June 6, 2001

Miscellaneous Subjects 88: 1. Israel Lifts West Bank, Gaza Food And Fuel Ban + 2. Why we must stay silent no longer + 3. Spraying here in Victoria + 4. Under Our Radioactive Noses - Nuclear Plants Relicensed + 5. News from the World Democracy Campaign: President of Peru for World Democracy



Hello everyone

Here is another compilation of material deserving our collective attention to spice up your day - or evening - and hopefully contribute in some way to a better, safer, saner world.

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000

"An oyster takes a piece of grit and turns it into a pearl. How many pearls do you have in your life?"

- Author unknown

P.S. I received several comments as a result of my posting last week of the information pertaining to the "Evgray" Energy Machine, and a discussion ensued as to whether this machine actually delivers what its inventor claimed it does. If you want to read all the ensuing related correspondence (20 pages long!), please go at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/EvgrayMachine.htm

I also received this follow up info concerning the Disaster of 'Dolphin-Safe' Tuna:

From: Brent Sweet <bsweet@dbntm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001

Dear fellow concerned people,

The U.S. government tuna boat observer and former federal fisheries biologist who educated me about the problems associated with dolphin-safe tuna is named William Boyce. He gave an incredible presentation about the problem of dolphin-safe tuna to our fishing club. I'm sure he would have much more accurate and detailed information than I since he was there first hand. He can be reached at:

Boyce Image
864 Palo Alto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
www.boyceimage.com
1 (800) 319-8216
Fx (626)447-3236

Thank you for your concern,

Brent




1.

MORE GOOD NEWS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010605/wl/mideast_leadall_dc_166.html

Israel Lifts West Bank, Gaza Food And Fuel Ban
(Tuesday June 5)

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said it would resume food and fuel supplies to the Palestinians on Wednesday and that a cease-fire promised by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was starting to take hold ahead of new U.S. efforts to end months of violence.

President Bush said ``enough progress has been made on the cease-fire'' for CIA chief George Tenet to return to the Middle East on Wednesday. Tenet will hold talks with Israeli and Palestinian security chiefs on cementing the truce pledged by Arafat in the face of threatened Israeli military retaliation for a Tel Aviv suicide bombing that killed 21 people on Friday.

CLIP

More details also at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Middle_East_Peace_Process/

Check also "North Korea Threatens to Pull Out of Missile Pacts" (June 5, 2001) at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/05/world/05CHIN.html

and an old story that *could* be revived some day soon and bring about further change to the political landscape in Washington...

From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010605/pl/election_report_dc_3.html

Report: 2000 Florida Vote Rife with Disparities
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Florida's handling of the 2000 presidential election was marked by ``injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency'' that disenfranchised minority voters, a draft government report to be released later this week said.




2.

A COUPLE DAYS AGO I SAW AN INTERVIEW OF NOREENA HERTZ ON THE BBC AT HARDTALK WITH HOST TIM SEBASTIAN. I WAS SO IMPRESSED WITH THE BRILLIANT SELF-ASSURANCE OF THIS YOUNG (33 years old) BUT *VERY* KNOWLEDGEABLE ECONOMIST THAT I DECIDED TO SEARCH MORE DETAILS ABOUT HER ON THE WEB AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING WHICH I VERY HIGHLY RECOMMEND TO YOUR ATTENTION.

From: http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,470283,00.html

Essay

Why we must stay silent no longer

Noreena Hertz is one of the world's leading young thinkers, whose agenda-setting new book on corporate power is already sparking intense debate on both sides of the Atlantic. In this remarkable special essay for The Observer she argues that governments' surrender to big business is the deadliest threat facing democracy today

Sunday April 8, 2001 The Observer

In the hullaballoo following the American presidential election, with hanging and pregnant chads, and ballot forms that needed a PhD to decipher, it was easy to forget something that was in many ways even more alarming than confusion over who won. More than 90 million Americans had not bothered to vote - that is, more than the combined population of England, Ireland and Scandinavia.

Low turnout is not just a US phenomenon. In the UK, the landslide victory for Labour in the election of 1997 was achieved on a turnout of 69 per cent - the lowest since the war. During the European elections in 1999, less than half of the electorate voted, and less than a quarter came out in the UK. In the Leeds Central by-election last year only 19 per cent of those eligible to vote did so. Predictions for the forthcoming general election are that turnout will fall to the lowest level yet.

