In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
And we have Global Community, as well. It is called The Global Spiritual Community and it is the only and only possible global governance … and by God, not Caesar, in time, not space. Saying they want to work towards global governance says they are not in The Global Spiritual Community. They are outside the Power of Grace. Pity. Shame. This makes their plots and remonstrations acts of envious desperation, cries of anger, pleas for help. But the help they want only God can give. And until He does, and they show it in quiet contentment with their lives and the lives of those around them, they are enemies of God, culture and history.
Tillich has a typically Germanic and, if one punches through to its meaning, typically brilliant observation regarding God, Culture, Time and Space:
The God of time is the God of history. This means, first of all, that He is the God who acts in history towards a final goal. History has a direction, something new is to be created in it and through it.
Synagogue and Church should be united in our age, in the struggle for the God of time against the gods of space. This is a period in which more than ever, since Christianity has overcome paganism, the gods of space show their power over souls and nations. If this would happen, if all those who struggle for the Lord of history, for his justice and truth, are united even under persecution and martyrdom, the eternal victory in the struggle between time and space will become visible once more as the victory of time and the one God who is the Lord of history.
The Rev. Dr. Paul Tillich, Theology Of Culture, pages 37 and 39.
* * * * * * * * *
This is to be long, but not as exceedingly
as the exclamation it excerpts and explores.
* * * * * * * * *
More than a little intensely seductive and seriously risible fascist reading, vividly illustrating the vector.
They are not coy about declaring themselves. All to help build and sustain a coalition for progressive global change, in pursuit of a vision of justice and security for all. Of course.
1- They want, rotating through and under their command, a full-spectrum combat brigade and comparable police forces from major military powers. Only one?
2- They never mention inalienable rights of individuals or individual or group liberty or freedom that is inherent and therefore sacred, only government action presumed to protect human rights. No mention of the root structural human values of Truth, Righteousness, Love, Peace and Non-Violence.
3- They presume that women are better peacekeepers (military) and peace builders (diplomats and police) than men and should be fronted to such efforts. So they want Amazon military and police forces or they just have not considered that thoroughly?
4- They do not mention building indigenous military force in fragile and conflict-affected states. But a country comes up around its successful full-spectrum armed forces. If its armed forces are not successful in defending a country’s land, families and constitution, a country does not exist. This phenomenon compares to the mission of the human auto-immune system. If that fails its defensive/offensive mission, the human body succumbs very rapidly to an incessant myriad of organic and inorganic assaults upon it. Life is a constant war against the power of non-being, and if that war is not won by life, non-being buries it. So it is with countries, nation states.
5- Their tone echoes the sonority of fascism: Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz: the common good comes before the private good, where the common good is defined by an all-powerful central government and the private good may exist so long as it serves the leaders’ and bureaucrats’ governance goals. Ignore or destroy individuality in favor of state/expert-control. This is classic Marx-Lenin and Nazi too. When will these bastards give up, be content and leave humanity to find their own way? Never, really. They are outside the power of Grace and so forever envious, superior and controlling. They have to be dealt with as one deals with an aggressive pathogen.
6- Their solution for each and every problem or need that they see — and each is related to inherent human or bureaucratic nature, as they admit knowing — is to add human-staffed bureaucracies. This is both invita Minerva and additio ad absurdum, against the life of the mind — i.e., logic — and the mirror image of reductio ad absurdum. And besides no logic, no active operators. This and this needs doing … and no one designated to do it, just confab stakeholders and set up structures (bureaucracies) tasked for doing this and that. Endless bureaucracy-creation. All they can imagine. So Soviet. So EU. So Anti-American. What did Bill Knudsen say? Something like: a committee is a group of people who, individually, can do nothing and, together, decide nothing can be done.
7- They are looking for ways to keep the UN in business and expanding. They think other entities have outlived their usefulness (e.g., NATO), but not their UN.
8- They do not baldly say that the Westphalian nation state is obsolete, but that is what they are saying and hoping to make patent by replacing it with UN-engineered bureaucratic hegemonies, a la EU princes and princesses. Compare Kissinger: The Courage Of His Contradictions — Angelo M. Codevilla contra Kissinger, the evil moron.
9- They consider state and non-state actors as equally legitimate, on a par one with one another! Equalizing governments and NGOs. Cute, conceptual step towards subsuming governments in NGOs and NGOs in UN. And nothing about patriotic feelings of loyalty to and gratitude for one’s mother country. Nothing elevating to the spirit of a person, a nation or The Holy Spirit. Only nation states have penal authority, the essence of government, and NGOs do not have penal authority, though by this statement one would gather than they sure would like to. Right now they want it both ways: demand governmental protection whilst plotting to equal or exceed governmental authority. Cute, very cute.
10- The number of things they call for to be done roughly matches the number of things obligatory for a nation state to do, only, they specify no one to do these things or, most importantly, to follow through to their completion. Their calls are dreamsville in cubicles super-charged with cascades of envious desires bereft of executive authority. Their language is weasel words sneaking about to find ways to control matters not theirs to control. Basically, they are vandals with respect to the lands, families and constitutions of the nations. They put me in mind of white supremacist liberals.
We focus on institutions and relations that involve some legitimate authority, that is, authority accepted by participants as a right to rule, use power, and leverage compliance. Such authority can be exercised not only by governments, but also by various other actors over their communities, which may be linked by kinship, religion, profession, or business. They participate in global governance provided they “exert authority over communities located in two or more states.”
Governments and global governance arrangements exist to provide public goods, which one person can use without diminishing availability to others and which people cannot be excluded from using. For these reasons, markets have limited incentives to provide them, and governments underprovide global public goods for similar reasons: states that have not contributed to providing such goods cannot be practically excluded from enjoying them.
The UN Charter’s preamble includes four main aims: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,” “to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained,” and “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” The absence of war makes achieving the other three aims possible. The Charter preamble also makes it clear, however, that keeping war at bay is primarily a means to greater ends.
No it’s not. War is the means to greater ends and to peace and justice.
Global Public Discourse on Justice, Security, and Peace
Archbishop Desmond Tutu—
“Where justice and order are not restored, there can be no healing, leaving violence and hatred ticking like a bomb in the corner.”
Wang Yi, Foreign Minister of China—
“We should uphold justice. It is imperative to promote greater democracy and rule of law in international relations, use fair and just rules to tell right from wrong and settle disputes, and pursue peace and development within the framework of international law. All parties should jointly uphold the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations and reform and improve the global governance structure. “
Mahnaz Afkhami, Iranian-American human rights activist—
“Clearly, any definition of a culture of peace must address the problem of achieving justice for communities and individuals who do not have the means to compete or cope without structured assistance and compassionate help.”
Sources: Afkhami, “Working Toward Peace”; PRC, “Jointly Pursue Peace”; Tutu, “In Africa”
In sum, the goals of justice in an interdependent, globalized world can be framed as achieving a basic level of liberty and opportunity for the advancement of both women and men while reducing social and economic inequalities to benefit, in particular, the least advantaged in society—thus showing special concern for the acute abuses, discrimination, and inequities perceived and experienced by much of humanind.
The quest for international security (and the related notion of order) is not new, though its full realization remains aspirational. Before the UN Charter, its pursuit was enshrined in the Covenant of the League of Nations and earlier in the Concert of Europe. The notion of justice emerged more resolutely in deliberations at the global level with the Charter, a result of the insight that to truly “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” collective or common security alone is not enough, that global justice—as the effective pursuit of “larger freedom” on a global scale—is equally important.
