"The UN is based on the principle of absolute respect for the sovereignty and independence of its members."

This is incorrect. Sovereign equality is a foundational feature of international legal system, and by extension, the UN system, but that is not the same as what is claimed here - absolute Westphalian sovereignty and moral relativity. It is simply false to claim that the worst human rights abusers have the same standing in the international community as the most benign democracies. The UN has pariah regimes and good international citizens in equal measure - notwithstanding that they might share sovereign equality. In terms of obligations, we have an evolving corpus of international peremptory norms which clearly delineate standards from which states cannot derogate - such as slavery, piracy, crimes against humanity and genocide. For the less established ones, we have human rights conventions and their associated compliance bodies

Lyndon Storey `s Global human union is a wonderful example of how all humanity could transcend differences between us to become of one mind, A global human union acknowledges our common humanness , our origins from our planetary home and biosphere and how the very nature of human life, if it is to survive, has to be based on an understanding and expression of interconnectedness.
It is for this reason that the global citizens for peace, http://www.globalcitizensforpeace.com/index.html was formed in February 2007 We realized that with increasing Global population requiring more and more resources with tremendous inequality of distribution our planet is reaching breaking point in terms of economic and ecological crises. This is having profound social and cultural effects. We require urgent ecological, social, economic and political solutions to problems which affect billions of people if we are to survive sustainably
we also initiated a programme for the formation of Commission for Peace and Non Violence - and the appointment of a Commissioner for Peace http://www.globalcitizensforpeace.com/commission.htm
- so that the voice of the peace makers be heard at the professional and institutional level, and so provide equal opportunity with those who speak for the environment, agriculture, education, finance and armed defence
Dr Michael Ellis -- Michael.Ellis@ozemail.com.a

The proposal for a global Human Union does have merit. Our perception of our common humanity is an idea that is re-awakening in our crowded planet. Homo sapiens have no doubt shared the view in early human history.

The urgent need to think and act globally has been brought about by common global challenges we face. Global warming, eliminating world poverty and civil war, enhancing global trade, tapping into global communication and sharing our human vision for enlightenment through science and ethical, sustainable living are issues we need to talk about.

Who will be the first political leader to take this small step that could be fated to be memorialised in world history? If it's one of our own mob, we may well be able to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. The first step Australians can take to changing course will be on 24 November 2007. Fresh thinking. Thinking Green.

Finally, somebody has introduced a truly positive approach to international politics! If only Australian leaders would pay attention. Whether we seek security or justice, or both, surely the approach outlined by Dr. Storey is more promising than our current conceptualisation of international interaction which delivers neither.

Further, BBoy seems to have missed the point. As Dr. Storey explains, the UN gifts membership to states regardless of their behaviour, whereas the EU rewards states with membership only after they meet certain basic standards of democracy, human rights and economic openness. Even if one was to accept BBoy's point that human rights abusers have less standing in the international community, this does alter the fact that the EU has been much more successful in bringing change to conflicting nations than the UN.

If only one of Australia's political parties could see that true security and justice comes through community and respect for every human being, maybe we could play an inspiring role in bringing change and stability to international politics. The approach currently adopted and proposed by all Australian political parties only seems to take us further away from these ideals.

Now hold on Lyndon. Just exactly what does a global human union really mean?

In particular, what would it mean for Australia?

You seem particularly concerned about Australia’s border protection policy.

You write; “This (the human union) is not simply a humanitarian goal but a necessary one, as the policy of defending our relative privileges through border protection and wars that we follow abroad will only be the prelude for more wars and more “need” to protect our borders.…”

Wow!

So would a human union lead to weaker border protection with a large influx of asylum seekers, or perhaps to entirely open borders?

If there is any chance of that, then STUFF IT entirely!!

Australia can contribute the most to global issues of poverty and environmental degradation if it has a strong and secure economy, quality of life and sustainability ethic. If our quality of life is forced downwards by a large-scale weakening of border controls, then civil unrest and all sorts of domestic issues will consume us and make sure that our international aid effort dwindles.

The same would happen across the developed world if borders became porous.