People have lost faith in politics, because they no longer know what governments are good for. Thanks to the steady withdrawal of the state over the past 20 years from the public sphere, it is corporations, not governments, that increasingly define the public realm.

Unregulated or under-regulated by governments, corporations set the terms of engagement themselves. In the Third World we see a race to the bottom: multinationals pitting developing countries against each other to provide the most advantageous conditions for investment, with no regulation, no red tape, no unions, a blind eye turned to environmental degradation. It's good for profit, but bad for workers and local communities. As corporations go bottom fishing, host governments are left with little alternative but to accept the pickings. Globalisation may deliver liberty, but not fraternity or equality.

At the headquarters of the World Trade Organisation on the banks of Lake Geneva we see rulings being made in the names of the free market that limit states' abilities to safeguard their people's interests. When the European Union tried to ban synthetic hormones from beef on the basis of strong evidence that they could cause cancer, reduce male fertility and in some cases result in the premature onset of puberty in young children, it found itself unable to do so thanks to a WTO ruling which put the interests of Monsanto, the US National Cattlemen's Association, the US Dairy Export Council and the National Milk Producers Federation first.

Time and time again the WTO has intervened to prevent governments from using boycotts or tariffs against companies that they find to be acting in ethically or environmentally unacceptable ways.

In Germany, where revenue from corporate taxes has fallen by 50 per cent over the past 20 years, despite a rise in corporate profits of 90 per cent, a group of companies, including Deutsche Bank, BMW, Daimler-Benz and RWE, the German energy and industrial group, thwarted in 1999 Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine's attempt to raise the tax burden on German firms, threatening to move investment or factories to other countries if government policy did not suit them. 'It's a question of at least 14,000 jobs,' threatened Dieter Schweer, a spokesman for RWE. 'If the investment position is no longer attractive, we will examine every possibility of switching our investments abroad.' Daimler-Benz proposed relocating to the US; other companies threatened to stop buying government bonds and investing in the German economy.

In view of the power these corporations wield their threats were taken seriously. Within a few months Germany was planning corporate tax cuts which would reduce tax on German companies below US rates. As one of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's senior advisers in Washington commented at the time, 'Deutsche Bank and industrial giants like Mercedes are too strong for the elected government in Berlin.'

In the US, the quid pro quo being exacted by George W's corporate backers is becoming all too clear. Since being elected, the President has opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drillers, retreated from his promises of protecting forests, made moves to weaken the requirement on mining companies to clean after themselves and in recent weeks both reversed a campaign pledge to regulate CO 2 emissions from power plants and trashed the Kyoto treaty on global warming. The interests of the US people suborned to those of the major US energy giants that bank-rolled him: $47 million was all it cost.

Here in the UK public services are increasingly being handed over to private corporations to manage and fund. The Government has already withdrawn from running the railways, soon it'll be withdrawing from air traffic control. Private health insurance is being pushed by the Conservatives as a way of staving off the collapse of our National Health Service. Even the education of our children, once the most sacred preserve of the state, is increasingly delegated to the private sector.

Although it remains too early to see the consequences of the privatisation of public services played out in full, initial indications are troubling. The rail crashes, for which Gerald Corbett, when chief executive of Railtrack, put the blame on the way the railway 'was ripped apart at privatisation'; Angel School in Islington, a primary school now being run by the private company Cambridge Education Authorities, under threat of closure despite the fact that it has constantly improved its educational results, with the parents and staff left with no real means of redress or recourse; Nottingham University's acceptance of £3.8m from British American Tobacco to set up, of all things, a school of corporate social responsibility; and the US model of healthcare proposed as a blueprint for our health reforms, despite the fact that 45 million Americans currently do not have health insurance and 25 per cent of the chronically ill there do not have adequate coverage.

This is the world of the Silent Takeover, a world in which governments can no longer be relied on to protect the people's interests. Blinded by the allure of the market, they now put corporate interests first.

So it is left to us, through individual action, to take the lead. In a world in which power increasingly lies in the hands of corporations rather than governments, the most effective way to be political is not to cast one's vote at the ballot box but to do so at the supermarket or at a shareholders' meeting.