Security is merely the appearance of order in a framework of structural violence unless tempered or leavened by concepts of justice that include human rights, human dignity, legitimate government, and other normative limits on the use of power. Vice versa, the pursuit of justice is crippled if not backed up by the requisite means to sustain security and order.
And who controls the backup-ers?
In a world at peace, which provides all its inhabitants with the chance of a decent and safe life, security and justice are visibly complementary. Concerns for one entail concerns for the other. Indeed, history has shown time and again the futility of attempts to instill—worse, impose— security with no consideration for justice. That simply creates the manifestation of order underpinned by the use or threat of violence. At the same time, endeavors to impart justice without security are all too easily undone. Security and justice are both needed if humanity is to not only survive but also thrive with dignity.
For this Report and its reform agenda, we view the joint pursuit of security and justice in global governance as a quest for just security. Just security aims to forge a mutually supportive system of accountable, fair, and effective governance and sustainable peace globally. It further recognizes that both security and justice are indispensable to human development.
Peace is a brief moment following successful war. A decent and safe life cannot be guaranteed everyone because everyone does not have opportunities conducing to those conditions and cannot be made to have, not even with the most stringent eugenics protocols both for and against specific breedings. The open air is healthier than a controlled-temperature box.
Moreover, the notion of just security places justice and legitimate forms of governance at the center of twenty-first century conceptions of security. Applied to challenges facing global governance today, an approach that emphasizes security and justice simultaneously would aim to refashion global institutions and their policy instruments to strike a more effective balance between security and justice that does not privilege one major concept over the other.
Refashioning institutions, as seen later in the report, is double-talk for sneaking out of and over all a single global governance bureaucracy. One-World Government, the great Communist/Fascist Socialist envious desperation dream.
On the eve of the UN’s seventieth anniversary, the world is less Westphalian than ever. The concept of global governance acknowledges that today’s threats and interdependence place in question the community of states as the sole pillar of security and justice in the world. Today, it is more appropriate to speak of at least three United Nations, according to Tom Weiss’s 2009 article in Global Governance: the Member States, the Secretariat and UN bureaucracy, and civil society. These and other actors are assuming an increasingly prominent role within the wider global governance architecture conceived of as network governance (see 2.2.2), both as contributors to and as detractors from security and justice.
… “less Westphalian than ever” … really?
At the same time, the demise of the state as a relevant entity in global governance has not occurred, nor is it likely to. It is also safe to say that a world state or any singular provider of justice and security worldwide is not imminent, nor is any benevolent unipolar moment. The state remains the primary addressee of obligations under international law and other global norms. In particular, it remains the primary provider for justice and security. Reinforcing this insight are such concepts as R2P, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) and its complementarity principle, which clearly acknowledges that the state remains primarily responsible for, respectively, keeping its citizens safe, the protection of human rights on its territory, and the trial of perpetrators of atrocities. However, as a second observation, each of these key norms and documents equally hold that where states fail to deliver, other levels and actors of governance need to step in. Hence, although states may continue to be seen as primarily responsible, they are not the only or always the most suited providers of justice and security; they may find themselves in need of assistance regarding the most serious threats and challenges in global governance.
“It is also safe to say that a world state or any singular provider of justice and security worldwide is not imminent, nor is any benevolent unipolar moment.” But they sure wish it were.
Leading policymakers and scholars have called for nonstate actors’ potential in global affairs to be harnessed, including Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, and John Ruggie. The recommendations in this Report offer a number of concrete steps to make the most of nonstate actors’ contributions to security and justice in global governance. These include exploring innovative ways to bring all relevant actors to commit to sets of principles, shape common expectations, and focus efforts on joint goals in the form of what are called new social compacts. The idea of such compacts has gained in popularity in the past 15 years, featuring, for instance, in Indonesia’s Human Development Report 2001 and the Harvard Business Review, and with potential application to a range of today’s global challenges.
Evolving Definitions of Peacebuilding
Despite the visibility of UN supported peacebuilding in the last fifteen years, the creation of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture in 2005, and the 2009 report from the Secretary-General titled “Peacebuilding in the Aftermath of Conflict” (that includes annual progress reviews through the Peacebuilding Commission), a universally shared definition of peacebuilding remains elusive.
According to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “peacebuilding [is] action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict.”
In defining peacebuilding, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has argued that “national and international efforts in the early post-conflict period should focus on meeting the most urgent and important peacebuilding objectives: establishing security, building confidence in a political process, delivering initial peace dividends and expanding core national capacity.”
According to the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, four goals are critical to peacebuilding and statebuilding: “Legitimate Politics (foster inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution); Security (establish and strengthen people’s security); Justice (address injustices and increase people’s access to justice); Economic Foundations (generate employment and improve livelihoods); [and] Revenue and Services (manage revenue and build capacity for accountable and fair service delivery).”
Sources: UN, An Agenda for Peace; UN, “Peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath”; International Dialogue, “A New Deal.”
Peacebuilding (a neologism!) = nation-building, but what they mean is global UN-orchestrated bureaucratic rule. The only thing that “solidifies”(!) peace is successful war, and then only temporarily, until the next bellyacher rears up. And the only agency that can win a war is a nation state.
Moreover, there remains room for improvement for collaborating with civil-society actors on the ground, as noted by a report published in April 2015 by of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) and the Quaker United Nations Office (entitled Filling the Gap: How civil society engagement can help the UN’s Peacebuilding Architecture meet its purpose).
Quakers: their influence radically out of proportion to their importance. They’re a political movement, not a religion. Always have been. Opposed the founding of the USA, opposed the creation of the US Constitution, along with the Unitarians — had been Puritans — from New England. Dangerous people, Anti-Amercian.
Representatives of international and regional organizations need to do more to ensure that women are included in peace processes. Prioritizing justice for women “is an essential part of rebuilding trust in state institutions, establishing inclusive citizenship and ultimately sustainable peace.” To raise the profile of women on an international level, the following steps should be taken. First, global and regional institutions should be examples for women’s inclusion and should appoint women to prominent peacemaking roles at the international level. Second, international actors that fund and support peace processes should actively demand the inclusion of women in peace processes.
Third, global and regional institutions need to embark on a more holistic global campaign for women’s equality and gender mainstreaming, which co-opts men as partners in the realization of women’s rights. For example, the HeforShe campaign should be implemented at the national and grassroots level through National Action Plans and other policy instruments. (Why women? Apart from men, they are destabilizing influences.)
“… co-opts men as partners ….” This used to be called loving the father, brother and husband, homemaking and being strong.
Start at 4.3.2 Prevent armed conflict and scroll down. What they really want is rotating national battalion-and brigade-strength combat teams and police forces under UN command to deploy at UN initiative(!) Keep scrolling. They want UN full nation-building (“peacemaking”) armed and civilian designated resources at UN command. They want to govern the globe. They want more than a brigade combat team, they want a full-spectrum armed force, under them.
The state [Peace of Westphalia] remains the indispensable building block for providing security and justice in global governance. It should, however, also receive the support it needs from the international community to fulfill this role when its own institutions and capacities falter. Preserving a viable public space cannot be seen in isolation from shared ecological space and the world’s increasing reliance on new technologies.
This is incompatible with their desire for UN-controlled heavy military, police and civilian expert power. If you want especially military power, you want to at least compete with sovereign states and probably you want eventually to replace them. And meanwhile you want states to supply you the power to eliminate them. Sweet.
It should, however, also receive the support it needs from the international community to fulfill this role when its own institutions and capacities falter. Contemplate the weasel words and oozing impulses in that sentence.