On the other hand, if a human union could get the Australian government to commit a much larger portion of its income and energy towards addressing poverty and sustainability issues, at their sources, then it would have my full support.

I think its an excellent idea and a goal to aim for.

I think Australia should maybe try and form something similar here in the Pacific with countries like NZ, Singapore, HK, Japan, Canada, USA and Korea.

Another idea would be maybe to become a “partner” with the EU.

Micheal – Your idea for global citizens for peace is although a good idea would not work in practice because the only people who would join it would be the sheep. Mean while the wolves would be quite foolish to join because it would go against everything they believe in. You cant just have a peace movement you need somebody with a big stick as well.

A bit of a knee-jerk reaction, Ludwig, don't you think?

>>So would a human union lead to weaker border protection with a large influx of asylum seekers, or perhaps to entirely open borders? If there is any chance of that, then STUFF IT entirely!!<<

The point was made in the article, although I suspect you may have missed it completely.

"In a world where... we are among the wealthiest and most privileged, there should be more to foreign policy than the question of how best to preserve our privileged position... and keeping people out of our privileged land... as the policy of defending our relative privileges through border protection and wars that we follow abroad will only be the prelude for more wars and more “need” to protect our borders.<<

Which bit of this do you disagree with?

The fact that we are extremely lucky to live where we do, and live the way we do?

The fact that keeping everyone else out of Australia is a self-defeating proposition?

The fact that escalating our border protection is subject to the law of diminishing returns?

The fact that the best way to draw attention to our relatively privileged position is to close our doors?

The point is that a little more generosity of spirit can have the effect of raising everyone up, rather than continue the "it's us or them" dog-in-a-manger approach to life.

It might be one area where the Christians could set us all an example, perhaps? After all, it's what they are supposed to stand for, isn't it?

The old adage "that the road to hell is paved with good intentions,"fits here. In other words good intentions are not enough.
You have to go to the UNDERLYING CAUSE, that of itself, creates so much misery and needless suffering in the world. And it is not people, because people are born neither good nor bad, but shaped, moulded, reacted upon, by the type of society they live in. For instance, we live in a society dominated by profit relations and these relations lead to conditions of oppression, exploitation and needless misery. Society is set up, so that, each is against all and divisions are fostered to divide and conquer. For instance, workers are 2,500 million strong but they are very deliberately divided. So consequently, workers do not know their real strength.
Like every other article of comerce, almost everything is treated as a commodity to be brought and sold - including water. Workers too, are a commodity whereby they must sell their labor power and get robbed in this transaction. It is profit relations that determine so much, and this controls men and woman. It is not the other way round, that men and woman control profits, no they become consumed and dominated by ever greater profits. Almost daily in the news new problems and catastrophies are thrown up. None of the immense number of problems that beset society can realy be resolved until goods are produced not for profits but peoples needs.

Johncee says nothing can be done until we get rid of capitalism, i.e. “until goods are produced not for profits but peoples needs.” But Johncee what if the people who had wanted to:
Abolish slavery
Bring in equal rights for women
Start the EU which the author uses as an example anyhow

Had decided to wait for the abolition of capitalism before doing anything? None of these would have been done. Plenty of good things can be done without abolishing capitalism. Saying they can’t be done without abolishing capitalist first makes the anti capitalist in fact a complete conservative

Pericles

You seem to be assuming that border protection means keeping people out. It doesn’t. It means tightly controlling the intake and restricting it to formal immigration channels.

Strong border protection does not mean closing the doors.

We in Australia are among the wealthiest and most privileged in the world. So we should be required to spend a considerably larger amount of our collective income on helping raise the quality of life of those who desperately need it, across the world, with a particular emphasis on population stabilisation and sustainability.

If a human union can achieve this, then great. But before I can support it, it has to be shown that this approach will occur, and not some totally destructive approach of porous borders and massive movements of people into places where enormous conflict would be generated.

It appeared from your post, Ludwig, that "keeping people out" was exactly what you had in mind.

>>You seem to be assuming that border protection means keeping people out. It doesn’t. It means tightly controlling the intake and restricting it to formal immigration channels.<<

I don't see any change in this approach to that which we already have, which is obviously your comfort zone.

