, President
Lucy Webster, Vice President
Amos El-Roy, Secretary
Andreas B. Olsson, Treasurer

Board of Directors

Amos El-Roy
Al Kaplan
Andreas B. Olsson
Robin Lloyd
James T. Ranney
Hal Schaffer
Dorothy R. Tilson
Lucy Webster

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Ellsworth Carrington
John R. Ewbank
Marjorie Ewbank
Paul Proctor
Dr. Everett L. Rafior

Our board of directors believe all persons have the right to live in a world free from disease, hunger, starvation, pollution and war.

Essential Quotes

Einstein in his writings on Humanism said: "There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government." And "Nations that prepare for war usually get what they prepare for."

Margaret Mead stated, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Emery Reves, the author of "The Anatomy of Peace" said, "The real cause of all wars has always been the same ... wars between groups of men forming social units always takes place when these units -- tribes, dynasties, churches, cities. nations -- exercise unrestricted sovereign power. Wars between these social units cease the moment sovereign power is transferred from them to a larger or higher unit... The question is not one of surrendering national sovereignty. The problem is positive -- creating something we lack ... but imperatively need ... the extension of law and order into another field of human association which heretofore has remained unregulated and in anarchy."

President Harry S. Truman said, "When Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over the water in the Arkansas River they don't call out the National Guard in each state and go to war over it. They bring suit in the Supreme Court of the U. S. and abide by the decision. There isn't a reason in the world why we cannot do that internationally." And ..."It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for you to get along in the republic of the United States,"

In 1959 President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.

The late Stewart M. Ogilvy , one of the members of AMWG's Advisory Board, and later a member of the board wrote the following article in 1984, which clearly states AMWG's goal.

IN A WORD

"My goal is a democratic federal world government and I prefer to call it by name. I eschew other designations as incomplete, ambiguous, inaccurate, most indeed dishonest. 'World Order' is flabby; 'world organization' doesn't suggest the political nature of what we need; 'world authority' suggests unlimited power and fails to suggest the multiple elements contained in government. 'World federal union' can be mistaken for a labor group (as 'world federation' and 'world Federal Union' of Streit days was). And 'world federation' and 'world federalism' have been bastardized by the shifting policies of one organization.

It is said that use of the word 'government' scares prospective members. But how good as members will they be when they discover their prettily named organization is really seeking a new layer of government?

Government, as no other word, describes the machinery we are seeking -- a mechanism comprising individual human beings engaged in making, administering, adjudicating, and enforcing law. The modifiers 'democratic,' ' federal,' and 'world' indicate the restrictions we want imposed on that government. It must be a government of, by, and for the people. It must be limited in authority to world affairs, i.e. transnational affairs, yet it must protect the integrity and cultural diversity of its component nations.

So, to be honest, direct, unambiguous, accurate, and complete, I say I want a democratic federal world government".

In a world torn by anarchy, national governments are unable to deal effectively with the most crucial threats to our survival: environmental pollution, the population explosion, disease, hunger, starvation, and weapons of mass destruction.

Lacking the powers of government, the United Nations, without charter reform, is inadequate to the task.

Therefore, a democratic federal world government must be established at the earliest possible moment.

ESSENTIALS OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT

1. A constitution with a Bill of Rights.

2. A popularly elected legislature to enact world laws.

3. A world court to interpret these laws, with compulsory jurisdiction over world disputes.

4. A civilian executive branch with the power to enforce world laws, directly upon individuals.

5. A system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by any branch of the world government.

6. The control of all weapons of mass destruction by the world government with the disarmament of all nations, under careful inspection, down to the level required for internal policing.

7. Carefully defined and limited power of taxation to support those functions necessary to world peace and the solution of problems affecting, to a vital degree, the welfare of all mankind.

8. Reasonable provision for amendments to the constitution.

9. Participation in the world federal government to be open at all times to all nations without right of secession.

10. All power not expressly delegated to the world government to be reserved to the nations and their people.

WHAT CAN I DO AS AN INDIVIDUAL?

Join AMWG -- work for the great idea that would really bring world peace.
Send copies of this web site to elected local, state, national officials,
the print media as well as radio and TV stations.
Send a generous tax-exempt gift to AMWG, Inc. to support our
lecture and symposium programs, as well as our radio and TV
campaign, on the need for world government.
Imagine other cultures through their poetry and novels.
Visit people, places and cultures; not tourist attractions.
Learn other people's history and physical and political geography.
Look at the moon, and imagine someone else, somewhere else,
looking at it too.
Read the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.
Understand the Global Economy in terms of people, land and water.
Have a pen/e-mail pal.
Question military corporate connections.
Be skeptical about what you read.
Pledge allegiance to the earth. Question nationalism.
Believe that many others share your dream.
Get people to sign a proclamation.

