A BILL OF PARTICULARS Why the U.N. Must Be Replaced
I. FAILURES TO SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS II. DEFECTS IN ORGANIZATION III. THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER CANNOT BE AMENDED IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT AMENDMENTS ARE DELUSIONS V. THE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE
Replace the U. N. Charter immediately with the Constitution for the Federation of Earth!
FAILURES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION TO SERVE HUMAN NEEDS during the past five decades and some of the proliferating global problems which the U.N. is not solving: 1. WAR. Although the United Nations Organization was created in 1945, as stated in the preamble, "to save suceeding generations from the scourge of war," during the 49 years since 1945, war preparations and wars have continued as a major priority and activity of almost all member nations of the U.N. Since 1945, hundreds of millions of people have been murdered or maimed in wars or had their homes and communities destroyed by wars. Mostly civilians. Since 1945, more than 100 nations, including two-thirds of the present Members of the United Nations, have been involved in several thousand wars, and probably fifty or more wars are now going on, including insurrections. Since 1945, the people of Earth have been robbed of many trillions of dollars for squandering on the nuclear arms race, resulting in increasing global insecurity, with more than 50,000 nuclear bombs aimed and ready to fire, whereas the explosion of less than 100 is sufficient to wipe out human civilization on Earth by causing the onset of nuclear winter as well as by outright destruction and long-lingering radioactive poisoning of the environment. Since 1945, more scientific and engineering talent of the world has been engaged in the design and production of weapons of war than in any other activity. Since 1945, apart from nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction and deadly capabilities have been vastly expanded in quantities, in technological varieties, and in destructive power, all contributing to total global insecurity. Since 1945, most member nations of the U.N., both small and large, poor and rich, have given top priority to equipping themselves with modern weapons of war, regardless of needs for housing, nutrition, education, utilities, and other basic needs and services for their citizens. Since 1945, trade in armaments and weapons of war has zoomed to ever larger proportions, so that guns with magnified killing and destructive capacities are everywhere, and wars among nations and ethnic nationalities erupt everywhere. Since 1945, all of the disarmament conventions, commissions, studies and resolutions of the U.N. have failed to stop the increase and spread of military arms for war, have failed to stop the introduction of new technologies for more destructive weapons, have failed to stop more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, have failed to achieve disarmament. Since 1945, the building of vast factories to produce weapons of war presents another complex, expensive, and socially explosive problem of conversion to production for peaceful human needs, so that the production and sale of unneeded weapons continues with no global agency able to facilitate and supervise the needed conversion to serve peaceful needs. Since 1945, the ensuing arms races and military programs of the members nations of the U.N. (euphemistically called national military defense, but in actuality war programs) have caused almost all national economies to become war economies, tied to the priorities given to war preparations. Since 1945, all production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction should properly be defined as war crimes, committed by most member nations of the U.N., and in largest measure committed by the five members nations of the Security Council, but the U.N. is silent on this. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. Despite much attention given to global environmental deterioration by the U.N. General Assembly, by the United Nations Environment Program, and by U.N. sponsored conferences, the U.N. has been unable to implement actions necessary to reverse major environmental damages and to sustain a good livable environment on Earth. Although it has been known for many years that the rain forests of Earth are needed to recycle 50% or more of Earth's oxygen supply, and to store excess carbon dioxide, the U.N. has been unable to stop continued destruction of the rain forests at very rapid rates, and at current rates most of the rain forests will be gone within two generations. Already delayed action to save the rain forests gravely endangers all of humanity by resulting atmospheric imbalances, while reforestation of rain forests is extremely difficult because of bad soil and water conditions after rain forests are removed. Although it has been known for many years that the burning of fossil fuels is raising the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so that resultant heat trapping will cause disastrous climatic changes, nothing has been done by the U.N. to stop oil and coal production and burring for fuel. Although the technical feasibility for safe, sustainable and plentiful energy supplies from solar and hydrogen sources has been known for many years, no intensive global "crash" program has been launched to develop such sources rapidly to replace oil and coal. Although the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 20% has been encouraged at various conventions, this will not stop the other 80% from continuing to cause a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the U.N. has no way to achieve even the 20% reduction. An international treaty, non-enforceable, is being promoted by the U.N. to limit ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons to 1990 levels, but at 1990 levels, atmospheric ozone will continue to be destroyed, and there is no way to enforce a reduction to 1990 levels, thus promising increased dangers. Besides chlorofluorocarbons, there are many other gases and sources of gases which deplete the ozone, and which rise in the atmosphere over a period of years, for which there are no regulations thus assuring continued dangerous ozone depletions for the foreseeable future at present rates of being unable to cope with the problem. Although it has been known for many years that the phytoplankton in the oceans are needed to recycle 50% or more of the Earth's oxygen supply, as well as store excess carbon dioxide and begin the food chain for fish and sea life, and that ozone depletion will result in destruction of the phytoplankton by ultraviolet rays, this problem has not even been taken up at the U.N. To reverse the catastrophic climatic changes which are sometimes recognized as probably already underway, requires a very massive and globally coordinated program of many interrelated parts, which will cost many hundreds of billions of dollars per year for many years if human civilization