Because, when provoked, corporations respond. While governments dithered about the health value of GM foods, supermarkets faced with consumer unrest pulled the products off their shelves overnight. While nations spoke about ethical foreign policy, corporations pulled out of Burma rather than risk censure by customers. George W may have backed down on his campaign pledges to limit CO 2 emissions, but BP, a corporation, continues to spearhead their reduction. And when stories broke over the world of children sewing footballs for Reebok for a pittance, what did governments do? Nothing. But the corporation, fearing a consumer boycott, stepped in with innovative plans for dealing with the child labour problem.

Delivering a quality product at a reasonable cost is not all that is now demanded of corporations. The key to consumer satisfaction is not only how well a company treats its customers, but increasingly whether it is perceived as taking its responsibilities to society seriously. People are demanding that corporations deliver in a way that governments can't or won't.

It is not just the brown-rice-eating, sandal-wearing brigade who are making demands: 60 per cent of UK consumers are prepared to boycott stores or products because they are concerned about their ethical standards. Three-quarters of British consumers would choose a product on green or ethical issues. More than 75 per cent of Americans would boycott stores selling goods produced in sweatshops. Monsanto was brought to its knees by a coalition of eco-warriors and Britain's Women's Institute members. In America, the Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility, with $110 billion at its disposal, is among the ethical investors now using shareholder power to 'regulate' corporate manoeuvres and get corporations to do good.

Can we entrust the public interest to consumer and shareholder activists? Can shopping adequately replace voting? No, it cannot. The world cannot be simplified to the extent that consumer politics tends to demand. Is GM food necessarily always bad for consumers or the environment? Or could this technology be harnessed for good? Child labour may be distasteful to Western expectations, but does boycotting goods made with child labour improve or exacerbate the lot of Third World children?

Trusting the market to regulate may not ultimately be in our interest. Moreover, populist politics can easily result in tyranny, not necessarily of the majority, but by those who can protest most effectively. Rather than empowering all, consumer and shareholder activism give greatest voice to those with the most money in their pockets, those with the greatest purchasing power, those who can switch from seller to seller with relative ease. Consumer and shareholder activism is a form of protest that favours the middle classes and the outpouring of dissatisfaction of the bourgeoisie.

Nor should the takeover by corporations of governments' responsibilities be viewed as a reason for governments to withdraw. Despite the roles corporations are beginning to play in the social sphere, despite the fact that they may be able to play some role in alleviating poverty and inequity and protecting the environment, social investment and social justice will never become their core activity. Their contribution to society's needs will always remain at the margins. Corporate social responsibility cannot be thought of as a reasonable proxy for state responsibility.

In Japan's Mitsubishi Villages, Nissan Towns, and Toyota Cities the Japanese keiratsus - trading companies - used to provide school vouchers, housing, and health care. In the wake of the Asian financial crisis, the firms are withdrawing support from the community. The head of Toshiba says that they are no longer 'a charity': entire communities are suffering. The suicide rate in Japan rose by a third between 1997 and 1999, a testament to the social strain.

As more and more of the public realm is handed over to the private sector to manage, we need to see the Japanese case as a cautionary tale. If this move by Western corporations towards greater responsibility and care is predicated solely on the continuing strength of the global economy, on the fact that philanthropic acts are essentially tax write-offs against balance sheets firmly in the black, is it not likely to be reversed when times once again become difficult? Companies will simply not be able to justify staying involved to their shareholders, unless they calculate that withdrawal from their social commitments will be so damaging to their reputation as to be more costly than maintaining them. The corporate provision of welfare risks dependence on the continued generation of profits.

We must also ask ourselves whether a price will be exacted for acts of corporate benevolence. Today Microsoft puts computers in our schools; will it tomorrow determine what our children learn? When Mike Cameron, a 19-year-old student, turned up at Greenbriar High School in Evans Georgia on official 'Coke Day' wearing a T-shirt with a Pepsi logo he was suspended. Channel One Network is now notorious for having provided 12,000 American schools with money and goods in exchange for beaming their commercials directly into the classroom. But do we want to live in a world in which commercialisation takes advantage of shortages in funding and rides on the back of children's' learning? This is not about ethics, this is about business. Sometimes the two will coincide, but clearly not always.

