Religious Support for Democratic World Federation. Part II

Davic C. Oughton 
Associate professor in the Department of Theological Studies at Saint Louis University

The Inadequacies of the Current United Nations System

Many Baha’i and Catholic leaders, as well as many other leaders of other religions[1], have been teaching that the current anarchy between national governments and the lack of a global system of world law are preventing humanity from adequately solving the major problems concerning war, weapons of war, genocide, economic insecurity, climate change, protection of our oceans, air, atmosphere, outer space, and other “common areas” of our planet.

Previous and current forms of international order have been important steps in the evolution of global governance, but they are now inadequate in our interdependent global society. The League of Nations, created after the First World War, was based on unanimous voting in both its Assembly and Council. That meant that just one member could veto any resolution. The League was unable to prevent the aggression of the Axis Powers that led to the Second World War. The United Nations Organization was formally created on October 24, 1945, in order to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”[2] The UN has accomplished many improvements in the world[3]. It has overseen the decolonization of many parts of world. It has provided many countries with developmental aid. It has improved the health and infrastructure of the world through its Specialized Agencies. It has provided many examples of peace-keeping and peace-building operations.

The Bahá'i International Community has been recognized since 1948 as an international non- governmental organization at the United Nations. Baha’is from around the world have promoted many UN programs and have been instrumental in discussions about UN reform.

The Holy See has official observer status in the United Nations. When Pope Paul VI addressed the UN General Assembly in 1965, he said that “people turn to the United Nations as if it were their last hope for peace and harmony” because it is based on the principle that relations between nations must be “regulated by reason, justice, law and negotiation, and not by force, violence, war, nor indeed by fear and deceit.” He told the leaders of the world that “the edifice which you have constructed must never fail; it must be perfected and made equal to the needs which world history will present. You mark a stage in the development of humanity for which retreat must never be admitted, but from which it is necessary that advance be made.”[4]

Even though the United Nations has been successful in preventing a third world war, the UN system has often been weak and ineffective in preventing many wars or solving many global problems. This is because the United Nations Organization, like the League of Nations, is a confederation of national governments. It is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all national governments. The UN is unable to outlaw war. In fact, the UN is based on the principle of collective security (for example, the Korean War and the First Persian Gulf War).

The UN General Assembly is not democratic. Each of the current 193 member-nations have the same one vote, regardless of the size of its population. China with a population of 1.4 billion people, Nauru with a population of 9,300 people, and all of the other 191 member nations in the UN have the same one vote. It is thus possible for a resolution in the UNGA to pass by a two-thirds majority that represents only 8% of the world’s population. The sixty-five least populous countries with a combined population below one percent of the world’s population can block the passage of a substantive resolution in the UNGA[5]. The UNGA can only pass non-binding resolutions which state how nations should behave. Even if a member-nation votes for a UNGA resolution, it is not required to follow it.

The UN Security Council has often been impotent in preventing or ending wars because of the veto power of any one of the five permanent members (U.S.A., U.K., France, Russia, and China), even if all of the other fourteen members of the UNSC vote for a resolution. Whenever any one of the five permanent members or their allies are involved in a conflict, a veto or the threat of a veto has been used[6].

The UN system must rely on dues from national governments, which are not always paid[7]. The UN is based on international law, which is a system of customs (traditions about how nations should treat each other, such as granting diplomatic immunity) and treaties. But nations are not required to enter into treaties. The United States and some other countries have refused to become parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Treaty of Rome, concerning the International Criminal Court[8]. The United Nations International Court of Justice will only accept cases about treaty violations if all national governments involved in the case agree to have it heard and abide by its decision. National leaders suffer no consequences for violating or for withdrawing from international treaties. Even though most nations keep most of their treaties most of the time, national governments violate or withdraw from treaties when they feel it is in their national interests, without any concern for the common good[9].

From World Anarchy to World Law

Instead of basing international relations on treaties, I argue that the global community needs to develop a system of world laws that would be created by a democratic world parliament. Instead of each country having the same one vote as in the United Nations General Assembly, the number of representatives from each nation voting in a democratic world parliament should be determined by its population and other factors. A resolution would become binding world law when it is approved by a super majority of representatives, and reflects a super majority of the world’s population. World laws would concern global problems and the relations between nations.

In order to transform the current UN confederacy into a democratic world federation of national governments,[10] a World Executive Committee would be needed to enforce world laws against individuals who violate them. Economic sanctions against an entire nation would not be done as in the present international system. Such an executive committee would not have veto power over enforcing world laws or prosecuting individuals.