on Earth is to be saved, but the U.N. is totally unprepared and unable to launch or administer such a program. The most drastic result of climatic changes, following upon imbalances of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and heat trapping, will be agricultural failures worldwide and consequent global starvation of a magnitude reaching into the billions of people, but this problem is not even mentioned seriously at U.N. conferences or in the U.N. General Assembly or Security Council. The end of the current inter-glacial period which has already run its historic course of 11,000 years, and the onset of another "ice age", which is the greatest emergency confronting human civilization, is never mentioned seriously by any U.N. Agency or at any U.N. Conference. When taking up the issue of ownership and development of the oceans and seabeds as the common heritage of humanity, the decision made at U.N. sponsored "Law Of The Seas" conferences was to give 200 miles offshore to each nation with a seacoast, which is the 200 miles containing the most accessible resources of the common heritage of humanity, and also the areas needing the most protection by global intervention from pollution. Although radioactive wastes and residues from the production of nuclear power have been accumulating since nuclear power production started 41 years ago, and it is known that these radioactive wastes and poisons are a deadly threat to human life for thousands and tens of thousands of years, the U.N. has done nothing to stop the production of nuclear power with the resulting accumulations of radioactive poisons, despite the additional fact that there are no safe disposal procedures known for the accumulating life-threatening nuclear wastes. Now that the threats to human life on Planet Earth from the enormous over supplies of nuclear weapons is being recognized (when even one nuclear bomb is an over supply), and now that the objective of dismantling some nuclear weapons has become a diplomatic negotiating point, there is no compelling and safe procedure ready for the extremely complicated and enormously expensive and dangerous work of dismantling. Meanwhile the nuclear bombs which proliferated during all the years of U.N. surveillance become older and more unsafe each year. Currently dismantling procedures include storage of nuclear explosive components, available for re-assembly into bombs and subject to dispersal to other countries; and the use of nuclear material from bombs in nuclear power plants which poison the environment for thousands of years. Since 1945, enormous quantities of other toxic wastes have been accumulating from a great many industrial processes, which are dumped in the oceans or shipped from the "advanced" industrial nations to "less advanced" countries, and the U.N. has no program for safe disposal or control over this global problem. Dozens of other urgent and extreme environmental problems continue to proliferate and become worse, such as soil erosion and deterioration of agricultural lands globally, depletion and pollution of fresh water supplies globally, depletion of ocean fisheries globally, oil spills and discharges everywhere, multiple atmospheric pollutions globally, and the U.N. is unable to do anything except make studies, collect documentation, establish commissions to study the problems, and hold conferences which cannot make any binding decisions to solve the problems. The people of Earth are living under an increasing poisonous and ugly global haze, which spreads everywhere, and even if mentioned at U.N. meetings, the U.N. is unable to eliminate the sources which cause this haze, even if a threat and burden to life everywhere. For a full bill of particulars, the foregoing is only a partial listing of the global environmental problems with which the U.N. has been unable to cope. 3. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS. Although the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations was entrusted with wide areas of concern "with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health and related matters," in all these areas conditions have deteriorated for most of the people and countries of Earth since 1945, while a minority have prospered. Plans which were brought before the U.N. by the nations of the "non-aligned movement" for a "new international economic order," to give greater equity for developing countries, were never acted upon to improve conditions, and have since been ignored. Instead, developing countries were loaded with short-term loans both for development purposes and for armaments, at unsustainable rates for repayment. To resolve these problems, the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (I.B.R.D.) (both listed as U.N. Specialized Agencies) together with consortiums of private banks, kindly consented to recycle the debts by combining both overdue and principal interest into new principal amounts, thus re-financing the debts again and again on short terms which could not be repaid. Since many of the developing countries had initiated various social welfare programs and public enterprises to serve the needs of their people, the debts were recycled only on stringent conditions of curtailment or elimination of social programs, liquidation of public enterprises, devaluations of currencies, privatization, and further austerity measures. By insisting on treating each country separately, the U.N. affiliated I.M.F. and I.B.R.D., and the helpful financial consortiums of big banks, proceeded on a divide and conquer basis to bring most developing countries over the years into economic subjugation, without the possibilities for development to serve the needs of their people with equity. Technology transfers so that developing countries could develop modern production of all kinds of both capital and consumer goods have been consistently avoided or done only partly in the context of the operations of multi-national corporations. Developing countries for the most part are treated as sources for raw materials and resources to be used by the "advanced" countries for their own industrial and commercial purposes. Production by modern technological innovations in the advanced countries has rapidly expanded, to the point where there are almost no markets in international trade for goods which might be produced in developing countries by indigenous industries. The major exception to the lack of markets for goods produced in less developed countries are the enterprises of multi-national corporations which establish factories in less developed countries to employ labor at very low wages to produce goods for sale in the markets of the richer countries. But only a few of the less developed countries have been chosen for serving the needs of the rich in this way. The rest are not needed. All the while, since 1945, the gap in incomes for most of the people of the less developed countries in comparison with incomes for people in the more developed countries has been constantly growing larger. At the same time, by the system of loans and repayment