Over the past two decades, the UNFCCC COPs have seen a growing number of stakeholder institutions participate either formally, as members of their state delegations, or informally. To broaden the array of stakeholders in the anticipated 2015 Paris Agreement, some have argued that the agreement should be opened in some way to signature by actors other than national governments, to include provincial and state leaders, mayors, industry and professional associations, and civil society organizations, including women’s organizations. There are also precedents in the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s processes in which labor unions and businesses can sign agreements, alongside governments.
If the Paris Agreement proves to be not more than the parties’ promise to pledge (to a certain amount of GHG reduction) and review (the results some years later), however, it may be more productive in both the short and the long run for the various coalitions and initiatives working to limit climate change to announce a parallel commitment and signing process, whereby they commit to deeper and faster action than that pledged by national leaders—as a starting point for a new social compact for global climate action (for further discussion, see 220.127.116.11). Their intent should be publicized in advance of the Paris meeting and pledges posted on a common website. This would both show their respective commitments and show up their national government counterparts, possibly shaming them into deeper commitments executed with greater urgency.
Encouraging structures to circumvent and subvert national sovereignties. Playing with fire.
Cross-border economic shocks such as the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, capital flight, natural resource theft, corporate espionage, loss of privacy, and theft of intellectual property are just a few risks to which the hyperconnected global economy is vulnerable. Hyperconnectivity also spills over into the public space and has potential negative consequences of its own. Increased information and communication technologies rarely empower only one side in a conflict; technologies can favor the status quo and not necessarily activist agents of change in a contest of wills and messages; media bias in nondemocratic societies can underreport protest and nonviolent collective action by opponents of the regime.
Classical agitprop mentality. The word activist comes from Soviet Russian aktivni meropriyatiya (Активные мероприятия, active measures, which have the purpose of spreading disinformation [dezinformatsiya] to render an opponent incapable of defending themselves.
Given its potential to boost human ingenuity and productivity, but parallel negative potential, what does the hyperconnected global economy need from global governance? What approaches would best meet those needs, consistent with meeting equitably the security and justice needs of all? How can the risk of another sudden global economic slide best be reduced? In the absence of effective global governance, hyperconnectivity in the global economy can both enhance and detract from just security.
“… another sudden global economic slide ….” Repeatedly in the work the committee references this, meaning, they are looking after their personal pocketbooks at least as much as “global public goods” (Gemeinnutz).
Foremost among the challenges facing the hyperconnected global economy is its continuing vulnerability to periodic, rapid financial shocks. … What measures should be taken to help developing countries protect hard-won progress in poverty reduction in the event of future crises?
Why developing countries? Why not let developed countries bring developing countries into their markets?
The decision of the US National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) to transfer its stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority—a department of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which performs key technical tasks to ensure the smooth functioning of the Internet—to the global multi-stakeholder community was welcomed by many. However, disagreement is pronounced over which entity should have authority over IANA when the US government’s current contract with ICANN expires in September 2015. The US has reiterated that it “will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.” However, submissions made by India, China, and Russia prior to NETmundial, the global multi-stakeholder meeting on the future of Internet governance, which took place in Brazil in April 2014, and at other forums suggest that these actors favor precisely the type of international entity to which the United States objects. These divergent responses to the IANA transition highlight once again the deep-seated division between key state actors about how the Internet should be governed and by whom.
Applying a network governance approach and incorporating key recommendations from the reports of the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, the Future United Nations Development System project, and the UN’s earlier Delivering as One coherence agenda, a Sustainable Human Development Network (SHD-net) would aim to move beyond existing practices across the UN system and forge a truly integrated development system. Specifically, each UN program, fund, and agency, as well as the World Bank, IMF, and regional development banks, would collaborate to maximize impact, improve the use of technical and financial resources, and better streamline reporting and broader administrative requirements in all UN member countries. Further tapping the ideas, networks, political support, and human and institutional resources from the proposed UN Global Partnership (see 8.3.2), the SHD-net would focus its normative, policy, and programmatic priorities on assisting all countries—developing and developed—to meet their Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.
The traditional pillars of global governance are the principal organs of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank Group and IMF). Other major global bodies (such as the WTO), UN agencies, programs, and funds, the regional development banks, and other functionally specialized institutions round out the mix, each designed to provide a specific range of global public goods. The crisis of global governance described in Part I arises not only from the scope and character of the challenges presently facing humanity, but also from the inability of current governance institutions to meet those challenges and the difficulty of getting agreement on reforms that might give them that ability. This section offers an array of important reforms to a range of institutions. It begins with an appreciation of the difficulties that any such reform agenda must face and overcome.
Not facing humanity, facing intending global rulers.
At the same time, great power consent is not always a prerequisite for change, as the entry into force of the Land Mine Treaty in 1999, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2002, and the rise of the Responsibility to Protect as a global norm attest. … Mobilizing support for and sustaining a global governance reform program can benefit from smart coalitions of like-minded state and nonstate actors. Success also depends on the skillful navigation of multilateral negotiations, sequencing of reforms, and mobilization of resources. Finally, progress necessitates effective reform implementation, including monitoring and responding to setbacks. We detail each of these steps in Part IV in a near-term (three to five years) transitional strategy for reform designed to harness the ideas, networks, and resources of global and transnational actors and garner political support for a vision of just security for all.
The gist of their proposal for achieving true global governance is to create think pieces and bureaucracies that ooze around nation states and devour their sovereignty. Classic Cheka/NKVD/KGB/FSB active measures operation.
As detailed earlier, the UN Peacebuilding Commission fell, in its first decade, well short of international expectations in its core mandated areas of marshaling resources, supporting integrated strategies, and developing best practices to assist conflict-affected countries directly and proactively (see 4.2.7). The central question is whether to invest real authority in the Commission, including on matters of conflict prevention, and to establish an acceptable division of responsibility with the Security Council. Several of these issues are under consideration by the members of the Peacebuilding Commission as part of the body’s ten-year review to be concluded during the latter half of 2015. It is, however, uncertain whether the review will lead to consensus on the structural reform necessary to give the Peacebuilding Commission the authority and mandate it needs to fulfill its mission.
Herding cats, uncertain indeed.
Adopting a pragmatic approach toward strengthening UN-citizen relations and overcoming the world body’s democratic deficit, a United Nations Parliamentary Network established under UN Charter Article 22 could wield tremendous potential for expanding public knowledge of and participation in the work of the preeminent global institution. Feeding fresh ideas into the UN General Assembly’s debates, the proposed UN Parliamentary Network would complement the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the longer-term efforts of civil society organizations to develop a transnational democratic culture.
What … ?
Public access to and participation in the workings of international organizations at the forefront of global problem-solving remain far too limited. Despite some progress in engaging civil society organizations, most intergovernmental bodies—beginning with the United Nations—have a democratic deficit. This harms the perceived credibility and legitimacy of the UN’s principal organs.
An important initial step toward more robust access and representation for “We the Peoples” of the United Nations would be developing a consultative UN Parliamentary Network (UNPN). It would bring together parliamentarians elected from their national legislatures, to discuss and advise on issues in UN governance that concern citizens worldwide. It would be similar in initial composition to the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and the Parliamentary Conference on the World Trade Organization, but would have a formal relationship with the UN and be focused on the world body’s efforts to promote global security and justice.
The UNPN would add an important democratic dimension to UN governance. It would offer national parliamentarians with a strong interest in UN governance the opportunity to provide their insights. It could help to address concerns at the grassroots level about the benefits of globalization by providing a continuous platform for input and accountability claims from domestic populations (such as public hearings with local constituents), and an important additional channel for global civil society groups, as well as the private sector. It could meet every September, at the start of a new UN General Assembly session, to feed ideas into the work of the UNGA—and convene periodically during the rest of the year when critical issues come to the fore.
The Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance supports development of such a UN Parliamentary Network. The Commission sees such support as complementary to longer-term civil society organization efforts to develop a transnational democratic culture, such as the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, which seeks the creation of a standing, formally constituted UN second chamber. The campaign has won the support of a large number of national parliamentarians and civil society groups. A Parliamentary Network is a vital step that can be taken in the immediate term to expand public knowledge and participation in UN work as Member States weigh the merits of more robust and far-reaching democratic forums.
Finally, the UN Parliamentary Network could serve as a complement to the important work undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which has promoted international cooperation and democracy for more than a hundred years. Where IPU member-state delegations tend to focus on national issues, UNPN members would focus on UN governance itself, and on facilitating more accountable and inclusive decision-making at the global level. The two bodies could work together in ways analogous to the European Parliament and the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. Over time, the UN Parliamentary Network could be seen as part of a natural evolution toward a central and vital role for We the Peoples in the governance of the world body.
Global people not represented by Global Governance … oh dang, who’d o’ thunk … so, duh, make more bureaucracy … behind bullet-proof glass and biometric locks.
These abuses occurred in a deep blue city in one of the bluest states in the country. That shouldn’t surprise us. Blue modelers, of course, have seemingly endless faith in the power of big government to do well by the people it governs, especially the most vulnerable. Their rhetoric turns on the claim that blue policies alone can help the poor, and they brand those who disagree as racists who hate the poor. And when it turns out that no one was guarding the guardsmen, and that institutions have abused the power they’ve been given, blue modelers are surprised and disappointed, but somehow still earnestly convinced that the solution is. . . yet more big blue government.
In a globally integrated world economy, the need for global collective action and stability is almost universally recognized. The proposed new framework for global economic cooperation, with a competent and accountable coordination body (the G20+) and connected to a representative global system (the UN), aims to preserve global economic stability and to ensure that the global economy continues to grow inclusively to benefit all nations and peoples equitably (see 6.3.1). Unlike earlier attempts at reform (see 7.2.3), this concept is commensurate with changes in the world economy. … Whereas the chief policy focus of the G20+ should remain priority setting on critical issues for the world economy, including in the area of crisis response, it should depend on formal international organizations and states for implementation and follow- through. Such a network governance approach (see 2.2.2) would also better allow coherent national policies to be urged and carried forward.
“… the need for global collective action and stability is almost universally recognized.” Yeah, honey, by you and your girl friends.
In addition to supporting the periodic meetings in New York as outlined in the previous recommendation and basic levels of coordination and information exchange among the secretariats of global economic bodies, a light global economic cooperation liaison mechanism should be created, involving senior staff from the G20+, the UN, and other major global and regional economic bodies. Its modest secretariat could be led by a second UN deputy secretary-general (see recommendation 18.104.22.168) focused on economic, social, and environmental matters. Consulting all relevant actors (including business and civil society groups via the UN Global Partnership), the liaison mechanism would be charged with facilitating regular communications and coordination between—as well as preparing technical documents on global economic governance matters concerning—the above bodies. … To both staff periodic G20+ meetings at the heads of state, foreign minister, finance minister, and senior officials levels, as well as review progress on commitments made at earlier meetings, induce greater compliance, and facilitate cooperation with the UN and other major global and regional economic bodies, a G20+ secretariat should be established. This can be either traditional (in a physical location) or virtual (operating online and dispersed throughout the world) as a form of network governance. Consisting of world class economists, social development specialists, environmental experts, political scientists, and international lawyers (that is, a technical body of experts) mainly seconded, for three- to four-year intervals, from the United Nations and other major global and regional economic bodies, the G20+ secretariat should be led by a respected international civil servant seasoned in facilitating complex multilateral negotiations on diverse economic and related matters involving both states and other economic actors in the Global North and South. An adaptable secretariat of staff specialists rather than political appointees could help keep the G20+ both flexible and results-oriented regarding the interactions of a growing range of global economic governance actors.
Answer to mis-, mal- or non-functioning bureaucracy? Of course … create more bureaucracy! Mind-eating parasites would make as much sense.
Global security and justice involve more diverse stakeholders than ever, as the rise of regional organizations, subnational and local governments, civil society organizations, and private-sector actors in global governance—both as contributors to and detractors from security and justice— continues unabated (see box 8.1). This shift in power is at the heart of recasting what was long known as international relations into what is now appropriately named global governance. It has also kindled the idea of “three United Nations”, beyond Member States and the Secretariat and comprising civil society and business groups. Despite a rapid diffusion of power in global affairs, states and existing structures of global governance are slow to adapt their ways of engaging with the emerging array of new governance actors. The category of actors beyond national governments comprises entities as diverse as Apple, Amnesty International, the African Union, global celebrities, and philanthropists.
“The category of actors beyond national governments comprises entities ….” Hardly. Those entities depend now on national governments and know it, with all that implies.
To the extent that power is dispersed outside the traditional Westphalian state-dominated governance model, provision of global public goods depends increasingly on regional bodies and nonstate and substate actors. In 2004, the High-level Panel on Challenges, Threats and Change highlighted the importance of using the full potential of regional organizations in maintaining international security and building peace.174 This capacity and relationship with the UN remains underdeveloped today, not only in the domain of security, but also for the promotion of justice globally. This is a concern that cuts across the three focus areas discussed in Sections 4 through 6. For instance, regional organizations such as the African Union play an increasingly important role in conflict prevention and crisis management. Civil society organizations are pivotal in
the global discourse and on the best way forward to address climate change. Today’s critical ICT infrastructure, on which the hyperconnected global economy depends, more and more, is unthinkable without the support of system-relevant corporations. Moreover, at the substate level, regions and municipalities, particularly major cities, are increasingly active in global governance matters. In light of these transformative developments, the Commission offers recommendations aimed at improving both the integration and understanding of nonstate, regional, and local actors in global governance.
They do not understand Westphalia or the centrality of successful full-spectrum armed forces to the existence of secular authority of any kind, especially a nation state.
Over the past two decades, many international institutions have encouraged greater participation and accountability through civil society engagement in their work. The mechanisms established for this purpose, however, vary in terms of availability, use, and importance, which reveals the many persistent challenges in “democratizing global governance through expanded civil society involvement.”175 One concern pertains to when CSOs get to participate in global governance in a more substantive way. Civil society participation is today usually more extensive in the implementation of policy than it is in decision-making, the politically most consequential stage of international cooperation. At the decision-making stage, civil society actors participation is rare. Civil society groups may follow negotiations, circulate papers, and sometimes address the parties, but they are rarely welcomed as experts within a government delegation (where they could have a more direct impact on decision-making). Civil society engagement then resurges at the stage of policy implementation.
What bureaucrat wants someone bringing facts into their pretty plans?
Despite forging decades-long relationships, civil society, the business community, regional intergovernmental organizations, and local governmental bodies participation in the work of the United Nations remains piecemeal and ad hoc. It lacks a level of prominent institutional representation and a hub through which these new actors can more effectively shape decisions at the global level, and through which various UN bodies can tap into the expertise and networks of these resourceful organizations. The Commission, therefore, proposes creating a UN Global Partnership.
More bureaucracy, requiring more buildout of instantly-decaying auto-immune systems.
The Global Partnership should also be tasked to help codify further the principles for interactions between the UN, civil society, and businesses and for corporate social responsibility in global governance, building on the UN Global Compact, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the findings of the Cardoso Commission on UN-Civil Society Relations. These principles could include minimum conditions for all nonstate actors such as their commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the SDGs, and the UN Charter.
