The following website may be of interest:

http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod04/cv02m04t01.htm

"Australians As Global Citizens."

It covers the subjects of:
International Citizenship and Global Citizenship.
Gives:
1) Historical Background.
2) Concepts of Transnational Citizenship.
3) Australians as "Good International Citizens."
4) Australians as Global Citizens.
5) Questions: Universal Values. Educational and Global
Governance.

It's an interesting read and may answer quite a few
questions.

I'd like to quote just a little from the site:

"In the modern world and from the 17th century onwards
the world citizenship ideal may be discerned in the
writing of Montaigne, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Paine.
In 1837 Paine's famous phrase: "My Country Is the World,
my countrymen are Mankind," was used as the inspiration
for a poem that appeared in William Garrison's anti-slavery
journal, "The Liberator,":

"I love that free, that pure exalted mind
Which spurns the bounds of clime and native soil
And in his fellow men can brethren find;
Whether a prince or child of care and toil!
In Justice says - by no means prejudice confined -
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

All are my brethren, why should I distain
To own that God has made his creatures one?
Or why should I from righteous acts refrain
To those whose features are unlike my own?
Such thoughts as these should not my conscience blind -
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

In every land, in every tribe I see
Each bears the image of a gracious God
Jews, Greeks, Barbarians, Scythians, bond or free
Savage or tame, wherever man had trod
And if I roam from east to west, I find
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

All a waste of time.
Read Jeff Rubin's book "Your World is about to get a Lot Smaller".
You can find his video talks on U tube.
The global era is coming to an end and everything will be local.

The business as usual model is obsolete and global village only has
meaning with cheap and fast travel.

Interesting contrasts between Foxy's and Bazz posts.. like East/west kind of thing.

Foxy..thanx for those links I must read more about this.

Hazza.. yep.. I tend to agree.. much opposition from many sources.

I was not suggesting that there is a 'literal' idea of global citizenship, but it is assumed by the existence of the UN conventions no ? Pericles tends to latch onto any shred of dangling comment to feed his 'whack-an-AGIR' Christ-a-phobic paranoia. Ignore him :)

The whole concept of the UN and the conventions suggests that it is a body aiming at establishing those values globally.

That in turn seems to be based on the idea that 'if' all countries subscribe to and follow such conventions, the millenium will have arrived.

But the problem as I see it is the conflict between values which are supposedly encompassed in the Conventions.

"Right to worship" is one thing... "Right to practice one's religion" is another. A religion might involved both Worship and, in our case (Christian) evangelism, reaching out to others with the Gospel.

To do such a thing is considered a crime of the worst kind in some societies.. communist and Islamic and even Hindu (Orissa)

So...this kind of begs the question 'why' should we even have such supposedly unifiying declarations and conventions when they don't have the desired outcome?

Well...I have a theory on this, which does not help my popularity :)

I believe that the "UN conventions" and "International Law" is being applied insideously through an overlay of supposedly 'Human Rights' bodies.. my favorite flogging horse.

So.. the conventions are valuable to the socialist element of our society, because they tend to use them for selective advantage.

Any thoughts on that ?

<< The whole concept of the UN and the conventions suggests that it is a body aiming at establishing those values globally.

That in turn seems to be based on the idea that 'if' all countries subscribe to and follow such conventions, the millenium will have arrived. >>

Er no, Boazy.

That's a wacky idea promulgated by lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christians - you know, the 'One World Government/Mark of the Beast' apocalyptic set.

Could you point us to some UN literature that might support your claim that there is any consideration at all in the UN of the so-called "millennium"?

ALGOREisRICHFATUGLY&LAZY, I support the concept of a global citizen as outline here: http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod04/cv02m04t01.htm#agc. I reached this via Foxy’s link.

Here, the main tenet of a global citizen is a person who helps others in distant lands as a moral duty independent of pragmatic self-interest.

But I envisage another very different aspect to global citizenry – one that is based on self-interest in maintaining a decent quality of life and environment within one’s own country and region, and who in so doing would be setting a good example for the rest of the world.

I’m talking about doing things that would gear us towards a sustainable future.

Heaven knows we desperately need major changes within Australia society to prevent us from reaching a critical crunch-point in the very near future.

Good global citizens will in particular heed Dick Smith’s message on population policy as presented in his documentary recently, and as supported by Bob Brown, Scott Morrison and Tony Burke.

Those who strive for genuine sustainability within their own societies come closest to ideal global citizens. Those who do the same on a wider basis, via NGOs and international aid programs are similarly good global citizens.

But alas, those who are operating within international NGOs, while doing a lot of good work but missing the imperative to address population growth and sustainability, are not quite up there at the same calibre of global citizenry.

Dear Ludwig,

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability," tells us that:

"Who other than Diogenes (400-325 BC), when
asked by Alexander the Great, "Where do you come
from? What is your country, Diogenes?"
would reply, "I am a citizen of the world.
I am a cosmopolitan." In the 20th century,
Charlie Chaplin voiced these sentiments.
Being a global citizen is, to my mind, the number
one idea underpinning sustainable development...
There are those who would have us accept that a
belief in the possibility of a cosmopolitan
world society is unfettered utopianism. Theirs is
a very pessimistic view, which I am tempted to
suggest has its roots in postmodernist nihilism,
and must be dismissed forthwith. Diogenes was a
classical Greek philosopher and a notable Cynic.
The Cynics were characterised, as we are told,
"by asceticism and emphasis on the sufficiency
of virtue for happiness."

The Australian Government's website on the subject
of Global Citizenship for students and teachers,
tells us in their introduction that:

"International trade, global financial markets
and high speed technologies have connected individuals
and communities beyond the borders of their countries.
At the same time there is an awareness that only
global co-operation can solve poverty, epidemics, stop
wars, and reverse environmental degradation and climate
change.

With this awareness has come the realisation that
individuals, communities, corporations, and countries
have obligations to one another that are global in their
reach.

Understanding these obligations is an important part of
global citizenship..."

The website I cited in my earlier post outlines
these facts rather well.