Our Common Oceans and Seas
2017-04-24 09:59:53 |
|
The
people of the earth having agreed that the advancement of man in spiritual
excellence and physical welfare
is the common goal of mankind...therefore the age of nations must end, and the era of humanity begin.” Preamble to the Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution
The United Nations is currently preparing
a world conference 5-7 June 2017 devoted to the Implementation of Sustainable
Development Goal N° 14: Conserve and sustainable use the
oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. Non-governmental
organizations in consultative status with the U.N. are invited to submit
recommendations for the governmental working group which is meeting 24 to 27
April in New York.
The Association of
World Citizens has long been concerned with the Law of the Sea and had been
active during the 10-year negotiations on the law of the sea during the
1970s, the meetings being held one month a year, alternatively in New York
and Geneva. The world citizens position for the law of the sea was largely
based on a three-point framework:
a) that the oceans and seas were the common
heritage of humanity and should be seen as a living symbol of the unity of
humanity;
b) that ocean management should be regulated by
world law created as in as democratic manner as possible;
c) that the wealth of the oceans, considered as
the common heritage of mankind should contain mechanisms of global
redistribution, especially for the development of the poorest, a step toward
a more just economic order, on land as well as at sea.
The concept of the oceans as the common heritage
of humanity had been introduced into the U.N. awareness by a moving speech in
the U.N. General Assembly by Arvid Pardo, Ambassador of Malta in November
1967. Under traditional international sea law, the resources of
the oceans, except those within a narrow territorial sea near the coast
line were regarded as "no one's property" or more
positively as "common property." The "no one's
property" opened the door to the exploitation of resources by the most
powerful and the most technologically advanced States. The
"common heritage" concept was put forward as a way of saying that
"humanity" - at least as represented by the States in the U.N. -
should have some say as to the way the resources of the oceans and seas
should be managed. Thus began the 1970s Law of the Seas
negotiations.
Perhaps with or without the knowledge of Neptune,
lord of the seas, the Maltese voted to change the political party in power
just as the sea negotiations began. Arvid Pardo was replaced as Ambassador to
the U.N. by a man who had neither the vision nor the diplomatic skills of
Pardo. Thus, during the 10 years of negotiations the "common
heritage" flame was carried by world citizens, in large part by
Elisabeth Mann Borgese with whom I worked closely during the
Geneva sessions of the negotiations.
Elisabeth Mann
Borgese (1918-2002) whose birth anniversary we mark on
24 April, was a strong-willed woman. She had to come out from
under the shadow of both her father, Thomas Mann, the German writer and Nobel
laureate for Literature, and her husband Giuseppe Antonio Borgese
(1882-1952), Italian literary critic and political analyst. From
1938, Thomas Mann lived in Princeton, New Jersey and gave occasional lectures
at Princeton University. Thomas Mann, whose novel The Magic
Mountain was one of the monuments of world literature between the
two World Wars, always felt that he represented the best of German culture
against the uncultured mass of the Nazis. He took himself and his
role very seriously, and his family existed basically to facilitate his thinking
and writing.
G.A.
Borgese had a regular professor's post at the University of Chicago but often
lectured at other universities on the evils of Mussolini. Borgese,
who had been a leading literary critic and university professor in Milan,
left Italy for the United States in 1931 when Mussolini announced that an
oath of allegiance to the Fascist State would be required of all Italian
professors. For Borgese, with a vast culture including the classic Greeks,
the Renaissance Italians, and the 19th century nationalist writers, Mussolini
was an evil caricature which too few Americans recognized as a destructive
force in his own right and not just as the fifth wheel of Hitler's armed
car.
G.A. Borgese met Elizsabeth Mann on a lecture
tour at Princeton, and despite being close to Thomas Mann in age, the couple
married very quickly shortly after meeting. Elisabeth moved to the
University of Chicago and was soon caught up in Borgese's efforts to help the
transition from the Age of Nations to the Age of Humanity. For Borgese, the
world was in a watershed period. The Age of Nations − with its
nationalism which could be a liberating force in the 19th century as
with the unification of Italy − had come to a close with the First World
War. The war clearly showed that nationalism was from then on only
the symbol of death. However, the Age of Humanity, which was the
next step in human evolution, had not yet come into being, in part because
too many people were still caught in the shadow play of the Age of Nations.
Since University of Chicago scientists had played
an important role in the coming of the Atomic Age, G.A. Borgese and Richard
McKeon, Dean of the University felt that the University should take a major
role in drafting a world constitution for the Atomic Age. Thus the Committee
to Frame a World Constitution, an interdisciplinary committee under the
leadership of Robert Hutchins, head of the University of Chicago, was created
in 1946. To re-capture the hopes and fears of the 1946-1948 period when the
World Constitutions was being written, it is useful to read the book written
by one of the members of the drafting team: Rexford Tugwell. A
Chronicle of Jeopardy (University of Chicago Press, 1955). The book
is Rex Tugwell's reflections on the years 1946-1954 written each year in
August to mark the A-bombing of Hiroshima
Elisabeth had become the secretary of the
Committee and the editor of its journal Common
Cause. The last issue ofCommon Cause was
in June 1951. G.A. Borgese published a commentary on the Constitution, dealing
especially with his ideas on the nature of justice. It was the last thing he
wrote, and the book was published shortly after his death: G.A.Borgese.