Individuals (including national leaders) involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, and international terrorism would be prosecuted by world courts if national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute. Border and land disputes between countries would be settled non-violently by binding arbitration in world courts.

Just as local, state, and national police arrest those who violate local, state, and national laws, a world police force would be needed to arrest those who violate world laws. Those who are convicted of violating world laws would be incarcerated in world prisons.

In order to create this system of world laws, the peoples of the world need to engage in a debate about the provisions in a world constitution. The powers and limitations of the organs of the world federation; the checks and balances between them; the rights, powers, and limitations of national governments; and the rights and responsibilities of all world citizens would need to be explicit in a world constitution.

Under a democratic world federation, the war system (which currently costs over 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars each year) could be eliminated. A common misconception is that wars can never be eliminated because there is always conflict between people. There will always be conflicts of interest between individuals (even between spouses who love each other) and between many different groups of people, but conflicts do not have to become violent and can be resolved nonviolently. The problem is whether political power is determined by conflicting groups in a nonviolent democratic process, or whether it is determined by violent conflict between opposing groups through violent revolutions and wars.

Besides outlawing war and enforcing world laws against individuals, a world federal government would be better able to solve global problems than individual national governments or the United Nations Organization are now able. For example, there is a need to manage the global economy. Transnational corporations need to be regulated. Companies and individuals who contribute to global warming could be prosecuted. Rain forests could be bought and managed as world parks.

The present international system obviously promotes national citizenship and patriotism (loyalty to “the fatherland”) in order to be able to fight wars against humans in other countries. A democratic world federation could promote world citizenship and humatriotism (loyalty to the human family)[11]. World citizenship and world democracy can be promoted by a pledge of allegiance to the world, a world flag and global symbols, a world anthem, and the celebration of some world holidays.

One way in which a democratic world federation could be formed is to first create regional federations of nations, that would solve problems for different parts of the world. If these regional federations are effective, then they could eventually join together in order to form a world federation. Another incremental way that a world federation could be created is to first focus on a particular world problem, such as climate change or nuclear weapons, and form a global agency that would be able to create an enforceable legal system that would eliminate nuclear weapons and regulate nuclear energy.

Various proposals have been made about how to fund a world federation. One way would be to require each nation to pay 0.1% of its gross national income[12]. Another way would be to charge a user tax on nations, corporations, and individuals for international travel and for exploring and using the resources of the common areas of the planet.

The Role of Religions in Building a Firm Foundation

As long as many people hold on to their deep-seated nationalistic feelings and obsession with national sovereignty and national interests, it is unlikely that a democratic world federation could be created in the near future. But the role of the world’s major religions is to build a firm foundation so that a future democratic world federation can be just, effective, and responsible for promoting the common good. The world’s religions should fulfill this role by emphasizing the reality of a world community, world citizenship, and the human family as stewards of our common planet. The world’s religions need to emphasize what has been realized because of many years of inter-religious dialogue: that they share different versions of the Golden Rule[13] and many common commandments such as “do not murder, steal, lie, or be unchaste” or “respect life, rights, truth, and sexuality.” All of the major religions teach about love and compassion in order to help those who are suffering. These ethical teachings are the basis for the Declaration toward a Global Ethic and the Charter for Compassion[14] that have been highlighted at the Parliaments of the World’s Religions.

The world’s religions should teach that world peace for a world community requires a democratic system of world law and order[15]. The Baha’i Faith and modern Catholic social theology have been teaching this for many years. Many individuals in other religions agree that there is a need for world law and order. When a critical mass of religious people around the world agree on this need, then the dream of the ancient Jewish prophets can finally be realized: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.”[16]

[1] For example, see Swami Satprakashananda’s “World Peace—How?” (Vedanta Society of St. Louis, 1973) and Nikkyo Niwano, A Buddhist Approach to Peace (Tokyo: Kosei, 1977). Niwano says that if people follow Buddha’s teaching about relieving suffering through love, compassion, and nonviolence, then the whole world will become one “Buddha-land.” In order to work for this goal, Niwano says that a world federation should be our blueprint

[2] Preamble to the United Nations Charter.

[3] For a description of the many accomplishments of the United Nations Organization, see Chapter 11 of Ronald Glossop’s   Confronting War (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2001, 4^th edition).

[4] Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations General Assembly on October 4, 1965. Pope John Paul II spoke at the UNGA on October 2, 1979 and on October 5, 1995. Pope Benedict XVI spoke about human rights at the United Nations on April 18, 2008. Pope Francis spoke at the United Nations on September 25, 2015.