Given that half the world’s population now lives in urban areas, cities are becoming the main hubs of political, economic, and social interaction. They are instrumental in defining and implementing the global agenda. Close to where citizens reside, municipal governments are well placed to understand their needs, detect tensions, and promote civic participation. Increasingly, municipalities are called to play a pivotal role in bridging local and international responses to major global challenges, such as migration and climate change. Integrating cities into global governance and fostering coordination at different institutional levels is, therefore, a necessary step to maximizing the effectiveness of global policies and their social relevance.
Let no one escape promoting the agenda!
Working alongside states and intergovernmental organizations toward a common vision of just security for all, civil society, business, regional organizations, and local authorities are poised to work together on the most pressing global challenges. Their effectiveness will largely depend on putting in place, ideally within the next five years, innovative arrangements—at all levels of governance—to tap hidden resources and unleash unforeseen partnership opportunities. Beyond the design phase and garnering initial political momentum, progress toward achieving such systemic reforms in global governance depends on a sustained strategy for reform that respects and engages all key stakeholders, the subject of the concluding part of this Report.
Achieving bold yet practical reforms to overcome the present crisis of global governance requires at least two key ingredients. First, it needs an attractive ethical vision that accounts for the power and interests of states and increasingly influential nonstate actors and ensures basic human rights for people everywhere. Anchored around the concept of just security, the Commission’s proposals in this Report offer such a positive, alternative vision for a more just and peaceful world order. Second, reforms require a realistic strategy for Advocating Justice and Security Together (AdJuST), rooted in a rigorous, ideally shared analysis and harnessing the ideas, networks, resources, and most of all, leadership of multiple actors to move toward this new vision—in other words, concrete steps on how to get from here to there.
Designing an effective transitional strategy for reform of the global system and sustained partnerships to drive change involves different dimensions, including building coalitions to initiate and nurture reforms, skillful multilateral negotiations, resource mobilization, and tools to measure progress and respond to setbacks. Taking in the lessons from successful coalitions of like-minded states and nonstate actors while encouraging new approaches, we are committed to helping marshal, monitor, and sustain support for the reform agenda introduced in this Report (see Parts II and III). Each policy and institutional reform pursued will employ realistic timelines, achievable within a three- to five-year time frame.
Vision, not hard reality, kicking and screaming … vision. OK.
Equalizing nation state governments and NGOs:
If smart power reflects the combination of traditional and nontraditional means for projecting influence beyond a state’s borders toward progressive goals, then the examples that follow, alongside earlier examples introduced in this Report, illustrate the creative collaboration of traditional (state) and nontraditional (nongovernmental) actors—or smart coalitions—to engender progressive global systemic change. Representing a new form of diplomacy for a new era of international relations, successful smart coalitions have the following key characteristics:
- State and nonstate actors are engaged constructively in policy dialogue—and treated with mutual respect—at the early stage of a new reform initiative.
- The ideas, networks, resources, and leadership skills of all actors with something to offer are carefully cultivated, harnessed, and assessed (the ideas of network governance and Four UNs introduced in 2.2.2 and figure 8.1). International civil society organizations have specific kinds of expertise, can infuse multilateral negotiations with a sense of democratic legitimacy, and can shame governments into action. But governments maintain chief responsibility for the provision and enforcement of justice and security, and the business community (including the global media) can offer considerable financial and human capital for global problem- solving and effective communications. Regional organizations are further poised to harness state and nonstate resources toward common ends in a specific geographic space, and many local authorities have fast become engines of public innovation and dynamism (see 8.3.4). Governments should recognize the force multiplier value of nonstate actors, regional organizations, and local authorities.
- Changing narratives and reframing issues, including through new concepts and analytical frameworks, can help to avoid bottlenecks and circumvent protracted differences due in part to perceived threats to the power and interests of influential state and nonstate stakeholders.
- Broad, interrelated, and complex reforms are often organized into more manageable, issue- specific areas, enabling the formation of more diverse coalitions led by actors with particular interests and areas of expertise.
- Political support is articulated and mobilized for clear, near-term interim milestones, which often generate a positive and irreversible snowball effect toward realizing broader and more ambitious reform objectives.
- Specific interim and longer-term reform objectives are carefully measured through a combination of qualitative and quantitative monitoring tools and multiple independent sources of data and analysis.
- Frequent communication—through an advanced multidimensional platform that engages the global media—identifies clear reform objectives and progress in achieving interim milestones.
- Inevitable setbacks in both building international political traction for a particular reform and facilitating implementation are prepared for through a dynamic and flexible multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism.
Since the end of the Cold War, smart coalitions of like-minded states and nonstate actors have proven critical to achieving global governance reform whether through norm diffusion, policy innovation, or creation of a new global institution. For instance, the norms of human security and the Responsibility to Protect have each benefited, over the past two decades, from strong proponents within governments, civil society, and the business community. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, successfully teaming up with Canada and other governments to secure widespread support for the Mine Ban Treaty. And within less than a decade of its formation, a diverse coalition of CSOs and countries from the Global South and North brought about the previously unimaginable entry into force of the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court. …
The best lessons from the CICC, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and other successful global reform efforts can be drawn upon to encourage the formation of new smart coalitions to study, innovate, and mobilize political support for the ideas presented in this Report. These coalitions should promote international public dialogues and other means to forge consensus for its analysis and reform program by rallying diverse, like-minded governments, civil society groups, businesses, the media, regional organizations, and local authorities around the joint promotion of urgent security and justice objectives in global governance—specifically, just security.
Such an approach to diffusing norms, reframing issues, and building transnational coalitions will allow for international actors with specific interests and expertise to identify linkages and undertake specific campaigns within the overall, broad reform effort. This strategy will further expedite setting realistic, near-term interim milestones, which when met can be widely communicated and help galvanize and grow the transnational coalitions necessary to achieve wider institutional reform goals through more complex, official multilateral negotiations.
Smart, narrative, vision, innovate, mobilize … a decade from now other buzz words will be heard. Earlier it was other buzz words, fresh approximately every decade. But always for the same purpose: global rule by self-selected, self-promoting liars. Their language is that of subversion, learned from the masters of Cheka/NKVD/KGB/FSB … and also Muslim Brotherhood (allies of Gestapo), other Salafists and Ayatollahs.
Beyond mobilizing support and sustaining momentum for global governance reforms (including facilitating their implementation once enacted), smart coalitions are needed to help navigate multilateral negotiations skillfully, promote the sequencing of reforms at an accelerated yet politically feasible pace, and mobilize adequate financial resources for the agreed systemic changes. Multiple avenues can be envisioned for pursuing the broad, yet integrated reform agenda presented in this Report. The Commission recommends two in particular that merit special attention.
Reform Through Parallel Tracks (RPT)
Convene a World Conference on Global Institutions (WCGI)
Financial Resources for Reform
Most global policy and institutional changes could be undertaken without Charter reform.
Oozing a completely different system out from, over and around an existing one — Smart Communism, they might call it — so that one might think nothing has changed — is their operational model.
A powerful, ethical vision for a more just and peaceful world order can only be as successful as the transitional strategy with which it is paired. Besides harnessing the ideas, networks, and resources of myriad transnational and increasingly global actors, garnering political support and seeing through to fulfillment a robust vision of just security—translating it into practical global governance applications that resonate in meaningful ways for ordinary people—requires a new kind of diplomacy—and indeed, a new kind of leadership—at the United Nations and other global institutions. It depends on leaders who are ready and willing to adopt a far-sighted strategy that gives equal weight to and pursues both global security and justice goals simultaneously, when working to overcome obstacles and seize new opportunities for the benefit of all people.
