1/15/2010

ENCOURAGING SIGN THAT A MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION IS TAKING A PRINCIPLED, MORAL STAND AGAINST A SUPERPOWER

The world public can take hope from the fact that Google Corporation actually took a public stand resisting censorship and snooping by superpower China against human rights advocates.  Too good to be true?  Multinational corporations are not exactly known for principled, ethical positions when it comes to making money.   (Profit seems all too important to many CEO's even if it means violating ethical principles.)  

In the present situation, if Google's concerns turn out to be factual, then China is in violation of at least three sections of Article XII (Bill of Rights) in the Earth Constitution.   The Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Earth #3 requires "freedom of writing, communication, publication..." and #5 grants "freedom from censorship" and #18 prohibits "surveillance as a means of political control."  

Article XIII #3 grants "Full access to information and to the accumulated knowledge of the human race."

Under the Earth Constitution, government authorities (in this case any Chinese official responsible for the alleged action) can be held accountable as an individual if their actions are found to be unlawful after due process proceedings by the judiciary. 

Google Corporation is to be congratulated for speaking out on behalf of the world public interest.   The Earth Federation would fully support Google in this case because openness to information advances democratic processes -- a top priority for the Federation.   

-- Editor 1/15/10

1/9/2010

AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY IS A BETTER DEAL FOR "WE, THE PEOPLE" THAN A WORLD GOVERNED BY SHADOW ELITES

The alarm went out many years ago when some California grassroots activists began to investigate the Bohemian Club which consisted of the rich and/or powerful -- CEO's, former Presidents, Senators, heads of covert agencies, the wealthy, owners of media, etc.   It became obvious that there was an "old boys network" which greased the wheels of fortune both in , and out, of government and pretty much controlled outcomes in their own favor. 

While many people from other countries have understood who "runs the show" so to speak, Americans have been slow to acknowledge that their own fate was more in the hands of shadowy elites than under their own control.    Authentic democracy was more a fantasy than a fact argues Professor Glen Martin, whom I have described as the "most important man in America."  

Dr. Martin, from a small university back east and unknown to the public,  shows covincingly in "Triumph of Civilization" that we in America as well as elsewhere do not have authentic democracy or full freedoms.   People with money have much more "freedom of speech" since they are the ones who can afford to buy media time and who own the main media outlets.    

Dr. Martin's importance is that he has gone beyond  identifying the key problems, he has also actively proposed powerful new solutions which he is helping to implement.    

We must replace the shadow world government with authentic democracy Martin would argue -- and that's where the Earth Federation enters the picture.   Through the Earth Federation movement under the inspiring Earth Constitution, "we, the people" can begin to regain democratic control of our country, and world.    

Currently we can see that even President Obama, a former community activist, is dominated by wealthy and powerful private interests -- banking, insurance, multinational corporate, and military/industrial.   Most of these players are unknown to the people who continue to carry the belief that their America is "free" and "democratic", a fantasy myth which serves private interests well as they recruit young Americans to unwittingly die for oil and other profit-producing interests. 

The sad fact is that politicians in America and many other nations are rather obviously bought and paid for by private interests.  This same Big Money cabal owns all major media outlets -- hence has control of the messag which helps to manipulate our perceptions in their favor as economist J.W. Smith ("Economic Democracy") has so eloquently explained.  

It comes down to "we, the people":   Do we want to continue being governed undemocratically in the shadowy hands of private interests, or do we want to stand up for true democracy? 

Dr. Martin believes that the time is ripe for "we, the people"  to replace the destructive and undemocratic "new world order" with the emerging Earth Federation's "democratic world order"

-- Editor  1/9/2010 

12/13/09

NATIONS RUINED BY PREDATORY PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONALS

Multinational corporations, according to John Perkins in his new book titled HOODWINKED, have replaced nations as the driving force behind geopolitics. 

"The emerging rulers are not presidents, dictators, government officials, or politicians.  The rulers are corporate CEOs, members of the corporatocracy.  Like huge clouds swirling around the globe, their conglomerates reach every continent, country, and village.   They are unrestricted by national borders or any particular sets of law.  Although many are headquartered in the United States and call upon the U.S. military to protect their interests, they feel no sense of loyalty to any one country."

"As we have seen by Halliburton, they think nothing of relocating to places like Dubai, where they pay fewer taxes."  (Editor's note: Halliburton has made millions or billions of dollars of profit from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of occupation.)