[5] These statistics are from Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Transforming the United Nations System (United Nations University Press, 2013), p. 6. In order to solve this problem of “one nation, one vote” in the UNGA, Schwartzberg proposes a system of weighted voting where a nation-member’s weighted vote would be determined by this formula: dividing by three the total of its percentage of the total population of all U.N. members, its financial contribution as a percentage of the UN budget, and the percentage of the total number of UN members (0.518). For example, the weighted vote for China would be 10.587; the weighted vote for the United States would be 9.237; India’s weighted vote would be 7.051; 178 countries would each have a weighted vote under 1.000; the least populous countries such as Tuvalu and Nauru would have a weighted vote of 0.173. According to Schwartzberg’s proposal, decisions of the UNGA about global and general questions would become binding law if made by a two-thirds majority of the weighted votes, provided that the total population of the concurring members represents a majority. Some other questions would require a three-fourths majority. See Chapter 2 of this book for further details.

[6] This has been the case with the Vietnam War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, the British-Argentina conflict over the Falkland Islands, China’s involvement in Tibet and in Darfur, the war in Iraq, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, the civil war in Syria, and many other violent conflicts. In order to eliminate the veto of the permanent members in the United Nations Security Council, Joseph Schwartzberg has proposed a system of weighted voting for twelve seats, each representing a major region of the world. Because the United States, China, and India have a large enough weighted vote in the UNGA, they would each have their own seat in the UNSC. The other nations of the world would be grouped together according to geographic regions. Each of these regions would have a weighted vote based on their collective population and contribution to the UN. According to Schwartzberg’s proposal, a resolution would be binding if passed by a two-thirds majority that reflected at least 50% of the world’s population. See Chapter 4 of his Transforming the United Nations System (ibid.) for further details.

[7] The United States government withheld some of its UN dues during the 1990s in order to pay a smaller percentage to the UN annual regular budget (from 25% to 22%). Eventually the U.S. government paid its UN dues. The annual regular budget of the United Nations system is now about 5.6 billion dollars. (Compare this with recent annual U.S. military budgets which are around 700 billion dollars; the rest of the countries of the world together spend approximately that same amount each year.) Almost every state in the United States has a larger annual budget than the UN system.

[8] The permanent International Criminal Court is different from the ad hoc tribunals that have been created by the UN Security Council. The ICC can investigate and prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide only if national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute them. About two-thirds of the national governments of the world (but not the United States, China, or Russia) are now parties to the workings of the ICC.

[9] The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran Nuclear Treaty and the Paris Climate Treaty, plus the violations of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty by North Korea and some other countries demonstrate the problem of dealing with global order through a system of treaties.

[10] The history of the United States could be a model for this transformation from a United Nations confederation to a democratic world federation. During the 1780s after the American Revolutionary War had been won, the newly independent Americans debated whether to transform the Articles of Confederation into a different system that would unite the thirteen sovereign states into a single country under a federal constitution. See Carl Van Doren, The Great Rehearsal: The Story of the Making and Ratifying of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Viking Press, 1948). For the differences between a confederation and a federation, see Ronald Glossop’s World Federation?: A Critical Analysis of Federal World Government (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1993), pp. 26-30.

[11] Theodore Lentz, founder of the Peace Research Laboratory of St. Louis, coined the term "humatriotism." He maintained that through education, "we must find a way to lift our consciousness from the narrow or local level to the global." Humatriotism. (St. Louis: The Futures Press, 1976), p. 20

[12] This is Joseph Schwartzberg’s proposal in his Transforming the United Nations System, op. cit., pp. 216-221.

[13] For example, Confucius said, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” (Analects 15: 23) Jesus said, “Treat others the way you want them to treat you.” (Matthew 7: 12)

[14] The Charter for Compassion was created by Karen Armstrong and was first promoted by the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 2009. Since then, several hundred cities around the world have declared themselves to be “compassionate cities.” See https://charterforcompassion.org

[15] However, some religious groups and their leaders oppose democratic world federation. Some conservative Christians such as Pat Robertson have argued against any type of world government as an evil secret conspiracy that is actively opposing God and religion. In his book The New World Order (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991), Robertson claims that a “man-made new world order” is not Christ’s will for humanity. He sees any type of world government as the Kingdom of the Anti-Christ. (Baha’is, Catholics, and others who argue for the need to create a world public authority/democratic world federation do not favor a nondemocratic “one-world government” that would be the only government in the world that would eliminate national governments and impose uniformity on everyone in the world.) For other objections to world federation, see Ronald Glossop, World Federation?: A Critical Analysis of Federal World Government, op. cit., Chapter 5. He responds to each of these objections in Chapter 6. 

[16] Isaiah 2: 4 and Micah 4: 3.