Not ethical standard or doctrine, just vision, which can change with the winds of activists’ necessity and whim.
A Call to Action
In seeking to forge a mutually supportive system of good democratic governance and sustainable peace globally through the intersection of security and justice, just security offers a unique prism for understanding and responding to some of the most pressing global concerns of our time.
From recurring violence and terrorism in multiple flash-points to the threat of rising sea levels, devastating storms and heat waves, cyber attacks, and cross-border economic shocks in our increasingly crowded and fragile planet, the need to jointly pursue security and justice—the keys to overcoming the present global governance crisis—is both acute and urgent. From new opportunities for sustainable human development, inclusive and accountable governance, and building peace within and between fragile states and societies, the rewards from effective collective action are equally pronounced. Rooted in the present global political context, nothing short of a forward- leaning reform program—inspired by several of the ideas and practical innovations put forward in this Report—can ensure that our global institutions and relationships, rooted in the twentieth century, are up to the twenty-first century tasks ahead.
We, the members of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance, call upon all peoples and nations to rise to this challenge. Our structures of global governance are merely a reflection of how we choose to govern ourselves across borders and entire regions. Powerful states and other increasingly influential global actors have a special responsibility to work toward a shared analysis of global problems and to seize opportunities to remedy them. Further still, we must all refuse to accept mediocre solutions that rely on institutions and mindsets from another era. Only when men and women from diverse places and backgrounds rally around a shared, inherent need for security and justice—always felt locally but created at many levels—can these powerful actors be nudged toward what is needed, as well as what is right.
Nudge is Cass Sunstein’s and his wife’s word, also, for herding Americans in directions they do not wish to walk, i.e., towards tie-downs of their freedom, nature and destiny. These ones assume what they want to nudge people towards is what is needed, as well as what is right. Large presumption, that. Firstly, of their omniscience. Secondly, of their right to omnipotence. Rather Anti-American and anti-human, that.
Summary of Recommendations Coping with State Fragility and Violent Conflict
4.3.1 Strengthen the role of women in peace and security
22.214.171.124 Strengthen the role of women in peace processes
126.96.36.199 Learn and share lessons from implementing National Action Plans under SCR 1325
4.3.2 Prevent armed conflict
188.8.131.52 Improve conflict analysis and crisis warning 184.108.40.206 Focus on the Responsibility to Prevent
4.3.3 Develop greater consensus on R2P operations
220.127.116.11 Specify the responsibilities and objectives of R2P mission participants
18.104.22.168 Emphasize the principle of “no net harm” in R2P planning and deployments 22.214.171.124 Embed standards-monitoring and human rights teams in R2P-associated events
4.3.4 Strengthen UN military, police, and civilian response capacity for peace operations
126.96.36.199 Make designated Member State military units available for UN or regional peace operations on short notice
188.8.131.52 Enhance UN ability to rapidly deploy military planning and support teams to new and existing UN missions
184.108.40.206 Make designated Member State formed police units available for UN deployment on short notice
220.127.116.11 Establish a sizable standing and reserve capacity to support rapid and sustainable deployment of police to UN peace operations
18.104.22.168 Establish standing and reserve capacities to meet rapid deployment needs for civilian specialist skills4.3.5 Improve capacity for restoring rule of law, transitional justice, and host state resilience
22.214.171.124 Focus G20 support on the New Deal for engagement in fragile states
126.96.36.199 Combat corruption to support effective rule of law
188.8.131.52 Augment current disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programming with greater emphasis on countering (preventing the rise of) violent extremism
184.108.40.206 Consider hybrid models of justice when transitioning to a modern state court system
220.127.116.11 Consider transformational justice as a postwar alternative that addresses not just the results but also the roots of violence
Climate and People: Global Systems, Local Livelihoods
5.3.1 Global innovations in climate governance
18.104.22.168 Facilitate and strengthen linkages between the UNFCCC and other international regimes and organizations dealing with climate change
22.214.171.124 Give subnational and nonstate actors the opportunity to endorse climate rules more stringent than the UNFCCC process creates
126.96.36.199 Establish an International Carbon Monitoring entity
188.8.131.52 Establish a Global Climate Research Registry and Climate Action Clearinghouse
184.108.40.206 Establish a Climate Engineering Advisory Board and Experiments Registry
220.127.116.11 Engage the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development and UNEP Environment
Assembly on climate issues
5.3.2 Build climate consciousness into the work of other key global entities 18.104.22.168 Make global and regional trade more climate-sensitive
22.214.171.124 Seek advisory opinions from the ICJ in climate change disputes 126.96.36.199 “Green” the G20
5.3.3 Climate adaptation needs better defined objectives and more financial support
188.8.131.52 Define one or more global climate adaptation goals and gauge their achievement in terms of measurable improvements in local human security
184.108.40.206 Structure climate finance to increase net support to climate adaptation
5.3.4 Engage private enterprise on market-based incentives to reduce carbon emissions 220.127.116.11 Negotiate carbon subsidy reduction targets
18.104.22.168 Reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants
22.214.171.124 Institutionalize financial climate risk reporting
126.96.36.199 Establish a Green Technology Licensing Facility
Governing the Hyperconnected Global Economy
6.3.1 A new framework for global economic cooperation and crisis response
188.8.131.52 Create a G20+ to enhance coordination with the UN, Bretton Woods institutions, and related bodies
184.108.40.206 Strengthen the IMF
220.127.116.11 Bolster the FSB
18.104.22.168 Ensure labor rights and global economic governance for inclusive growth
22.214.171.124 Establish a system-wide UN Sustainable Human Development Network
6.3.2 New tools to combat illicit financial flows and extremist financing
126.96.36.199 Promote the AEOI standard and transparency of corporate registries
188.8.131.52 Assess the effects of anti–money laundering policies on crime and terrorist groups 184.108.40.206 Use human rights norms and policy tools to curb illicit financial flows
220.127.116.11 Address IFFs in the Post-2015 Development Agenda
6.3.3 Transform the EITI into EITI+ for effective governance of natural resources
18.104.22.168 Establish clear guidelines for reporting and sanctioning violations of EITI+ principles 22.214.171.124 Make EITI+ complementary to the post-2015 SDGs
6.3.4 Secure the digital economy and promote Internet access in the Global South
126.96.36.199 Expand norms and the rule of law in the digital marketplace
188.8.131.52 Combat cybercrime through international cybercrime centers and an international cybercrime experts roster
184.108.40.206 Promote fundamental good practice in cybersecurity globally
220.127.116.11 Promote universal access and the protection of rights and freedom in the digital marketplace
Reform of Major Global Institutions
7.3.1 Revitalization of the UN General Assembly
18.104.22.168 Streamline the UNGA agenda and strengthen its president and committees 22.214.171.124 Create a Shadow Council in the General Assembly for Security Council oversight 126.96.36.199 Revisit the Uniting for Peace resolution
188.8.131.52 Lead the Post-2015 Development Agenda
184.108.40.206 Establish a UN Parliamentary Network
7.3.2 Reform of the UN Security Council
220.127.116.11 Expand the membership and allow immediate reelection of nonpermanent members 18.104.22.168 Improve the working methods
22.214.171.124 Hold regular, structured consultations with civil society and business
7.3.3 G20+ and a new framework for global economic cooperation
126.96.36.199 Facilitate multi-stakeholder, cross-disciplinary dialogue and policy solutions
188.8.131.52 Promote inclusive economic reform
184.108.40.206 Enable global economic crisis response
220.127.116.11 Convene the G20+ every two years at the UN
18.104.22.168 Establish a global economic cooperation liaison mechanism
22.214.171.124 Create a (virtual) G20+ secretariat composed mainly of seconded personnel from major global and regional economic bodies
126.96.36.199 Focus ECOSOC on delivering the Post-2015 Development Agenda