Perkins explains that mantras like"good government is less government" and "free trade" are used to mislead the public.   In reality, they are used as code phrases for deregulation and privatization all of which favor, not the public interest, but the multinationals.  "...the only governments that mattered were the ones that would provide soldiers to guard oil wells, dams, mines and other corporate assets." 

Mr. Perkins calls the economic methods which have ruined many developing nations, and now more advanced countries like Iceland and the United States,  "predatory capitalism," and argues that it is a "virus" which must be removed. 

"The guiding philosophy for this particular form of capitalism is an uncompromising belief in the privatization of resources, the granting of unfettered powers to corporate executives, and the encouragement of debt so extreme that it results in contemporary modes of enslavement-- for countries and individuals alike."

Has this  predatory type of capitalism captured U.S. politicians?  Perkins thinks so.   He states that while working as an ECM (Economic Hit Man) he learned that when corporations "coveted" a country's resources they would "seduce, bribe, and extort their leaders into exploiting their own people..."  If the leaders (of a developing nation) resisted the ECM economic plans, "...they are overthrown or assassinated by CIA-sponsored jackals."  If that didn't work, then the USA would subdue the country by going to war, conquering it, and putting in a puppet government doing our (multinational corporate) bidding. 

Mr. Perkins reveals to the reader how deep the greed has penetrated America:  "We (economic hit men) were so successful in the Third World that our bosses directed us to implement similar strategies in the United States and across the rest of the planet."

Hence, the current economic fiasco/crisis now causing immense suffering in the USA itself.

(Editor's note:  The EARTH FEDERATION, unlike the United Nations, provides  a means to regulate and prevent "predatory capitalism" by multinational corporations and international investment bankers.   Whereas the EARTH FEDERATION'S Earth Constitution provides structures to protect the public from predatory economic practices, the UN Charter does not -- one of the fatal flaws which renders the UN Charter too weak and undemocratic to be able to protect "we, the people" from powerful and unscrupulous special interests.)

DON'T BET ON INTERNATIONAL LAW TO SAVE US

World federalists have become accustomed to the belief of some peace activists that building a real democratic world federation is too hard to accomplish, will never happen, and besides, isn't needed anyway.  So why not just stick with "international law"?

The most recent foray down this path of wishful thinking is from a former Montana law professor, James Ranney, whose recent article in "The Federalist Debate" (July, 2009) argues for the idea that the gradual acceptance of customs, norms, treaties and agreements between nations (equals "international law") will prove adequate, and world federalists are wrong in insisting that only a democratic world federation making enforceable word law can do the job -- of saving the world (from wars, from the Bomb, from poverty, from torture, from climate change, and so on). 

Ranney questions the warnings of world federalists who believe that  history proves that laws based upon treaties are unstable and can't be trusted.  To this writer, the historical facts show clearly that treaties between nations are the equivalent of living on quicksand.  International "law" based upon treaties, or custom, or "norms" has deteriorated time after time as the priorities of the nation states change.   

In additional to instability, another major drawback for international laws is that they are almost universally undemocratic in origin.  Moreover, as the economist J.W. Smith has discovered, international laws, agreements, norms (and customs) basically provide a means for multinational corporations and international investment bankers to "legally" plunder developing nations, the poor, and even the tax paying middle classes.  These types of "laws", Smith warns, favor the already wealthy and powerful -- a subtle means to maintain dominance over the majority of people in the world.

So when Ranney views the WTO, World Bank, and IMF as "milestones of International Law" he is unwittingly supporting international structures which many activists believe do more harm than good, especially for "we, the people."  

Ranney's mistake is to fail to recognize that many of his so-called "milestones" of international law are  actually in fact regressive, steps backward, not steps forward.   If allowed to remain in place without the checks and balances of a true democratic world government structure, we will continue to flounder in terms of

resolving critical world problems and crises. 

One can only imagine how dismal our world will be if we continue on the present path of dominance by the few, and we make the fatal error of keeping in place international structures (such as the United Nations) which have proved

ineffective, or in the case of the World Bank and IMF, proved harmful to "we, the people." 

The EARTH FEDERATION/Earth Constitution is the path out of the swamp of the

old, new world order with its undemocratic design and its unenforceable structure -- so convenient for the few who dominate "we, the people."

"International law" has some good parts which can easily be integrated into the EARTH FEDERATION'S world legislative acts -- a democratic process already underway by the Provisional World Parliament in the form of model world laws.     

-- Above commentary the opinion of Dr. Roger Kotila, and may not represent fully the position of the EARTH FEDERATION.