schedules extended to the less developed countries, as supervised by the U.N. Specialized Agencies of the I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D., the net transfer of capital, by reason of debt and interest payments, has consistently been from the less developed and poorer countries to the already rich. Unemployment in "less developed" countries commonly ranges from 15% to 40% or 50%, while unemployment at 8% to 10% in more developed countries is considered unfortunate but acceptable. The problem is much greater when account is taken of marginal and partial employment, and employment at struggling subsistence levels. Since 1945, the U.N. has taken no steps towards the introduction of a single global currency, which could eliminate the manipulations and devaluations of variable currencies always to the detriment of most people. Since 1945, no system of global finance and credit has ever been devised for the primary purpose of serving the human needs of people everywhere, on a basis of equity for all. Two resource exploitations encouraged in many developing countries have been (a) lumbering for export of raw logs, and (b) cutting down of rain forests to provide land (but with only short-term fertility) for growing cattle for meat exports. Both provide cash required to repay loans and thus have the approval of the U.N. agencies of I.M.F. and I.B.R.D., while making lumbering and cattle entrepreneurs rich. But both extensive lumbering and the cattle industry result in destroying the rain forests which are the lungs of the world to recycle oxygen and carbon dioxide. The result is gross environmental destruction in many ways, as well as resultant migrations of displaced persons to the overcrowded cities. The cities of almost all developing countries continue to grow at exaggerated rates, pushed by deteriorating agricultural areas, while the cities lack viable economic opportunities for most of their growing populations. The cities of most developing countries become ever larger and sprawling aggregates of poverty, pollution, inhuman living conditions, and expanding crime, while major cities of many "developed" countries are not too far behind in all of these problems. Meanwhile, under the watchful eyes of the U.N. and affiliated financial agencies, a brisk commerce in armaments and military supplies burgeons in almost all developing countries, with spill-over of high-powered guns to all kinds of poverty stricken civilians, insurgent groups, and criminals. Meanwhile, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), also a U.N. affiliated project, is being developed behind closed doors and with no representation for interests of "the people" (labor, small farmers, environment, social welfare) to be enforced arbitrarily according to rules to make the world safe for profit-seeking transnational or multinational corporations and their collaborators. The objective is to guarantee and maximize profits for exploitive private enterprise by, among other things, the elimination of such "unfair" trade practices as protection for wage and labor standards, costly environmental protection, subsidies to protect local agriculture and agricultural communities, and the costs of social welfare in general. (Note: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "multinational" corporations, but only in whose interests they are owned and managed.) However, all of the above is shortsighted in that with economic distress, poverty, despair, and crime growing in most countries, democracy dies everywhere, dictatorships and successive military coups become common, and tribal, ethnic, religious, and separatist wars erupt everywhere, so that peaceful world commerce becomes unsafe and is disrupted everywhere. Meanwhile, a new threat has emerged during the past decade: AIDS. Emerging and growing most rapidly in poverty stricken African countries, this threat is growing worldwide, in both "developing" and "developed" countries, with no end and no solution in sight. In some "developing" countries, as much as 20% of the population is reported HIV positive. To the uncontrolled and spreading epidemic of AIDS is now added the resurgence of tuberculosis, particularly in expanding poverty stricken areas. Prior to AIDS, the sale of drugs manufactured from "third world" agricultural sources, has been one horrible answer to securing limited incomes for some poor farmers while drug privateers get rich. Now the spread of AIDS goes along with the previous commerce in drugs to make socially impossible situations in both rich and poor countries. Since the end of the "cold war," the U.N. with its associated I.M.F. and I.B.R.D. has willingly cooperated in the universal application of programs for "privatization" and "free market" profiteering, which has resulted in enormous difficulties for most of the people both in the countries of the former U.S.S.R. and of Eastern Europe, and also throughout the entire world of "developing" countries -- all under the assumption that "privatization" and "free market reforms" are proven to be the best form of economic organization. All of the problems mentioned above are resulting in an enormously growing problem of refugees: people seeking to flee to safe places; environmental refugees from ecologically devastated places, and soon because of climatic changes; refugees from ethnic, tribal, and religious war; refugees from horrible slums, oppressions, and lack of economic opportunity. Many other deficiencies in performance and failures to cope with global problems remain to be listed in such areas as Protection of Human Rights, World Food Supplies, World Energy Supplies, and others. These may be defined in a subsequent enlarged Bill of Particulars. PART II. DEFECTS IN ORGANIZATION Considering the seemingly good purposes defined in the U.N. Charter, why has the United Nations failed to solve global problems? It is not because the Ambassadors to the U.N. from the various countries are incompetent or stupid. They are among the best informed persons in the world. Nor is it because the U.N. staff is incompetent, nor because of misuse of funds. A change in personnel would make no difference. The main reason is because the U.N. is simply not organized to solve global or supra-national problems. Major defects are described below:
The first principle of the United Nations as stated in Article 2 is: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The Members are the nations of the world, as represented by their national governments. Throughout Articles 1 and Articles 2, the frame of reference repeated many times is: "relations among nations," "international disputes," "international peace and security," "international law." The words "world," "global," "supra-national," and "Earth" do not appear in the Charter except by three references to the Second World War and use of the word "world" incidentally once in Article 74 and once in Article 76. The entire Charter is drawn exclusively in terms of relations among Member states or nations. The continuance of national sovereignty is accepted without question.
Actually, most of the problems of living together on Planet Earth, including most of the problems listed in Part I of this Bill of Particulars, cannot be defined or resolved in terms of relations between or among sovereign nations.
The General Assembly of the U.N. has no authority to adopt world legislation binding on the nations or people of the world. By Articles 10 to 17 on Functions and Powers, the General Assembly is limited to the following actions: "may discuss," "may initiate studies," "may make recommendations," "may consider." However, it "shall" receive reports and approve the budget of the U.N.; and is given some responsibilities concerning Trust Territories. Thus, the General Assembly essentially may only make or authorize studies and make recommendations, usually in the form of resolutions, which may be implemented only insofar as agreed to in treaties or conventions ratified by their sovereign national government or parliaments. World problems cannot be solved in this manner.
The General Assembly is composed of delegates appointed by national governments on the basis of one vote for each national delegation, regardless of the populations of the countries represented. The General Assembly is obviously not a fairly representative body for either the people or nations of the world, and because of this basic defect should not be given legislative authority.
The Security Council, as defined by Articles 23 to 51, is given "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," particularly concerning conflicts or potential conflicts among nations. But the Security Council, like the General Assembly, also has no authority to adopt binding world legislation to solve any global problem, although it may make recommendations and it may decide on various war-making actions supposedly to maintain world peace and security.
The Security Council, moreover, is composed of delegates from only 15 Member nations, appointed by the national governments. Any decision requires a unanimous vote by each of the five permanent Members of the Security Council, which are defined as China, France, the U.S.S.R. (now replaced by Russia), the United Kingdom, and the U.S.A. This means that any decision can be blocked by any one of the five. If the Security Council were given legislative authority, this would mean rule of the world by the five permanent Members, which would be world oligarchic dictatorship and therefore intolerable. The addition of more members to the Security Council would not change this, since the Five will not agree to relinquish their veto power.
Those Articles of the Charter which give the most definite authority for the Security Council to take action are in Article 33 to 49, of Section VI on Pacific Settlement of Disputes and Section VII on Action With Respect To Threats To The Peace, Breaches Of The Peace, And Acts Of Aggression. Detailed procedures are given which specify that the Security Council "may investigate any dispute" and "may recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment."
If the dispute continues or is determined to be a "threat to the peace," the Security Council may decide on further measures "not involving the use of armed force" and "may call upon the Members of the U.N. to apply such measures (which) may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations... and means of communications." If this is inadequate, the Security Council then "may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary (which) may include... blockade and other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of the United Nations." This is, of course, the conduct of war against entire populations of countries, including "the interruption of economic relations."
Nowhere in the Charter is the disarmament of nations required, in fact, the opposite. Article 43 specifies that "All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call... armed forces..." And Article 45 specifies that "In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air force contingents for combined international enforcement action..." This means that the U.N. Charter specifically requires the continuation of national military forces, rather than disarmament.
The United Nations does not have a true Executive Branch with Ministries which could be given responsibilities for implementing legislative decisions of a World Parliament. Most of the executive decisions and actions are taken by the Security Council. Towards the end of the Charter, Articles 97 to 101 specify a "Secretariat (which) shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization." Further composition of the Secretariat and staff are not defined. This is entirely inadequate for the implementation of solutions to the manifold global and supra-national problems of Earth, which in fact the U.N. is not designed to accomplish.
The Secretary-General is "appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendations of the Security Council." This is a slightly concealed way of saying that the Secretary-General shall be the chief administrative officer for the five permanent Members of the Security Council, who in fact control all important operations and decisions of the U.N.
Since the decisions of the Security Council require the unanimous vote of the five permanent members, no decision or action can ever be taken which is adverse to one of the permanent members -- that is, no action can ever be taken which is adverse to the U.S.A., Russia, U.K., France, or China. Thus, decisions and actions can only be taken adverse to nations which are weaker or in a weaker position. The Security Council is thus organized for the strongest nations to rule the weaker nations, and is an agency for maintaining the status quo rather than to find solutions to problems for the common and equitable benefit of humanity. The Security Council, at the bottom line, is organized essentially to carry out the ancient "bully principle" in international affairs.
An International Court of Justice is specified under Part XIV, Articles 92 to 96, of the Charter -- not a "World" Court -- which functions in accordance with an annexed statute. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited to "international disputes," but the Court is not given mandatory jurisdiction. The Court has no power to require international disputes to be submitted to it for judgment, but depends on the voluntary agreement of those nations involved. Any nation can decline to be a party to a case brought before the Court, and therefore excuse itself from complying with decisions of the Court.
Actually, the so-called "international law" which comprises the legal framework within which the Court functions and makes decisions, is the result only of treaties and agreements among sovereign nations, and does not represent legislation adopted by a democratically elected World Parliament. Thus, it would by undesirable to give the International Court of Justice mandatory and enforceable jurisdiction until World Law is determined by a democratically composed and fairly representative World Parliament.
The Economic and Social Council of the U.N. seems to be based on good intentions, yet lacks power to do more than make studies and recommendations, as given permission in Articles 62 to 66 of the Charter.
While originally composed of representatives from 18 Member nations, the number was increased in 1973 to 54 nations. This is still less than one-third of the U.N. Members, and includes no voting representatives from people. This body would need to be more representative in order to properly cope with the many world problems with which it should be concerned, although the Charter refers only too "international" economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters.
The much lauded Charter of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly and ratified by most Member nations, includes a large number of very well expressed statements to define human rights. However, the U.N. lacks any means for implementing and enforcing the defined "rights." Further, there are lumped together rights which under any circumstances would take many years or several decades to fully accomplish, and rights which presumably should be immediately enforceable. The Charter, however, makes no such distinction and ratification means little more than lip service. Rights which take longer to accomplish should be under a separate heading of "directional principles," but with requirements for fulfillment.
Another gross defect in the U.N. system is the means for controlling international finance, loans and credits. This is managed by the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development -- commonly called the "World Bank." Both are listed as "specialized agencies" within the U.N. system, but both are separately organized and not controlled by the United Nations. Yet both are agencies by which decisions of the Security Council are implemented.
Organizationally, both the I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D. are headquartered in the U.S.A., along with the U.N. However, each is managed by a separate Board of Directors of 24 members each. Voting power in each Board is given to Directors in proportion to the financial power and shares of stock held by each member nation. Thus, between 38% and 39% of the votes of each Board are held by the five nations of the U.S.A., U.K., Germany, France, and Japan, of which the U.S.A. has 17% of the votes. All of the African countries together have less than 10%. All of the countries of Eastern Europe and of the former U.S.S.R., except Russia, are represented by Directors from Western Europe. All of the Caribbean countries are represented by a Director from Canada. Most of the Pacific area countries are represented by a Director from Australia.
These two international financial agencies together control the extension of financial credit and loans, the denial and cancellation or suspension of credit and loans, the specific terms for loans and credit (such as various "austerity" measures, economic reconstruction within a country, cancellation of social programs, and privatization), and determine which currencies are recognized as "hard" currencies for international commerce.
By various adroit, sophisticated, informal, hidden and manipulative ways, as well as by voting, these two international financial agencies are used to control the world for the primary interests of the most powerful nations, and to manipulate and implement decisions of the Security Council for the same devious purposes, in particular to implement the basic "bully principle" of the Security Council.
Finally, the budget of the United Nations proper is less than $5,000,000,000 per year, which is less than 2% of the U.S.A. military/defense budget. How many other Member nations of the U.N. also have military/defense budgets exceeding the total U.N. budget? To be practical, a budget of at least a trillion dollars a year is required to cope with critical global and supra-national problems demanding immediate and emergency attention, and continuing for the 21st Century, including numerous environmental crises, reversing climate changes, the dismantling of all nuclear weapons, global conversion to benign energy sources, the dismantling of all nuclear weapons, global conversion to benign energy sources and uses, agricultural and ocean life sustainability, facilitation of economic development to serve human needs equitably, and to cope with all of the problems listed in Part I of this Bill of Particulars. A trillion dollars a year is what the Member nations are together spending on war and military costs, so that a trillion dollars a year to solve global problems is quite reasonable. Unhappily, the design of the U.N. is completely unsuited for the use of such funds for the proper solution of global problems.
THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIALIZED AGENCIES In relation to this description of U.N. defects, something should be said about the good works of many of the "specialized agencies" of the United Nations. Altogether a few more than 40 agencies are associated with the United Nations in various ways, as institutes, programs, commissions, continuing conferences, funds, councils, and specially defined organizations, of which 15 are specifically listed as U.N. "Specialized Agencies." Most of the 40-plus agencies are limited to functions of study, research, reports and recommendations. A few are operating agencies, such as the Trusteeship Council, the Universal Postal Union, the Telecommunications Union, the Civil Aviation Organization, the World Health Organization, the I.M.F., the I.B.R.D., the growing G.A.T.T., and emerging Seabed Authority. Most of these agencies are organized under separate "Agreements" among the sovereign nations, many originating from studies and recommendations of the General Assembly. However, there is no comprehensive and continuing coordination. Most of the agencies depend for their funding upon voluntary pledges made by the sovereign nations which join together in the separate Agreements or Charters concerning the organization and operation of each agency. The U.N. has no power, itself, to raise money by any compulsory means for any activity of any U.N. agency. The total of the budgets for all of the specialized agencies together is not readily available, but probably may add up to the several billion dollar cost of a small fleet of high-powered military aircraft. Despite the many very good and valuable studies and reports and recommendations of the U.N. specialized agencies, all of them together have barely made a small dent towards solving the proliferating global problems which are listed in this Bill of Particulars, to which many other unsolved problems remain to be added. For example, how much progress has the U.N. Environment Program, started 22 years ago in 1972, made in curtailing destruction of the rain forests? Or switching from production and use of oil for energy to solar energy? How much progress has the U.N. Development Program, started 28 years ago in 1966, made in facilitating adequate development programs in any country so as to bring unemployment down below 10%, while at the same time assuring fair wages? This does not mean that the agencies are badly managed. It is simply evidence of the impossible constraints under which they try to function. The best that can be said about the U.N. Specialized Agencies is that when a constitutional federal World Government with an adequate and mandatory budget of the necessary trillion dollars a year is established, then all viable agencies of the U.N. can be incorporated within the World Government with adequate funding for effective operations. In summary, the United Nations is totally unfit to function as a world organization to solve global and supra-national problems, and administer world affairs for the common good of humanity. When analyzed clearly it is obvious that the U.N. was never designed for such good purposes. It should by equally obvious that the U.N. Charter should be totally replaced with a well designed Constitution for Federal World Government which defines the necessary structure, functions and powers required to solve global problems and serve the common needs of all inhabitants of Planet Earth. Yet, at this time in human history, after 49 years of demonstrated failure, of gross defects in every paragraph of the U.N. Charter, and the manifest impossibilities for the U.N. to solve global problems and serve the peaceful needs of all citizens of Earth, there are many leaders and many organizations proposing to achieve improvements by amending the U.N. Charter, or by adding ancillary bodies to the General Assembly, or by otherwise "strengthening" the United Nations. As long-suffering humanity approaches the 50th anniversary of U.N. failure, much attention is being given to such proposals, which diverts the very serious attention which should be given to replacement of the U.N., rather than reform. These proposals need answering. PART III. THE DELUSION OF AMENDING THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER The procedure for amending the U.N. Charter is defined in Articles 108 and 109. These Articles both require that any alteration of the Charter must be ratified by each of the permanent Members of the Security Council, as well as by two-thirds of all U.N. Members -- which now total more than 180 nations. Of prime importance is that each Member of the Security Council can veto any amendment, including amendment of the veto power. The first step towards amendment is "a General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter." Such a conference could be convened by decision of a two-thirds vote of the total membership, inclusive of nine members of the Security Council. However, in view of the opposition of the five permanent Members to amendments, particularly the substantial kind of amendments needs, no review conference has ever been called. Even if the five permanent Members of the Security Council were agreeable to consider fundamental changes (beginning with elimination of the "veto" power) the entire structure of the U.N. under its Charter is simply unsuited for changing by amendments into anything resembling a democratic World Organization capable of solving global problems for the equitable benefit of all people and countries of Earth. It is not a matter of changing a word of sentence or paragraph here and there. Hundreds of amendments would be required throughout the Charter. Is that a realistic or practical approach? What is truly needed is nothing less than an entirely different and new Constitution for Federal World Government. This was fully recognized as early as 1946. The truth of the necessity for World Government has since been covered up and treated as unrealistic, but still remains the basic practical requirement for a peaceful world society able to solve global problems and serve humans needs. To transform the Charter into a workable Constitution for Federal World Government would require changing every section, every article, almost every sentence, as well as thousands of words, each change subject to veto. It should be quite clear that transformation of the U.N. by amendments into a Federal World Government is entirely impractical and impossible. In addition, and most importantly, one major area of international control which can never be changed by amendments to the U.N. Charter, is the area of financial control by the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank, for Reconstruction and Development (the so-called "world bank"). Since these financial agencies are governed by organizational "Agreements" and Boards of Directors which are entirely separate from the U.N. Charter, even though called U.N. "specialized agencies," they cannot be touched by amendments to the U.N. Charter. Some people and organizations currently try to avoid the issue of amendments by proposing instead "restructuring" or "comprehensive restructuring." This is merely a cute play on words, and helps only to confuse people and obstruct clear thinking. Restructuring requires amendments to the Charter. Comprehensive restructuring requires comprehensive amendments to the Charter, as specified in Articles 108 and 109, which is neither realistic nor practical nor possible. For an analogy, a horse and buggy cannot be transformed into a modern automobile by changing parts. And there is no good fairy to wave a magic wand. The only rational and practical solution is to replace the Charter of the U.N. completely with a well designed Constitution for Democratic Federal World Government. A. ADD A PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY After futilely proposing U.N. reform by amendments since 1946, some people during the past decade have discovered that Article 22 of the Charter states: "The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions." These people have therefore proposed that without the necessity for amendments, the General Assembly could create an additional People's Assembly or People's Chamber of delegates elected by the people of the world. So they have organized a movement in support of that objective, which has been endorsed and taken up by many organizations. To attempt to achieve changes in the functioning of the U.N. by this method is worse than useless. First, the General Assembly is unable to function as a world legislative body to solve global problems or serve global human needs effectively. This is not because of the incompetence or ignorance of the delegates, but because of the way the U.N. is designed, as documented above. As previously analyzed, Articles 10 through 17 describe the functions of the General Assembly, referred to in Article 22. Briefly summarized, the functions are: "may discuss"; "may recommend" or "may make recommendations to the Members (i.e., to the National Governments) of the United Nations"; and, "shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international cooperation." All is to be done in the context of the guaranteed continuance of national sovereignty. Suppose that after many years the General Assembly is persuaded to add a People's Assembly or People's Chamber to help the General Assembly "perform its functions," and that the people of the world, after further years of organizing, are finally able to elect their delegates to this People's Assembly. What is accomplished?
Such a People's Assembly will not change the decision-making powers or processes of the General Assembly;
The added People's Assembly could not enact world legislation nor assist the General Assembly or the Security Council to enact enforceable World Legislation on any issue whatsoever;
The People's Assembly will not change the voting procedure in the General Assembly, which will remain at one vote per member nation, as directed by National Governments;
The People's Assembly will not alter the "veto" power of each permanent Member of the Security Council, which will continue as the deciding power in the U.N.
In short, the People's Assembly, if finally accomplished, would only be able to make studies, pass resolutions, and make recommendations to the General Assembly, to assist the General Assembly in the "performance of its functions." That is to say, the People's Assembly could only help the General Assembly do nothing for the practical solution of world problems.
The reason that an organized attempt to get a People's Assembly added to the General Assembly under Article 22 is worse than useless, is that such an attempt diverts the attention and energies and money of well-intentioned people away from what truly needs to be accomplished, which is the replacement of the U.N. entirely by a well-designed Constitution for Federal World Government. During the process of trying to achieve a People's Assembly, good people are deluded into thinking they are accomplishing something of value and use in solving world problems, when they are at best accomplishing nothing of legislative or governing substance. B. ADD A PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY During the last two years, a further proposal has gained popularity, which is to add a "Parliamentary Assembly" to the General Assembly of the U.N., also under the permissive paragraph of Article 22 of the Charter. The proposal is for the National Parliaments of the Members nations to choose and send delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly added to help the General Assembly "perform its functions." The same criticisms made concerning the proposal for adding a People's Assembly apply equally to the proposal for adding a Parliamentary Assembly. Delegates to a Parliamentary Assembly, if the General Assembly can be persuaded to add such an Assembly under Article 22, would likewise have no legislative powers. The Parliamentary Assembly, despite all the fanfare, could only make studies and pass resolutions to give advice or recommendations to the General Assembly. Thus, the Parliamentary Assembly, like the People's Assembly, could only help the General Assembly effectively do nothing to solve global problems. Worse yet, a campaign to add a Parliamentary Assembly only deludes and misleads good people, including members of national parliaments, into thinking that they are accomplishing something of value to solve world problems, when they are in practical reality accomplishing nothing. Not even a Chamber of Angels appointed by God of The Gods, under the benign provision of Article 22, could help the General Assembly solve global problems or make the U.N. Charter "work." C. WORLD GOVERNANCE WITHOUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS Other proposals have been made to "strengthen" the United Nations without amending the Charter. The most precise proposals for "strengthening" without Charter amendment have recently been given the descriptive title of "World Governance.") (Not World Government.) "World Governance" is a very nebulous and foggy term which contributes only to confused thinking. World Governance is a term which is used by people who either reject the concept of genuine World Government, or who deliberately want to be vague in order to be accepted, or who may think the U.N. can be made to "work" without amendments. In any event, people who like to use the term "World Governance" generally do not propose a World Parliament elected by and responsible to world citizens, do not propose a World Administration given executive authority and responsible to an elected World Parliament, do not propose a World Court system which functions in the context of world laws adopted by a responsible World Legislature, and who obscure clear thinking on all specifics of a constitution for Federal World Government. If World Governance has any specific meaning it may be as described in a study by the World Watch Institute in 1992 prior to the major world environmental convention in Rio de Janeiro. Strengthening of the U.N. is generally imagined along the same lines. By this concept, World Governance starts with treaties or conventions or agreements negotiated among sovereign nations, perhaps initiated by resolutions of the General Assembly. For better enforcement of such treaties or agreements, the following procedures are to be "strengthened," which are already defined for the Security Council by Articles 33 to 49. a. More stringent procedures for monitoring of compliance with treaties or agreements, or of directives adopted by the Security Council; b. In case of violations or non-compliance, then strict enforcement first by such non-military means as trade sanctions and embargoes, and denial of financial credits, as well as impounding of financial resources which may be outside of the particular country; c. If non-compliance or violations continue, then enforcement by military blockade; d. Perhaps, along the way, obtain the ruling of an "international court" to justify treaty enforcement by these methods; e. As a final resort, enforcement is to be firmly carried out by a variety of military measures, which are already defined and approved by the U.N. Charter, and which of course means war no matter how many times the term "peace keeping" is invoked. The difficulties or folly of "World Governance" and "strengthening" of the U.N. by such procedures