188.8.131.52 Facilitate development cooperation and humanitarian action through ECOSOC
7.3.4 International courts and human rights bodies: Reform and strengthening 184.108.40.206 Strengthen and make full use of the ICJ
220.127.116.11 Enhance working relations between the UNSC and ICC
18.104.22.168 Streamline the global human rights architecture
7.3.5 From Peacebuilding Commission to Peacebuilding Council
22.214.171.124 Create a stronger Peacebuilding Council to replace the Peacebuilding Commission 126.96.36.199 Entrust the new Peacebuilding Council with a conflict-prevention mandate 188.8.131.52 Improve integrated peacebuilding strategies and monitoring
7.3.6 Modernization of the UN Secretariat
184.108.40.206 Improve the selection procedure for the next Secretary-General
220.127.116.11 Empower the Secretary-General with more discretion to manage the Secretariat
18.104.22.168 Further advance the Delivering as One UN Coherence Agenda through a second deputy secretary-general and additional incentives
Engaging Critical Regional, Local, Civil Society, and Business Actors in Global Governance
8.3.1 Introduce new social compacts
22.214.171.124 Develop new social compacts to support multi-stakeholder solutions to critical governance problems
126.96.36.199 Establish a repository for new social compacts
8.3.2 Inaugurate a UN Global Partnership
188.8.131.52 Establish a UN Global Partnership
184.108.40.206 Strengthen civil society and business engagement
220.127.116.11 Encourage greater UN policy and programmatic attention to major civil society and private sector priorities
18.104.22.168 Further codify principles for UN, civil society, and business interactions and corporate social responsibility in global governance
8.3.3 Bolster regional organizations as promoters of global security and justice
22.214.171.124 Promote regional courts to protect international human rights and to address particular issues
126.96.36.199 Explore ways to grant regional courts the right to request ICJ advisory opinions 188.8.131.52 Update the Cold War–based UN regional groups and strengthen the role of regional organizations
8.3.4 Bring global cities and local communities into global governance
184.108.40.206 Create an official dialogue and institutional links between international, national, and local institutions
220.127.116.11 Bolster local capabilities to fulfill their expanded governance role
A Transitional Strategy for Reform: “Getting from Here to There”
9 Build Smart Coalitions to Mobilize Support and Sustain Reforms
10.1 Reform Through Parallel Tracks (RPT)
10.2 Convene a World Conference on Global Institutions (WCGI)
11.1 Establish a Mechanism for Monitoring and Coordinating Reform
Update 1: Primary literature regarding global governance:
The Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Stimson Center: Confronting The Crisis Of Global Governance: The Report of the Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance
CFR: Global Governance
WHO: Global Governance
US System Task Team On The Post-2015 UN Development Agenda: Global Governance And Governance Of The Global Commons In The Global Partnership For Development Beyond 2015: A Thematic Think Piece
Wikipedia: Global Governance
Update 2: Primary literature regarding internet governance:
As a commenter says below, a really, really intelligent, experienced discussion today. Besides looking at this situation from the sides and bottom, a top-down view may add a certain what’s-it.
These soi-disant rulers, for all their vain glory and machinations, have a common goal, which they call global governance. Though gauzily, they have definite notions for their desired end state and equally definite plans for getting there. And they are not reticent about these (it is a long read).
Looking at what they are doing from their perspective, top down, strategically, so to speak, illuminates questions regarding why they are doing it and where they are going.
They are oozing bureaucracies, extant and novel, of their choosing around and over standing nation-state sovereignties. A central method of that project is structuring activities of every kind to treat favored NGOs and other non-state actors as entities co-equal in every way with sovereign nation-states. For the dream of just security. Hello #BlackLivesMatter and responsibility to protect. Samantha Power.
From this, IMO, it is reasonable to anticipate, in 2016, another fraudulent national election — for the common good of the global commons — or effort thereto, and another or the same fraud celebrating before massive American flags.
It is not just that they consider the US Constitution — and Citizens, whom they accuse of nativism, racism and xenophobia — stupid and ignorable. It is that they abhor American national sovereignty, and since they cannot ignore that, they spare no effort to overwhelm its supporters, civilian, military and para-military.
That said, and as others have mentioned here, there are patriots in Washington D.C.’s alphabet soup.
Update 3: A statement regarding equating Christianity with Communism:
Several New Testament parables are used, since decades, to equate Christianity with Communism. Virtually the entire “mainline denomination” leadership, to include now Roman Catholics, concurs at least in principle with that equation. Thus the pews empty out, which, remarkably, convinces that leadership to embrace leftist manners and language more tightly: cut loose by God, let’s be saved by politics.
Christianity brightly distinguishes the realm of civil authority and law from the realm of religious authority, which transcends civil authority and law and has no law of its own. Each realm has its utility, powers and necessity (“Give unto Caesar….”) and neither has authority to control or dominate the other.
The relationship between religion and science is the same. They are about different matters entirely, without intersection, confirmation or conflict. Like civil authority and religious authority, however, they are parallel, indomitable vectors of human experience and history.
Update 4: Let schools pay students to matriculate. School, like everything else in life, is a market, one way and another, and in a market, the customer is always right, one way and another. If the student pays, they are the customer and control the market, as now. If the school pays, they are the customer and control the market, such as at our country’s service academies.
Also, the hyper-ideologizing of schools means the market for education is saturated and a very large number of said schools are superfluous and deserve closure.
Also, as long as politicians and bureaucrats can seduce schools with money, and as long as every smallest matter is taken to be a government responsibility — i.e., opportunities for graft unchecked — schools are headed for their own gotterdamerungen because their economics and their ideologies, both, disfavor their longevity.
Pacifism for you, activism for me.
Suppression for you, expression for me.
Closed society for you, open society for me.
Their hypocrisy quotient is self-promoters’ nemesis.
Update 5: A most compelling post, thank you! Puts me in mind of Teilhard de Chardin, who saw in the hard sciences of geological and paleontological process and result the phenomenology of divine life, of God alive and kicking, so to speak. A novel immanentalism of sorts, precedented but unique in the history of Christian thought. Here Fernandez sees in structural engineering attitudes phenomenological actualities of social engineering assumptions, deftly expressed. Other commenters also appreciate this post’s brilliant helpfulness.
Update 6: Kurt Schlichter: Liberals Use PC Words Because They’re Convenient To Them. Here Are Words To Use Instead
Update 7: Richard Fernandez: That Old Time Religion
Update 8: The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits [spoiler: helps rich, hurts poor]
Update 9: Daniel Greenfield: Dear Corporate America
Update 10: Dick and Liz Cheney on Restoring American Exceptionalism
Scott, your correspondent assumes Hillary recognizes a country to secure. She does not. That’s the point of the entire world governance/globalist elite, isn’t it?: there is no national sovereignty, only personal viability in a global community. Get yours, they say to themselves.
Your correspondent’s point works in a law-based system of national sovereignty. But this now is a rules-based system of global governance by hyper-privleged elites — they attend the same cocktail parties everywhere on the globe — in their private “global community.” So they think. They can do as they wish because there is no authority superior to themselves, no nation deserving much less demanding security.
Their thinking — global governance (by themselves alone, because they mean so well), no national sovereignty — drives the Arab/Pa-African invasion of Europe, the Indo-Chinese/Pan-South American invasion of North America and such as the Obergefell-vs-Hodges decision. We make the rules, you obey them, and we don’t want or have national sovereignties obstructing our wishes for having lots of fun for ourselves while we talk about doing lots of good for you others.