Corporations are not society's custodians: they are commercial entities that act in the pursuit of profit, not ethical considerations. They are morally ambivalent. Often their business interests happen to coincide with society's, but this is by no means always the case. Governments on the other hand are supposed to respond to citizens. Downgrading the role of the state in favour of corporate activism threatens to make societal improvements dependent on the creation of profit. And governments that stand back while corporations take over, without being willing to set the terms of engagement or retain the upper hand, are in danger of losing the support of the people, whose feeling of lack of recourse or representation is showing itself in a wave of protest that goes beyond individual acts of consumer and shareholder dissent.

Take the 40,000 Frenchmen who gathered outside the trial of French farmer José Bové or Granny D, the 91-year-old American great-grandmother who walked across America to protest against the relationship between big business and politics and was greeted by thousands upon her arrival at Washington DC or the Seattle, Prague and May Day rioters that we saw on our television screens last year - all are examples of a global uprising of people who now see themselves as politically disposed.

All over the world, people are beginning to lash out against corporations, governments and international organisations alike. In a world in which politicians now all sing from the same hymn sheet, people who want to change the hymn have to go outside the church.

But like consumer and shareholder activism, other forms of protest should not be idealised. Their limitations are clear. The commonality of interests often centres on a shared general disillusionment, rather than specific concerns or proffered solutions. In some cases protesters are motivated by a sense of common good, but in others they are concerned only with safeguarding their own interests, or those of a limited group as in the British fuel protests of autumn 2000.

Pressure groups need to play to the media, which encourages posturing, the demonisation of 'enemies', a massive oversimplification of issues and the choosing of fashionable rather than difficult causes to champion. Issues such as forest biodiversity, nitrate leaching or soil erosion in Africa hardly ever get a look in. And, as one of London's May Day protesters told me: 'There has to be trouble, otherwise the papers won't report it.'

But despite the limitations of protest, despite its failure to balance effective means with democratic ends, despite the fact that it can never by itself be a long-term solution, the crucial question is whether protest can change politics in the same way as it is beginning to change the corporate agenda. Can protest put the people back into the forefront of politics?

There are signs that perhaps it can, and that perhaps the political corpse is beginning to twitch. In June of 1999 in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, the water authority was privatised, following recommendations from the World Bank. At once the price of water tripled, which meant that a typical worker was spending almost a quarter of his or her monthly wage on water charges. People gathered on the streets and protested, there was a four-day general strike, bill payment was boycotted, and 30,000 people marched through the city centre in anger. Finally, in April 2000, the privatisation of the water supply was revoked. Back in 1985, government leaders had asked the Bolivian people for patience and sacrifice as it implemented neo-liberal reforms. Fifteen years later, it seemed that their patience had run out.

In New Zealand, a country that embraced free market fundamentalism with enthusiasm in the early 1980s, the new Labour administration is implementing changes that for the past 20 years would have been considered heretical. Workplace accident insurance has been renationalised, a state-run People's Bank will open soon in which personal banking fees will be 20 to 30 per cent lower than those charged by private banks, tax cuts for high earners have been reversed and trade union rights boosted. As Prime Minister Helen Clark has said, New Zealand's experiment in market fundamentalism has failed.

In the US we are also seeing the beginnings of a turnaround. Prompted by the complete failure of California's privately owned power distributors to deliver electricity at a fair price to citizens, or often to deliver it at all, and experiencing their first state-wide blackouts since the Second World War, Californian politicians are contemplating a once unthinkable change of course: to regain control of the very transmission system that the state privatised five years ago. Even Ronald Reaganland is breaking with its past.

Small signs, it is true, and for now focused on renationalisation rather than issues of global concern, but they represent cracks in an ideology that had become hegemonic over the past 20 years, the beginnings of a recognition that there has to be new thinking.

But while in faraway lands the unthinkable is being thought, here at home do we have any signs that politicians are questioning their certainty that the private sector will be our salvation? Any willingness to admit the dangers of this silent takeover, this world in which corporations not governments are increasingly making the rules? No.

Looking at the choices on offer at the forthcoming election, we see all too clearly the extent of the political consensus. A reduced state, with an ever greater dependence on corporations for solutions, has become the standard line touted by all parties.