Foundations of the World Republic (University of Chicago Press,
1953). In 1950, the Korean War started. Hope for a radical transformation of
the UN faded. Borgese and his wife went to live in Florence, where
weary and disappointed, he died in 1952.
The drafters of the World Constitution went on to
other tasks. Robert Hutchins left the University of Chicago to head a
“think tank”- Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions – taking some
of the drafters, including Elisabeth, with him. She edited a booklet on the
Preliminary Draft with a useful introduction A Constitution for the
World (1965) However, much of the energy of the Center went into
the protection of freedom of thought and expression in the USA, at the time
under attack by the primitive anti-communism of then Senator Joe McCarthy.
In the mid-1950s, from world federalists and
world citizens came various proposals for UN control of areas not under
national control: UN control of the High Seas and the Waterways, especially
after the 1956 Suez Canal conflict, and of Outer Space. A good overview of
these proposals is contained in James A. Joyce. Revolution
on East River (New York: Ablard-Schuman, 1956).
After the 1967 proposal of Arvid Pardo, Elisabeth
Mann Borgese turned her attention and energy to the law of the
sea. As the UN Law of the Sea Conference continued through the
1970s, Elisabeth was active in seminars and conferences with the
delegates, presenting ideas, showing that a strong treaty on the law of the
sea would be a big step forward for humanity. Many of the issues raised
during the negotiations leading to the Convention, especially the concept of
the Exclusive Economic Zone, actively battled by Elisabeth but actively
championed by Ambassador Alan Beesley of Canada, are with us today in the
China seas tensions. While the resulting Convention of the Law of the Sea has
not revolutionized world politics – as some of us hoped in the
early 1970s - the Convention is an important building block in the
development of world law. We are grateful for the values and the energy that
Elisabeth Mann Borgese embodied and we are still pushing for the concept of
the common heritage of humanity.
****************************************
Rene Wadlow, President and a
representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens
|
Monday, April 24, 2017
Our Common Oceans and Seas
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Earth Day 2017 and the March for Science
C-span’s Washington Journal call-in program this morning asked
its listeners “What do you believe the greatest environmental problem is today?” The callers mentioned indoor air pollution, asteroids,
water pollution, animal slaughter, over-population, fracking, and even the hype
of global warming. A much longer list exists
(volcanoes, nuclear war, ocean acidification, deforestation, loss of top soil…)
but the root problem is rarely mentioned. That being what we think, value, and actually do
or don’t do.
Each of these human factors are largely driven by our
examined acceptance of a single word - ‘independence’. There should be no doubt that this single
mental construct is the greatest threat to an environment that has sustained
our species since our origin, but also the greatest threat to our freedom and security. Historically, the very government we depend
on to protect our freedom and security is based on this fantasy ideal.
In reality, everything, I repeat, EVERYTHING (organic, inorganic,
or imaginary) is dependent upon a variety of other things. Yet we go about our lives
as if what we do, or what we do it with, is our business and no one else’s. We call this ‘freedom’. Ultimately, we are all free. Free to do anything humanly possible. But we (and others) will never be free of the
consequences.
We don’t need to worry about the Earth. Fact is, in the long run (the next 4 billion
years) the earth and the natural environment will be fine. There has been at
least five mass extinctions, where 50 to 95% of all multi-cellular species were wiped
out over the last 600 million years. And,
after each mass extinction, life returned to cover the planet with increasing abundance
and diversity. Humans arrived in the later
part of last recovery. And now, most
scientists believe humans are creating the next mass extinction at a pace approaching
1000 times faster than any previous extinction.
Humans will likely survive, but not all of us. And, unless we direct our sciences to mimic
the powers of nature, and find a new means of surviving the end stages of our
primary source of energy, the sun, all humanity will eventually go extinct.
There is a growing possibility that humans could go extinct
long before our Sun goes red enveloping the Earth and its orbit. And our
extinction is most likely to be the result of our own advances in science and
technology which currently serve national and economic interests not that of
all people and the environment. Those at the Science March who were advocating for more funding for science and technology seldom
mention that science is only a tool. How it is used depends on the value system
of the user, not the inventor. Unless
our collective value system puts the protection of human rights and the environment
ahead of nationalism, patriotism and/or profit, our prospects for the future
are grim.
Nationalism as it is now in the absence of ‘justice for all’.
It drives weapons development and the
evolution of weaponry to unprecedented killing capacity and
accountability. We are creating artificial
intelligence to give us a military advantage.
Its possible that AI will evolve beyond our control, and after attaining
the insight that the human mind is fundamentally flawed in its capacity to
believe anything and destroy everything, humans will be eliminated. In our species arrogance we forget how
fragile our life form is. Thirteen organic systems and structures entirely
dependent on each other and a far greater number of interdependent living and
nonliving systems and structures makes for health and survival. As individuals,
families, cities, states, and nations we are infinitely vulnerable to a variety
of microscopic and global macroscopic factors.
Factors no independent government can stop, no matter how tall the wall,
or how powerful the military.
Because of our unchallenged worship of ‘independence’ “We
the People” of the world still have no global democratic system or structures
to assist us in protecting our valued lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness…each
of which is entirely dependent on our God given life support system we call ‘the
environment’. These values used to be ‘self-evident
truths’.
We humans have always altered our environment for better or
worse, mostly worse, but we in our technological power/arrogance continue to ignore
reality. The health of the earth’s environment
has the last vote. And, human freedom,
security, prosperity, and perhaps our species survival rely on that vote.
If we cannot redirect our intelligence, creativity, science,
technology, resources, and laws toward mimicking the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s
God” (as our nation’s founding fathers stated in the first paragraph of our Declaration
of Independence) we should prepare for the worse.
So on this Earth Day remember that Earth and life on it will
be fine for the next 4 billion years. We
may not. Science will only prove valuable if it is
applied in the long run to the value that ‘all people’ are created equal and
endowed with certain inalienable rights.
Rights not limited to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ But also the fundamental right to a sustainable
environment and justice for tall.
The more one reads, questions and thinks outside our
dysfunctional culture/society one will increasingly conclude, beyond any doubt,
that unless we apply science to the Golden Rule (promoted by every religion) human
progress will be thwarted. Ultimately we are free to do, and believe,
anything we want. But without understanding and responsible actions in relation
to our global interdependence, our security is not possible.
The most effective means of demonstrating our responsibility
today would be our collective action in achieving each of the 17 Sustainable
Development Goals for the year 2030. Read,
question, think, and act responsibly. The greatest power you have is educating your
elected officials regarding the nature of reality.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Science and Religion unification in The Gold Rule
Brahmanism: "This is
the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to
you" : Mahabharata 5:1517
Christianity: "All
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them." Matthew 7:12
Islam: "No one of you
is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for
himself." Sunnah
Buddhism: "Hurt not
others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana
Varga 5:18
Judaism: "What is
hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest
is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31:a
Confucianism:
"Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you
would not have them do unto you." Analects 15:23
Taoism: "Regard your
neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own
loss." T'ai Shag Kan Ying P'ien
Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another
whatsoever is not good: for itself. " Dadistan-i-dinik
Justice for all, or security for none.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Measuring progress on SDGs. Atlas of information.
If you would like to monitor progress on the SDGs…which are essential indicators
of global justice and security, this is the website to keep handy.
If you are interested in making the SDG’s
important to your elected officials,
consider participating in the 435 Campaign for Global Justice.
Three things are vital to a peaceful, free,
prosperous and secure future for humanity.
1. A comprehensive approach to ‘justice for all’
2. A means to fund it and/or enforce it.
3. Motivating
action in the context of enlightened self-interest…national security.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
100 Years ago Today. We chose a path we must now leave..
Today is the 100th Anniversary of the US entry
into the first World War. No one really
knows why that war was fought but most agree that the way it ended set the
stage for the World War II and nearly twice as many casualties. There should be no dispute that the horrors
of World War II set the stage for the Cold War and dozens of genocides,
revolutions, and famines that followed that killed more people than both World
Wars combined.
There should be no doubt that current global war against
terrorism, now called violent extremism, is a direct result of the consequences
of the global injustices perpetrated during the Cold War.
The most important question now, is how do we end war before
it ends us? Given the evolution of
weaponry and the dozens of new factors that make a continuation of war by any
means (bio, cyber, nano, space, robotics or AI) a form of insanity what are we
to do? Our freedom, security and
prosperity will increasingly be lost.
The urgency of our era can be seen from multiple
perspectives. The evolution of weaponry.
The evolution of pathogens. And the
failure of our political systems to evolve in response to these threats.
There is only one viable pathway to an alternative future
where freedom, security and prosperity can be maximized for all the world’s
people. We the people must demand that our governments
put the protection of human rights (see the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights) above the rights of nation states to do as they please, without being
held accountable.
After the horrors of WW II most people agreed we needed to
prevent future war. From that view emerged the UN system and the most important
document in human history -the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then world leaders failed to make human rights
a priority.
We now have what may be our last chance to end the
trajectory of world war. Replace it with
world law. We all know that’s not going
to happen anytime soon, so the next best option is meeting the Sustainable
Development Goals which is a close equivalent of enforcing the UDHR.
There is no shortage of money to achieve these goals. It can be found in off shore accounts and
even many US states where banks are now holding approximately $14 trillion in
money that should have been put into the service of human survival instead of
enriching less than one tenth of one percent of humanity.
Time is not on our side.
Our survival will depend on our capacity for adaptation to these
changing times. More military spending
is not going to help. More treaties and
weapons bans will not help. More hopefulness will not help.
Only a movement of movements generating sufficient political
will for our leaders to move away from war and toward world law will work. Demand that our elected officials take this
path. There really is no other
way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)