Here's a step you can take immediately to help secure your ultimate human right. Feel free to circulate, make copies,
and get as many signatures as possible. Let's set a goal to get millions of signatures from all over the world.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL WORLD FREE FROM THE THREAT OF DEATH BY DISEASE, POLLUTION, HUNGER AND WAR.

           NAME                                                ADDRESS                                          COUNTRY                     TELEPHONE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

These items are the views of the writer and not necessarily the views of the AMWG Board

April 2005

James T. Ranney (ranney@att.net) is a semi-retired private attorney living in Philadelphia (J. D. Harvard); former law professor at University of Montana School of Law; founder of the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center, Montana Lawyers for Peace; Chair of Citizens for Global Solutions (Phil. Chapter); and President of the Global Constitution Form, Inc.

WORLD FEDERALISM: A SYNOPSIS

A few introductory quotes:

"Peace requires Justice; Justice requires Law; Law requires Government, not only within Nations but equally between Nations." William Penn (1693).

"Who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate?" Thomas Jefferson (1788).

"Unless we establish some form of world government, it will not be possible for us to avert a World War III in the future." Winston Churchill (1945).

"It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for you to get along in a republic of the United States." Harry S. Truman (1945).

"In the long run, an all-destroying conflict can be avoided only by the setting up of a world federation of nations." Albert Einstein (1951).

"The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law." Dwight D. Eisenhower (1965).

"There is an increasing awareness of the need for some form of global government... Our ideal is a world community of states which is based on the rule of law." Mikhail Gorbachev (1987,1988).

"The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves." Strobe Talbott, President Brookings Institute (1992).

What is world federalism? Although definitions may vary, the basic concept is simple: as indicated by the quotations above, a world federation would NOT replace national or state or local governments, but would substitute the rule of law (enforceable world law) for war as a means of resolving international conflict.

Is world federalism necessary? In a way, this is the hardest question to answer with absolute certainty. Some peace activists argue that abolition of nuclear weapons or even general and complete disarmament would suffice, combined with the de facto observance of international rules and norms. The problem with this argument is severalfold: (1) nations will not relinquish their arms without an adequate alternative security system in place; (2) even if they did, such a system would be dangerously unstable (with a distinct danger of "breakout" and resultant recourse to war to enforce any such "collective security" arrangement); and (3) in order to obtain a genuinely adequate alternative security system, you will inevitably need to create some kind of world federalist structure, if only to resolve the key question of when and how international security forces would be committed. See M. Habicht, The Abolition of War, at 255-60 (1987).

What are the advantages? In addition to the abolition of war (a rather significant advantage, since nuclear war, with its nuclear winter, threatens the extinction of at least our entire species), world federalism would free nations of the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS spent each year on the military. Such money could be better spent, and energies now focused on hate and destruction and futile rivalry would be diverted into creative channels, creating the prospect of a whole new world. See generally T. Hudgens, Let's Abolish War (1986) and B. Ferencz & K. Keyes, Planethood (1991).

Are there any dangers? As with any human institution, there are distinct risks. Those most often noted by critics of world federalism are: danger of military tyranny; possibility of civil war; danger of an overly centralized remote bureaucracy; and risk of loss of personal freedoms. These are serious risks. World federalists believe that these risks are quite capable of being adequately addressed and have been vastly overstated. See R. Glossop, World Federation? A Critical Analysis of Federal World Government (1993)(thorough discussion of all the pros and cons). In any event, the risks associated with not having world federalism are quite simply greater.

What type of world federalism do we want? We need to carefully research how to have a world federalist structure that is not overly intrusive (into national affairs or private lives), that assures local autonomy (perhaps even increases it, since there would no longer be a need for a bloated military security state), that sustains individual freedom, and allows participatory democracy to flourish. Additionally, there have long been debates as to whether world federalism should entail only a "minimalist" approach ("merely" abolishing war) or a maximalist approach (addressing social and economic and environmental justice concerns) or something in between. This topic needs to be addressed by further research and discussion.

How likely is it that world federalism will ever be accepted and how might this happen? These are difficult questions. Who would have predicted the end of the Berlin Wall, or the end of Apartheid? As to how: the most common way suggested is UN charter revision (a UN 2.0). Another way would be citizen conventions of various kinds. Still other ideas have been suggested. People differ over how long it might take. Most concede that it will not happen overnight. More likely, even if planned out in advance, it will happen over several stages over a period of years. Cf. www.globalactionpw.org.

How can I help? All social and political change requires attitudinal change. And attitudinal change requires education. So, if you are interested in helping out on the most critical issue facing humanity, you can: (1) educate yourself ; and (2) then educate others. It is that simple (and also that difficult). Margaret. Mead: stated "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼

June 2004

Arnold Henry Bergier, member of AMWG's Board of Directors, has submitted this article.

CALL FOR ACTION

The people of our planet who work for World Peace are usually humane in their attitudes and generally provide pleasant company for those of us who share in the hope that our planet someday will exist without the threat and fear of war.

But most of us suffer from a greater or lesser degree of peripheral vision, due to the existence of what Emery Reeves called "the ethnocentric point of view." In other words, most of the people of this world are not really educated, but "programmed" in their thinking.

Albert Einstein was quite distressed over the lack of peripheral vision among those in this world who otherwise might be considered experts in political matters, and said "...the world's present system of sovereign nations can lead only to barbarism, war, and inhumanity."
Those among us who work to achieve World Peace have been ineffective in how to present our ideas to the rest of the world so as to actually achieve our goal. It is essential that we become a little more flexible in our perceptions and give great thought as to how we present ideas and how they might be perceived by the world at-large.

To simply play with the idea of which steps we might take to render the United Nations a more effective body to enforce world peace calls to mind an old proverb, "you cannot cross a chasm in two small jumps." In other words, it is essential that we present to the world a concept which will awaken us to the fact that we are all "planetary citizens" and that we must work to persuade political leaders world-wide that the time is now for someone to become the greatest statesman in the history of mankind by calling for a World Constitutional Convention, which will at the outset define the constitutional rights of all the inhabitants of our planet.

It is also essential that we give thought to the enormous financial benefits which would accompany the establishment of a World Federation. (Our taxes would be significantly reduced because it would be unnecessary to compete with one another to maintain the present high levels of military armament, thus releasing funds for education, scientific research, support of the environment, and assistance to those in need). We will then be free from the anxiety of what might happen if some power hungry lunatic wanted to employ the use of devastating weapons of mass destruction (WPM).
If we are to actually achieve our aims for world peace, it will be essential to stage "media events" so that all peoples will be willing to call up their various leaders to unite in our common cause. Due to the vast proliferation of television, movies, print media etc., it would prove most beneficial if actors, entertainers, and celebrities made their positions known to the general public, because they have a greater impact than an occasional professor or author calling for world peace.

All of us who presently meet together to win the struggle for world peace must now open our minds and recognize that we are all planetary citizens, alone on fragile planet Earth, our only home!

=================

Troy Davis, President, World Citizen Foundation
Unpublished Abstract, May 2005

A GLOBAL SOCIAL CONTRACT: PRECONDITION FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY?

From Plato to Rawls, via Hobbes, Locke and most prominently Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the theory that societies function according to an implicit or explicit social contract is well accepted. The main question concerns the form the contract takes: what rights and responsibilities do people have under it, how does it come about or change, and how is it enforced? Democracy is a special form of social contract where people are sovereign, and which can take many different forms. The appeal of the social contract concept (encompassing more generally a civic and political contract too) is that it allows people to agree to a basic compact to live in peace to optimize freedoms and responsibilities. A contract implies some sort of consent, compromise, and reciprocity which, in a world of relatively physically equal humans, is necessary for a sustainable peace. A social contract has been necessary for any democracy thus far invented. In essence, a global social contract can be construed as a "global deal" (or a "new global deal," or a "global new deal") for world citizens to solve their problems.

The claim is made that global democracy cannot come about without an explicit global social contract, for the simple reason that the size of the world does not allow informal and implicit contracts to function as they might at the level of small human units. Two other reasons for a global social contract as a precondition of global democracy are first, that many global problems cannot be solved in isolation (therefore solutions need to be explicitly negotiated in tandem with the related problems and they need to be contractually linked since they are linked in the real world), and second, that even for unrelated issues, some world citizens would lose and some would win, so that here too one basic global social contract rather than many separate social contracts should be negotiated (global environmental issues are a typical win-lose issue in many people's minds). If, as is the case today, issues are discussed in isolation, then whoever is the looser in a particular negotiation will oppose the deal. If one fundamental contract were negotiated (such as a world constitution based on basic human rights), it is more likely that everyone would agree to it since everyone would gain and lose some. Finally, it is claimed that the stability of a global social contract would be optimized if it were 1) freely and openly negotiated by the world's people, 2) based on the equal human dignity of all, 3) explicit rather than implicit so as to allow full scrutiny and participation, and 4) based on a process that is widely perceived as fair.

The idea of a global social contract is a powerful instrument for human progress and allows humans to reassert conscious democratic control on a globalization process that does not work to the benefit of all people. Traditional objections to a social contract theory, namely that it is implicit and imposed as an accident of one's birth rather than by consent, is answered in the case of a global social contract that is explicitly negotiated by the world's peoples.

Note from hal schaffer, President AMWG:
William Penn, in 1693, stated that "PEACE REQUIRES JUSTICE, JUSTICE REQUIRES LAW, LAW REQUIRES GOVERNMENT, NOT ONLY WITHIN NATIONS BUT EQUALLY BETWEEN NATIONS" and I would add that World Peace Requires a Democratic Federal World Government.