As far back as 1968, Margaret Thatcher said in a famous speech: 'There are dangers in consensus: it could be an attempt to satisfy people holding no particular views about anything. No great party can survive except on the basis of firm beliefs about what it wants to do.' The irony is that by buying so wholeheartedly into the form of capitalism initiated by Thatcher and Reagan, British politics has fallen into this very trap, leaving us the electorate increasingly alienated from and distrustful of politics, and providing us with little alternative but to protest rather than vote. Until the Government regains the trust of the electorate, the people will continue to scorn democracy. Until the state reclaims the people, the people will not reclaim the state.

• Noreena Hertz is the Associate Director of the Centre for International Business and Management at the Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge. Now aged 33, she graduated from University College, London, with a degree in philosophy and economics in 1987, when she was 19, before taking an MBA at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr Hertz then moved to St Petersburg to help set up the city's stock exchange and help tutor Boris Yeltsin's advisers in market economics following the overthrow of communism. Returning to Britain, she completed her PhD at Cambridge and, in 1996, then went to the Middle East to head a team of 40 researchers developing the role that the private sector might play in the peace process.

Dr Hertz's book The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy , is published by Heinemann at £12.99. The accompanying Channel 4 film, The End of Politics will be broadcast as the curtain raiser to Channel 4's general election coverage.

---

See also a review of Noreena Hertz book by Charles Leadbeater at http://www.clickmt.com/books/archive/book0104271618041200.cfm




3.

From: "Joanne Stephenson" <teachandtravel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Spraying here in Victoria
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001

Dear Jean,

This is to let everyone know that a section of Victoria was sprayed on Wednesday night (May 30th) around 10 p.m., making myself, and several others, violently nauseous. I felt something similar to an anxiety attack (for no reason) that lasted about two hours, and am still suffering from raw nasal passages. On Thursday morning, I noticed the spray on my balcony, and another friend noticed on his the same day. Thinking it could have been rain from the night before, I checked again Thursday evening, and the spray was still there. Cars on my side of the building were covered with a substance that dissolved with the drought-breaking rains that continued for two days following.

Why is this important. Two reasons: 1. Nobody is taking responsibility for the spray. No gypsy moth spray was being done by the Ministry of Forests, though they were spraying in Delta, BC that day, and 2. The Capital Health Region knew nothing about it, therefore, it was not a municipal or provincial spraying routine.

I contacted CFAX radio here who said that I was the only person to have called. The Times Colonist is taking me seriously and is looking into it on Monday. They did say that if the federal government wouldn't tell me what was happening, they were unlikely to tell them. If they can get some information, they would be doing a story on it.

An article about a month ago on the front page of the T/C mentioned weather modification tests being done off the coast, but it had no mention of spraying.

Will Thomas's website has a commercial being aired in Powell River regarding spraying being done here in Victoria, and how it could have an ill effect on tourism. Considering nobody knows about it, not even the newspapers, it's unlikely the tourists will be informed.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone in the area who might have noticed a substance on their car, or who might have been out around 10 p.m. on Wednesday who became ill.

Thought you'd like to know,

Joanna (joannemuriel@aol.com)
KIN International

Note from Jean: Those who want to further explore this Chemtrail issue may check the following URLs

http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/XFiles3.htm
X-Files #3: Another Possible Chemtrails Explanation at

http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/MiscelSubjects72.htm
Miscellaneous Subjects #72: Chem-trails confirmed by Traffic Control Manager on Art Bell at

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=392
Tape Seems to Confirm Chemtrails A Military Operation (22-Mar-2001) at

For information about Will Thomas's available reports including "Ultimate Edge: Probing the Chemtrails Conundrum" by William Thomas, go at:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/store/?fid=12

See also at:
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm




4.

Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: "Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D." <jackie@deepteaching.com>
Subject: Under Our Radioactive Noses - Nuclear Plants Relicensed

Hello all,

The 40-year licenses of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors, many of them aging and dangerous, are all coming due in the next few years. With the stricter building codes and earthquake hazard rules, many of these plants could not be legally built today. Also, considerable proof exists of the flaws in the construction of many of these plants.

But the Bush administration has created a new reality that we all must face: most of these nuclear plants, whether they would be judged unsafe by today's standards or not, will likely be relicensed, bringing us all closer to another nuclear disaster like Three Mile Island or worse, Chernobyl.