is, first, that most of the problems of the world are not defined simply in terms of relations or disputes or treaties or agreements between or among sovereign nations, and cannot be solved by trying to enforce treaties or agreements among sovereign nations. Second, the enforcement procedures under this concept of World Governance are carried out against entire populations, and punish mostly innocent children, women and peace abiding citizens. This is so with trade sanctions and denial of financial credits, by which today hundreds of thousands and in fact tens of millions of innocent people are suffering great hardships. By the procedures of military embargoes, and then by overt military force, this system of "strengthening" the enforcement capacities of the U.N., or of World Governance, war against entire populations may be carried out all in the name of "peace keeping." Moreover, World Governance by this concept can only be carried out by the strong against the weak -- by decision, of course, of the five permanent Members of the Security Council. World Governance and strengthening of the U.N. by this concept and procedure is simply an obscurantist way of empowering the ancient "bully principle" in international affairs. In every respect, this in not the rule of law in world and human affairs, democratically agreed with justice for all; World Governance by this procedure is the opposite of the way for civilized society to proceed. PART V. THE PRACTICAL AND IMMEDIATE ALTERNATIVE: REPLACE THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER WITH THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH At this moment in history, early 1994, preparations are going ahead to celebrate during 1995 the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, as if the record of the years since 1945 shows great accomplishments for the good of humanity. Some people and organizations also propose to use to 50th anniversary celebration as an occasion to propose amendments to the U.N. Charter, or to propose other ways to restructure or strengthen the United Nations, so that the U.N. can supposedly better carry out peace keeping, environmental protection and other good purposes. But both the celebration and the proposals to strengthen or transform the U.N. are entirely and dangerously misleading. First, the United Nations during the past 49 years has failed utterly to eliminate "the scourge of war," which was proclaimed as the primary purpose of the U.N. Yet in 1995, we are asked to celebrate five decades of the U.N., during which may trillions of dollars have been squandered on a stupendous nuclear arms race, resulting in conditions of total insecurity for everyone on Earth, and the poisoning of the Earth for thousands of years into the future. We are asked to celebrate the military arming of more than 180 nations, whose first priority of national sovereignty as guaranteed by the United Nations is military armaments. We are asked to celebrate the failure of the United Nations to solve hundreds of other global and supra-national problems, some of which are detailed in this Bill of Particulars. Second, the reason that proposals for amending or strengthening or restructuring the U.N. are dangerously misleading, in that too many good people are deceived or seduced or hypnotized or fooled or otherwise misled into endorsing or supporting such futile or militarily enforced proposals, so that they give their energies, money and powers of persuasion to help promote such misleading schemes -- instead of helping to replace the U.N. with a true World Federation under a well-designed Constitution for Federal World Government. Such strong criticism would not be warranted if it were simply a matter of comparing benign alternative routes to a good world order. That, unhappily, is not the choice, as is so well documented by the history of the 49 years since the U.N. was imposed by the victors in 1945. In the first few years following 1945, the well-intentioned world government movement quickly became, for the most part, wedded to the proposition of working through and amending the U.N. Most of the thousands of peace organizations during the past 49 years have blindly accepted the U.N. as the best hope for humanity, followed now by the environmental organizations. Five decades have been lost since 1945 by pursuing the cause of world peace and solutions to world problems within the limitations of the U.N., which could never become an agency to solve global problems. The insistence on trying to reach good ends by working through the U.N. or by trying to amend or improve the U.N., has been a very large contributing factor, because of the resulting delays, in the stupendous accumulation of all of the unsolved and life-threatening global problems detailed in this Bill of Particulars. It is doubtful that human civilization on Planet Earth can survive another ten years, or even five years of such misdirection over world affairs; or of another ten or five years of blindly pretending that the U.N. can be transformed or strengthened or restructured to do what only a properly designed and constitutionally authorized Federal World Government could possibly do. The practical replacement of the U.N. Charter with a constitution for federal World Government could be relatively simple. The reason is that a very adequate Constitution for the Federation of Earth is ready for immediate ratification and implementation. This Constitution for World Government was prepared over a period of years, including four sessions of a World Constituent Assembly held in 1968, 1977, 1980, and 1991, with delegates from all continents. The campaign is twofold: to get National Governments and Parliament to ratify, and to get the people of the various countries to ratify for the final authorization of a World Government to serve their needs. A BILL OF PARTICULARS written by Philip Isely (1916 - 2012)