Fair enough. But don't for a moment think that by ignoring it, the rest of the world will simply go away - which once again, I should point out, is the point of the article.

So, except for your knee-jerk keep-'em-out reaction to the idea in general, which aspects of the argument, specifically, do you disagree with? And how would you address these problems, apart from burying your head in the sand and pretending they don't exist?

The only aspect of a Human Union that concerns me - and I have to confess it is a big one - is that it will end up being run by politicians. The scope for head-in-the-public-trough greed will expand enormously, and as we know, wherever there is an advertised vacancy for personal venality, it gets filled by a politician.

But the underlying issue, that we need to think more realistically about our unbalanced position in the world, won't go away.

Pericles,

There is a article by Daniele Fanelli on p. 10 of the Oct. 6 (2007) New Scientist. It contains a graph showing that it would take approximately 3 Earths to give everyone a decent standard of living and some personal freedom, even if all resources were shared equallly. Only Cuba combined a relatively high rank on the UN Human Development Index and consumption levels that would not require additional Earths if they were shared by everyone. Somehow I don't think you would like the austerity there, though, or the lack of personal freedom. This doesn't even consider the negative effects of future environmental deterioration. How are we responsible for other people's family size preferences? Are we obliged to trash our own environment (the CSIRO Future Dilemmas report in 2002 recommended population stabilisation at 20 million) or our own children's future to bail them out?

The standard argument that we are laying ourselves open to invasion if we don't open our borders is nonsense. Densely populated countries get invaded, even if they are ethnically similar to the invaders (Belgium and the Netherlands by Germany in WWII). Big, densely populated countries get invaded too (China by Japan in WWII). If you are really worried about invasion perhaps you should be pushing for nuclear weapons. Note that North Korea, a fifth rate power if there ever was one, is giving China, Japan, and the US a lot of grief in different ways, but no one is game to invade. Israel has been standing off hostile neighbours who collectively have many times its population for the past 60 years.

I am also curious about whether you would apply your open borders argument to private property. No doubt there are people in the community who could benefit from some of yours.

A global organisation could investigate world problems and solutions, and then work on a case by case basis to solve the increasing and growing problems of human expansion and climate change. An internet forum such as this could be used to draw attention to problems and brain storm ideas and solutions on how to address them.
The world needs to start thinking and debating now, about how many people can be sustained on this planet while still allowing space for plant and animal diversity.
We need organisations to look at war torn areas and search for answers on how to feed and manage the refugees, while protecting rare and threatened wildlife species.
This organisation could also start avalanches of global opinion (people power) to highlight the negative paths that some large corporations travel in their quest for greed.
Australia and in particular needs to know whether our water resources can sustain a population of more than 20 million.
This global organisation could be funded by a global carbon tax on all products. The rich consume more and therefore would pay more carbon tax.
A peaceful prosperous perpetual planet. Here's hoping...

YET anOTHER utopian, leftoid, "everything will be fixed by a one world government" kind of lunacy that could only EVER emerge from a socio/historical/political FANTASYland...

RUBBISH.. absolute, complete utter garbage..and the only reason I dip into this bowl..is that there are people who.. wait.. BELIEVE this tripe.

It is abundantly clear that those such as the author.. have completely missed out on the basic requirment for serious contributions of this nature.. an 'education'.....

Then..it is equally clear that the author appears to know NOTHING about the various competing religious movements in the world today.. or about their intensity and intransigent nature.

He must have been in the loo when 9/11 took place. Has he ever read the Hamas Charter...he appears to be ignorant of the 1.2billion Muslims in the world... many if not most of whom would not even think remotely about any form of government other than that of 'Allah'

It's like the author has been in a time warp.. and all that would conflict with his theories has been expunged from his consciousness chemically, something like in Total Recall...

Pericles.. you note this from the article:

"as the policy of defending our relative privileges through border protection and wars that we follow abroad will only be the prelude for more wars and more “need” to protect our borders."

Wellll 'duh'....... as IFFFF protecting our borders is JUST about protecting privilege.. myyy goodness..what planet is Lyndon Story from ?

Ok Lyndon.. we will tomorrow open our borders to EVERY refugee from EVery country who wishes to come here.. then we will have 'world peace'... forget our limited water.. our this or our that... nope.. utopia comes first..

MINDLESS LUNACY is all I can say.. you have just been 'alvinized'.

http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Plantingapage.html

BOAZ_David,

You're right in the sense that the article is pure idealism. I think it's wrong to call it complete garbage though, as the ideas expressed could conceivably become reality one day - but, you just might have to wait a century or two to see it.

The fact is that these types of initiatives only become reality when nation states have an INTEREST in making it so. I can think of a couple areas - one where this is happening and possibly one where it could - that fits the bill. The first, the International Criminal Court, was set up to catch and convict mass murderers who took advantage of the lack of law and order in their countries to carry out ethnic cleansing etc. The ICC is a perfectly reasonable attempt to bring the baddies to justice. The second is the setting up of international taxation law one day, particularly if there is a preponderance of businesses going offshore in order to cheat the taxation regimes in their home countries. Both these ideas respectively are, and could be, of interest to individual nation states. If enough states agree on a particular course of action, the critical mass is there and the initiative happens.

The system that is described in the article could happen one day, but would only work if built up on an issue-by-issue basis over time. Once it had some runs on the board, maybe it could look at other types of human justice issues as well. Whether or not it becomes a reality would be totally contingent on having a sufficient mass of backers.

Mr Storey's article invites us to imagine a reinvigorated political landscape. His is a landscape of co-operation, of coeval discourse, of problem sharing rather than problem making. And, his title, "a human union" invites us to reflect on some of the weightier prospects of being. The form of political organization he proposes is, as he points out, already in operation in the EU and as he rightly observes, this is not without problems. Critics of it, however, should remember that every relationship is predicated on dialogue and what the global human union model truly provides is the intellectual, emotional and practical space to engage in dialogue with the world around us. It also suggests a future that is tinged with hope rather than the dystopic smallness of vision that currently saturates our political imaginations. The Global Human Union is a model for relationships and models that seek to control aspects of human behavior tend to come unstuck. (Perhaps this is a characteristic of models that we should count on, something that is our built in safe-guard rather than endlessly attempting to perfect our own-made systems). Models however are also historically conditioned, and our times cry out for a way forward that acknowledges some of the fundamental aspects of our existence that Mr Storey draws attention to: our global predicament, our humanity and our relationships.

Pericles, I don’t know why you have this idea that my first post was some sort of knee-jerk reaction. I have been on this forum for a long time. Many times I have expressed concern over a possible loosening of border protection, increased immigration, forever increasing population and thus a total inability for us in Australia to ever reach sustainability without a major crash event occurring first.

So again, if some sort of human union concept can aid us in reaching genuine sustainability while also getting us to collectively better share our wealth with the world’s needy, in an efficient and effective manner that raises quality of life and directs them strongly and quickly towards sustainability, and doesn’t reduce our own QOL or sustainability momentum, then great.

But if it is in any way likely to lead to pressure to distributionally even out the world’s peoples to a significantly greater extent than is presently happening, or to balance global QOL by significantly lowering the QOL, environmental health and social integrity of some nations in the attempt to raise it elsewhere, then there is no way that it should be supported.

A high QOL needs to be treasured everywhere it exists now. We CAN work towards improving QOL for hundreds of millions of impoverished people while protecting and improving our own in Australia.

The basic concepts are pretty simple.

Please note that by quality of life, I refer to happiness, health, security, purpose in life, etc, and not to our consumeristic standard of living.

Lyndon Storey seems pretty strongly against strong border protection. That immediately struck me as something that had to be commented on. If you want to call that a ‘knee-jerk’, response then go right ahead. I’d prefer to call it a highly pertinent response.

I hope I have answered your questions.

A bit late in the day but this very interesting website supports the necessity for a global cooperative union/forum.

1. http://www.ispeace723.org

What a piece of utopian twaddle!

Our foreign policy has always been about ‘more’ than preserving our privileged position & keeping people out.

Storey’s shining exemplar, the EU owes much of its ‘progress’ to a commonality of history, religion,
& fecundity. His attempt to diminish this with the quip “a common …heritage of
warfare... conflict!”, is shabby. It’s very telling that the EU almost choked on Turkeys
application.

Democracy & human rights are not the panacea(s) Storey seems to believe –Hitler & Hamas &
a lynch mob are all products of democracy. Democracy needs to be taken in conjunction with
other remedies like a critical media & academia (something-Aust-could-benefit-from-a-dose-of
too) – and “human rights” is increasing being portrayed as a western construct ( cultural imperialism ), at odds with non-western cultural values.

While his diagnosis: “the policy of defending our relative privileges though border protection …
will only be the prelude to more wars and more ‘need’ to protect our borders” is not a ‘fact’ as
some seem to think, but quackery:
i) It has not been a failure of border controls–rather a failure of will to
apply such controls; many non-western countries apply more effective controls, with
far less outlay.
ii) A logical extension of his argument , would see us disbanding the police, removing
window bars & alarms, since we have ‘relative privilege’ within Aust also, and such
control measures will only be the prelude to future break-ins, thefts, rapes?

Further, Storey needs to learn that exploitation is not only found where a multinational
employs someone for low wages. Exploitation is also someone having more kids than they can
afford, and expecting someone else to support them.

It has never been simply an issue of Aust self interest at everyones else’s expenses– as he
mischievously suggests.


Any scheme that seeks to impose restrictions on Aust’s industrial development –while ignoring
similar development in other countries. Any agreement that talks of Aust’s ‘obligations” to
feed, clothe, medicate & educate the others, while not talking of the others ‘responsibilities’ to
family plan –is either unrealistic, or inspired by ulterior motives!

Dear Rob P .... yes I fully understand your point mate...but even in a hundred centuries... the most one could hope for is a kind of "Western" Global unity.. note I say 'hope for'.... there are a number of factors which mitigate against even that theory.

1/ CHINA... is becoming so huge and powerful...and tends to resist efforts to tell it how to act.
2/ ISLAM... 1.2billion.. and by dogma.. the only global unity provided for in their view is a world united under Islamic Sharia.
3/ INDIA..another growing powerhouse.

Taken together.. I think it's
a) a waste of time to write hopeful articles about such an idea of Global Unity. and
b) outright DANGEROUS in that it might lull shallow unthinking, historically ignorant folk into believing it might happen in the next 5 minutes.
The idea is nice... but would only 'work' if people were not *sinful* in disposition.

Eudomaniac.... (no offense.. that was just too tempting :)... you write with deep sensitivity and compassion, suggesting you support such an idea and while your motives appear noble, may I suggest you review some of the thoughts the rest of us have posted on this ?

GLOBAL UNION IS POSSIBLE..but not the kind of union the article speaks of. In the same way that Christian denominations can have a heart unity in diversity, so nation states can be bound by common values, the most obvious being "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

We don't need any supergovernment for this.

The arguments against the article can be encapsulated as i) it's just utopian dreaming and ii) it will never happen.

These are exactly the attitudes that - if everybody were to hold them - will ensure we continue to disappear down the gurgler of our own shortsightedness.

This isn't about today, or this election, or even much to do with this lifetime (for me at least).

But it has a great deal to do with our approach to life on this planet, which is cavalier at best, and intensely self-centred at worst.

The answer is likely to be closer to the view of genuinely religious people than it is to that of those folk whose devil-take-the-hindmost approach is considered to epitomise "Australian Values".

Not of course the self-aggrandizing version of religion that we see displayed on these pages, but the self-effacing kind shown throughout her long life by my grandmother. I can safely say that she never had a bad word to say about anyone, and did everything in her (very little) power to make life better for those around her.

That sort of religion. Where you can confidently point and say "by their deeds shall ye know them".

Which is why I suspect that some people here aren't exactly as Christian as they make out:

>>even in a hundred centuries... the most one could hope for is a kind of "Western" Global unity<<

A hundred centuries ago, Boaz, man lived in what has become known as the "Stone Age".

If you were Stone Age Man, and you limited your ideas to those that you could extrapolate from concepts with which you were familiar, the most you could manage in 10,000 years would be a new way to tie your axe blade to a handle.

"The most one can hope for" is way beyond what you could imagine, just so long as you don't live in fear and superstition.

I know you think the answer to man's innate selfishness lies in the second coming or whatever. But it might just be possible for us to do something about it ourselves.

Those who oppose Storey’s proposal have been accused of lacking vision.

The truth is they have a different, more realistic vision.

Storey calls for a ‘fairer’ world, fairer as measured by similarity of outcome.
If the human race was a plant, Storey’s perfect world would be a well-watered, well-fertilized,
closely-cropped lawn.

A union dominated by have-nots, and the PC policies & procedures that would inevitably follow in the name of redressing imbalances -would not be an advance.

A union of a technological focused entity with more numerous but less technologically focused entitles –would not be an advance.

Ultimately humanity’s future depends less on masses all marching in lockstep, than a few enterprising individuals/countries.
.
Let a thousand weeds bloom!

Trotsky was all for a “global human union” along with perpetual revolution.

Even Stalin realized how dangerous Trotsky was.

This “Global Human Union” I would suggest, could only be achieved by surrendering of individual sovereignty through surrendering of national sovereignty.

Whilst the author criticizes Australia exercising its right to decide who can settle here it fails to predict what would happen if we were to allow unfettered entry to all and sundry.

We have quarantine laws to prevent the import of diseased materials, which would damage our local economy and our ability to feed ourselves and large parts of the rest of the world.

So too we need laws to quarantine out the diseased and undesirable people who would damage our local economy, social fabric and sense of national cohesion.

This “Global Human Union” is just another version of half-baked socialist claptrap dressed up to be appealing.

It is a bitter pill packaged like a candy.

It sounds all too reasonable but works only by the “reward for effort” being dissipated through “socialist leveling”

(Horus more eloquent description “If the human race was a plant, Storey’s perfect world would be a well-watered, well-fertilized, closely-cropped lawn.” Each blade of grass of equal height and “roundup” for the tall poppies)

- so each is provided with what some remote and mindless bureaucrat decides is the bare necessity for existence. It can be applied at the national level but ultimately results in being suffered at the individual level.

It is a hoax, the failed repackaging of previously failed socialist political strategies and deserves to be treated with contempt.

As Horus points out “Ultimately humanity’s future depends less on masses all marching in lockstep, than a few enterprising individuals/countries.”

Those individuals would be lost under a “global human union”

Finally dearest Margaret Thatcher had something pertinent to say about it

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Governments are subordinate to the aspiration of the individuals who elect it. Those individuals should decide how broad a “union” they should participate in

Most leaders of family homes, financial and government institutions, and media agencies, seem intent on naturalising economic growth of the type experienced by economically developed countries since the late 1970s at the cost of more environmental destruction and consumer credit debt levels that can only inflict anxiety and hurtle us towards another economic bust.

I think the Mr Storey’s paper and the links he provides at the paper’s end offer a practicable and philosophically sound call to hope to advance when one is beginning to fall foul of the deception that these necrophilic trends are inexorable. I commend the paper and links as a rewarding read for anyone interested in informing themselves about how some people are conceptualising how humans can organise themselves, in modes that respect individuals’ and voluntary associations’ self-determination, towards decision-making ethics and structures that respect our shared humanity, including expression of our differences that do not harm others (and, in many cases, harm, if they are repressed).

Some of the criticisms of Mr Storey’s paper seem to derive from a crisis in the belief that humans can work together to respectfully and sustainably enable others, where they could so easily be – and are often pressured to be – inordinately patronising and otherwise exploitative. I understand that it is often difficult to believe this and then easy to forget the forgetting (with apologies to Heidegger) that one has ceased to so believe.

There is immanent, in any individual or group organising themselves to improve any circumstance, a potential for them to act from the dark chambers of their hearts. Indeed, the very process of deciding what is an improvement is an exercise of power. However, to not try – and to not try sometimes on an incrementally global scale - is simply ‘bad faith’. (May I also comment that caricaturing Mr Storey’s work as somehow sharing all the perceived defects of the thought of any previous internationalist, such as Trotsky, is also not genuine engagement with oneself and the paper?)