If your correspondent wants to help, ask him or her to preach the reality of USA national sovereignty and all it implies in whatever is their orbit. These elegant globalists wield great power, as is known, but their foundation remains a cloud, a dream. Their power derives from their generation of deluding fictions. Ask your correspondent to make that point in his or her circle of contacts, to say again and again what is true, that national sovereignty is here to stay and will not be swept away.
Update 12: Scott Johnson at Power Line quotes and comments thereon a law-learned correspondent in re incalculable damage done by Hillary Clinton to US national security. All of which is true, of course, but I saw another facet in the subject and commented as follows:
Scott, your correspondent assumes Hillary recognizes a country to secure. She does not. That’s the point of the entire world governance/globalist elite, isn’t it?: there is no national sovereignty, only personal viability in a global community. Get yours, they say to themselves.
Your correspondent’s point works in a law-based system of national sovereignty. But this now is a rules-based system of global governance by hyper-privileged elites — they attend the same cocktail parties everywhere on the globe — in their private global community. So they think. They can do as they wish because there is no authority superior to themselves, no nation deserving much less demanding security.
Their thinking — global governance (by themselves alone, because they mean so well), no national sovereignty — drives the Arab/Pan-African invasion of Europe, the Indo-Chinese/Pan-South American invasion of North America and such as the Obergefell-vs-Hodges decision. We make the rules, you obey them, and we don’t want or have national sovereignties obstructing our wishes for having lots of fun for ourselves while we talk about doing lots of good for you others.
If your correspondent wants to help, ask him or her to preach the reality of USA national sovereignty and all it implies in whatever is their orbit. These elegant globalists wield great power, as is known, but their foundation remains a cloud, a dream. Their power derives from their generation of deluding fictions. Ask your correspondent to make that point in his or her circle of contacts, to say again and again what is true, that national sovereignty is here to stay and will not be swept away.
Related: Glenn Reynolds quotes, approvingly, a jerk at Walter Russell Mead’s American Interest moaning that Hungary’s new emergency laws, to address invasion of that country by the Middle Eastern horde, trample on several basic liberal values. Reynolds concurred in this language: I’m afraid so. Against which I commented, Tut. To the jerk at American Interest I commented:
… laws that trample on several basic liberal values ….
No, you smug, fat, safely-padded, hand-wringing jackwagon, it’s not about liberal values, it’s about national and cultural sovereignty. Trying to make a sovereignty issue a values issue is classic fasco-commie subversion by misdirection. I knew American-Interest is sanctimonious fasco-commie, but this really self-exposes these muckers of weaponized empathy.
Update 13: Colin Woodward: Eleven American nations. Woodward’s purpose is to justify national gun confiscation, but along the way his analysis of American regions — he calls them nations in order to divide the country to ease confiscation — is accurate and useful. Has a fine map supporting.
Update 14: Institute For The Study Of War: ISIS’s Global Strategy: 2015
Update 15: UN Agenda 2030
Update 16: Jonah Goldberg: The Rise Of House Clinton
Update 17: Jack Cashill on punishment by Neo-Puritans
Update 18: The actuality of women in the Israeli Defense Force
Update 21: Steven Hayward: The [Maurice] Strong Over The Weak
Update 22: Henry Lamb: The Rise Of Global Governance
Update 23: Nancy Pelosi preaching active measures.
Update 24: Earlier student publication, Active Measures, at The Institute Of World Politics
Update 25: Rush Limbaugh on what’s actually happening
Ed Driscoll, an example of Rush’s point. I commented:
Ed, you don’t get it. They’re not on the other side of an aisle. They’re under you and everything you cherish, making caverns and filling them with explosives to blow you and yours to oblivion. Rush recently did a segment on your kind’s ignorance of the game afoot.
Update 26: What Really Happened At Synod 2015?
Update 27: Richard Fernandez: Faithless. Comment: Democracy is doomed and God is dead. OOOOOKAAAAA.
Update 28: Commenter Todd Lewis at Belmont Club writes:
Are we really to believe, at this point, that [The Fraud] has a foreign policy that is in the interest of anything at all but his demented ideological worldview. I am convinced that the reason he prefers ISIL to ISIS is because it implies a total application of the Syrian chaos to the entire eastern Mediterranean world rather than the narrower limits ISIS would imply. The total destruction of Israel, of course, lies within those parameters. [The Fraud] seems to think the whole civilized world is the result of “white man” something-or-other (colonialism, capitalism, cultural assertiveness, Christianity, Judaism, whatever.; take your pick) all of which he viscerally loathes. The only pattern of behavior I see in [The Fraud] is his desire to unleash chaos everywhere in the hope that what once was no longer will be. He is a one man plague of locusts. I don’t know what he thinks is going to fill these voids unless it is a worldwide ultra-elitist tyranny of his own imagination with him in charge. This all looks like megalomania unleashed to me. Somebody explain to me how any of this administrations narratives and policies make sense otherwise.
Update 29: Until the churches reform the universities, Power types will churn out in their millions yearly and demand their 20-something hands control immediately every last twitch on the planet. No rest for anyone or anything, just constant elimination of what is by what wants to be. Samantha and her boss represent a class of operators.
Update 30: The
Council Constipation on Foreign Relations promotes North American regionalism as an element of totalistic globalism.
Update 31: Globalization of commerce is not globalization of government, and part 2. Globalization of government is DOA. Here, though not fully written out, yet, is a framework for what the future likely holds: Three Brothers [nation states] Doctrine to replace Containment Doctrine.
Update 33: So What’s Happening In The Shipping Reports?
Update 34: EU And US: A Relationship Of Concern
Update 35: Richard Fernandez: The Global World Hits A Snag
Update 36: The Z Man: The Eco-Struggle
Update 37: Global Governance honchos and climate
Update 39: Tyranny coming in through the back door — the government, meaning, the executive alone — suppressing the people’s will expressed through the legislature.
Update 40: An absolutist grasping at cloud castles: The Fraud: Put Nordic Countries In Charge For A While To Clean Things Up
Update 42: A very angry man, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, has zero grasp of freedom and its implications … wants none:
Update 43: The Dangerous Idiocy Of Global Leadership
Update 45: Gaining From Migration: Towards A New Mobility System Right!
Update 46: How To Defeat Weaponized Empathy
Update 47: More Examples Of Weaponized Empathy
Update 48: When And Why Nationalism Beats Globalism
Update 49: The slogan and organizing principle of President Trump’s administration is America first. As he explained last night: “My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.”
This is just common sense. Absent the Obama aberration, no president would think to say it.
Calling that line common sense is haughty, sententious spite. The line was the central doctrinal declaration of the speech, and the glance of POTUS and the cameras to the Ds upon its completion was Shakespearean in dramatic effect and de-cision.
Lewandowski said, rightly, long ago that the election was about globalism and nationalism, meaning, we will have one and not the other. In that glance and lens last evening, Ds declared themselves globalists, which is not news, but is now on record, en masse, or nearly so. Roger Simon today wonders if D is dead as a party. If so, their Globalism/Soros-ism is the reason.
It is not nice to fight mother nature (Dharma). And certainly not intelligent.
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
1. The sport of choice for the urban poor is BASKETBALL.
2. The sport of choice for maintenance level employees is BOWLING.
3. The sport of choice for front-line workers is FOOTBALL.
4. The sport of choice for supervisors is BASEBALL.
5. The sport of choice for middle management is TENNIS.
6. The sport of choice for corporate executives and officers is GOLF.
The amazing facts are, the higher you go in the corporate structure, the smaller your balls become.
There must be a boatload of people in Washington playing marbles.