Now is the time to mobilize public opinion to force these accidents in the making to shut down. I discuss this troubling reality in this week's Healing Our World Commentary, "Under Our Radioactive Noses - Nuclear Plants Relicensed," on the Environment News Service at http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-01g.html. At the end of the commentary are links to help you use your voice.

We have to stop this madness before it escalates. We must demand that safe, alternative forms of energy be developed rather the dirty nuclear and fossil fuels that represent the personal interests and investments of the U.S. Presidential administration. The people must demand that reason return to energy policy. The "American Way" that President Bush seeks to protect is unsustainable and has disastrous consequences for the ecosystem and every woman, man and child alive.

As I look at our new son's face, barely three weeks old, I wonder how many devastated areas that once were nuclear reactor sites he will know of when he grows up. Let's all work together to try to minimize that horror.

Take care and I wish you peace.

Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.

http://www.ens.lycos.com
http://www.healingourworld.com.




5.

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: Troy Davis <troy_davis@yahoo.com>
Subject: News from the World Democracy Campaign: President of Peru for World Democracy

MEMBER OF WORLD DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF PERU ALEJANDRO TOLEDO, MEMBER OF THE WORLD DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN SINCE JULY 2000, WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF PERU YESTERDAY.

(Man in the News: Alejandro Toledo -- http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/05/world/05TOLE.html)

THIS MAKES THE FOURTH HEAD OF STATE (THREE FORMER HEADS OF STATE FROM ARGENTINA, ECUADOR AND POLAND ARE THE OTHERS) TO JOIN THE GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR WORLD DEMOCRACY. HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE AND ALL COUNTRIES ARE MEMBERS OF THE CAMPAIGN.

WE WARMLY CONGRATULATE ALEJANDRO TOLEDO ON HIS ELECTION AND HOPE THAT PERU WILL BECOME A LEADER IN THE CAMPAIGN TO CREATE A WORLD DEMOCRACY.

THE CAMPAIGN FOR WORLD DEMOCRACY IS A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER, NONPARTISAN GLOBAL CAMPAIGN WITH THE GOAL OF CATALYSING A BROAD PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE FEASIBILITY AND BEST WAYS TO PEACEFULLY CREATE A WORLD DEMOCRACY.

Please join the campaign by signing on at http://www.worldcitizen.org

For more details on the World Democracy Campaign, please contact Troy Davis, President/CEO, World Citizen Foundation at troydavis@post.harvard.edu.

The World Citizen Foundation is solely funded through voluntary contributions. It is a non-profit organization with 501 (c) 3 status. Donations gratefully accepted.

---

NOTE FROM JEAN: To give you an idea of the goals of this organization, here is below the conclusion of a speech given a year ago at the Democracy Forum 2000 by its president, Troy Davis. Among the numerous efforts to establish world democracy, this one seems to be in a position to move ahead this important goal - if we all care enough to support it... So make sure to give a look at http://www.worldcitizen.org and find out more for yourself about it.

From: http://www.worldcitizen.org/speeches/stockholmspeech.shtml

“Direct global elections will totally change the rules of the game and the expectations of the world’s citizens. It will usher in a new paradigm and finally complete the slow democratic revolution started in Greece thousands of years ago.

We need to start seriously discussing how we can create global democratic institutions. If we want to answer the concerns about globalisation, we need to make this a broad-based dialogue rather than keep it to an elite. We need the media to take part. This will only happen if the media sees a broad and diverse coalition supporting such an idea. A good start has been made by the creation in May 1999 of the Global Coalition World Democracy 2010, a multi-stakeholder coalition to promote a global dialogue on this issue. This coalition is focused solely on promoting a debate about the practical issues involved in peacefully building a world democracy.

It already has 300 member organisations and individuals from all continents, including Christian, Muslim and other religions, right and left, business and NGOs, youth and women, local authorities and parliamentarians, academics and athletes, as well as the traditional peace groups. We are in the process of inviting national governments, inter-governmental organisations and companies to join this unique and growing initiative to make the world a more democratic place.

You and your institution, whether you are a government, a business, an NGO or an academic or purely as an individual are invited to join this global coalition

We invite you to participate to be an agent of change, to promote this highly subversive but necessary idea: implementing a world democracy for a globalizing world.”

For more details about this Global Coalition World Democracy 2010 visit
http://www.worldcitizen.org/globalcoalition.shtml







BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE