Africa Realigns for the SDGs with a Single ePassport

African Unity comes Full-Circle

The African Union has realigned itself as a single global power that we may want to call the United States of Africa. The African Union as of last week now consists of all of the African countries including Morocco which had left the union several years ago and now rejoined this year. The African Union (AU) has a universal flag, a parliament, a motto, an anthem and now, as of today, a single passport for its now 55 member states, making it the largest unified continental territory in the world.

The passport and the revitalized unification agenda is being developed to create a new sense of identity and autonomy for its 55 member nations. The AU Summit which has been going on since July 10th took the actions to create domestic continental trade, eliminate corruption, create equality, develop cooperation, protect Africa's resources and remove trade barriers between nations. The summit also targeted steps towards a single currency and banking system, currently there are 42 different types of currency in use.

President Barack Obama form the United States and President Xi Jinping of China both fully support the AU with economic programs. China's president went as far to contact the summit while in progress to offer 60 billion in 2016 and 2017 to promote cooperation and development programs. Obama traveled there in person to see what was going on in Africa and to support them in his effort to create an international trade partnership. (Read more - Washington Post)

A United and Strong Africa

Their motto expresses the common desires planted over 53 years ago when the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) began its formation and walk towards their current agenda when it was reformed into the African Union (AU) in 2002.

The African continent is the most resource rich place on the earth, it accounts for just over 20% of the earth's land mass making it the second largest continent and is also the second most populous continent. A great majority of the resources are untapped, undiscovered and underutilized making it an excellent opportunity for global migration and sustainable resettlement of new residents and citizens.

Unlike European countries that are rejecting immigrants the AU welcomes new immigration and advancement of their civil societies so they are focusing on creating safety and security for would-be international settlers.

Much like the European Union (EU) and the Mercosur Union in South America the new agenda of the AU is focused on promoting wise use of sustainable resources, free-trade between African nations, and open migration within Africa. Moving from Zimbabwe to Angola will someday soon be as simple as moving from California to Texas in the USA.

Completely the opposite of Brexit the African Union creates a whole new dynamic in unity and puts all all the colonialist states and republic trading schemes which have abused the African nations resources as individual countries into a different perspective, because all the current international treaties with individual nations will be revised (many cancelled) to deal with the new continental super-nation Africa.

We can probably also expect to see military, commerce, non-profits, banks, education to all converge to single continental standard laws, customs, a single currency, and a great reduction in corruption at national levels.  

One Passport for Continental Commerce and Global Travel

The greatest immediate action that will be realized is that the African Union will begin almost immediately to issue e-passports and establish open continental trade and commerce. The new passports will be issued under a single authority of the AU. In their press release they said, "This flagship project, first agreed upon in 2014, falls squarely within the framework of Africa’s Agenda 2063 and has the specific aim of facilitating free movement of persons, goods and services around the continent - in order to foster intra-Africa trade, integration and socio-economic development."

The epassport being developed meets all the international standards and requirements defined by the ICAO and enforced by INTERPOL and members states of the United Nations at their ports. The passport that is being rolled out now for the AU citizens uses biometric identity fields, all passport holders will be able to travel, migrate and do business freely Africa wide. 

AU or United States of Africa

They will probably never call it the United States of Africa because the acronym USA is already taken, but nonetheless do not take the words 'united' and 'states' for granted; the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mejicanos)   The objectives of the AU are:

1. To achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and Africans.
2. To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States.
3. To accelerate the political and social-economic integration of the continent.
4. To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples.
5. To encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
6. To promote peace, security, and stability on the continent.
7. To promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance.
8. To promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments.
9. To establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations.
10. To promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies.
11. To promote co-operation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African peoples.
12. To coordinate and harmonize the policies between the existing and future Regional Economic Communities for the gradual attainment of the objectives of the Union.
13. To advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, in particular in science and technology.
14. To work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent.

The Stateless Global Citizen

The Global Citizen without a Country?

by Daniel E. Ritchie
within Culture, Education, Foreign Affairs

Today’s global citizenship movement emphasizes human rights disconnected from the history of any particular nation and without a clear conception of human nature.

Within a few years of the September 11 attacks, anyone on a university campus could observe the steady growth of programs and institutes promoting global citizenship. By 2009, a number of my students on a study-abroad trip to the Middle East preferred to be known as global citizens rather than Americans. President Obama, who had proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” the previous summer, was inaugurated the night we climbed Mount Sinai, and even the brand of water we purchased at the summit— “Baraka”—seemed to proclaim a new world order.

Of the top fifty U.S. News & World Report national universities, 60 percent have programs that identify or describe themselves in terms of global citizenship. So do over half of the top twenty-five colleges. Nearly all of these programs were founded or re-branded since 2001. This is remarkable, but understandable: who would deny that we have responsibilities to the rest of the world, or that we have loyalties beyond our own country? Who doesn’t want our universities to teach more effectively about the rest of the world?

The promise of global citizenship is as expansive as the rhetoric at the opening of a new session at the UN. Unfortunately, it’s often just as empty. To re-phrase H. Richard Niebuhr, this movement often imagines that citizens without countries will bring humans without a nature into society without culture through laws without foundation.

Thomas Paine

Citizens without Countries

Actual citizenship entails formal membership in a particular political community with legally defined rights and duties. We quarrel over what citizenship means in the US because we have a common vocabulary to describe that membership. By contrast, you can easily lose your path upon entering the thicket of theory that marks the language of the global citizenship movement.

In their 2002 book Global Citizenship, Nigel Williams and John Dower define the global citizen as a member of the wider community of all humanity, or some whole that is wider than that of a nation-state. This membership involves a significant identity, loyalty, or commitment beyond the nation-state.

The global citizen who gets the highest praise typically works for a secular nongovernmental organization (NGO) such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, or Doctors Without Borders. But the definition would also apply to the adherents of any world religion and to many employees of multinational corporations.

Still, none of these people has actual political membership in a global community where he must “rule and be ruled,” as Aristotle described the citizen. Religions and NGOs are not self-sufficient. Their members don’t have to debate policies that radically affect everyone in the community where they live. Above all, members’ participation is voluntary, unlike that of a citizen. Their loyalties may be “dissolved by the fancy of the parties,” to quote Edmund Burke’s critique of the revolutionary notion of citizenship in France. In short, they may contribute to the civil society of one nation, or several, but they are not “citizens” of any global entity—and some of the theorists admit as much.

The problem is not that the movement uses the term “citizenship” loosely. The problem comes from its view that citizenship in an actual country is merely arbitrary or contingent.

Theorists of global citizenship often appeal to Diogenes’ famous declaration: “I am a citizen of the world.” Like him, they deny that any actual political community can compete with their allegiance to universal human rights and global justice. But in fixing a gulf between the temporal and the universal or spiritual, they often fall into that classic Western temptation: Gnosticism. For them, the place of one’s birth is merely accidental—“morally irrelevant,” to use Martha Nussbaum’s phrase.

As their critics point out, they place little value on the legal, social, and cultural histories of the countries that have protected the rights and established the social benefits they champion. Instead, their faith is in lists of principles that will be carried out sometime in the future.

When looking for a paradigmatic world citizen, these writers often point to Thomas Paine, Burke’s most famous antagonist. “My attachment is to all the world,” he wrote, “and not to any particular part.” Paine was good at stirring up the revolutionary spirit in 1776, but John Adams rapidly concluded that Paine had “a better hand at pulling down than building.” Eager to drum up American support for the revolution in France, Paine tried unsuccessfully to win George Washington over to the cause.

As an honorary French citizen, Paine accepted a seat in the National Assembly, despite his poor understanding of the language. Thrown into prison during the Terror, he blamed Washington for not springing him free. It seems that the world citizen was now claiming American citizenship and the rights pertaining thereunto.

Paine’s story captures the problem perfectly. If you’re attached to the entire world, you needn’t even learn the language of the country you’re legislating for. But if you get in trouble, complain to Washington.

Humans without a Nature

It’s impossible to read the material on global citizenship without respecting its adherents’ commitment to human rights, peace, and global access to education, medicine, clean water, and food. 

Yet theory is the lifeblood of the global citizenship movement, and that theory is usually abstracted from actual practices and particular societies. “The core of the cosmopolitan moral orientation,” writes Luis Cabrera, “is that individuals, not states, nations, or other groupings, are morally primary.” That often means individuals are considered apart from their actual, social lives.

Edmund Burke

The world would no doubt be a much better place if all political, social, and civil rights were respected. But to quote Burke again:

this sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgot his nature. Without opening up one new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stopping up those that lead to the heart.

Burke’s politics, like Aristotle’s, follow from his concept of human nature. Aristotle wrote that the good human life could not be attained outside political communities. Rulers must therefore be concerned for the virtue of citizens. Burke agrees: only in civil society is man capable of achieving “the perfection of which his nature is capable.”

“Human nature,” “perfection,” “virtue”: these terms rarely come up in discussions of global citizenship. But without a common language for inquiring into the nature of humanity as something other than an arbitrary social construct, how can we agree on human rights?

Society without Culture

Like Thomas Paine, most theorists of global citizenship have little interest in the complexities of the actual societies and governments that mediate between the individual and the universal community. One can read book after book on global citizenship without learning anything about any particular culture.

This paradox has its source in “the cosmopolitan orientation” that Cabrera described: the individual is morally primary, not the nation or any other grouping. Unfortunately, in seeking to create sympathy for individuals around the world, cosmopolitanism systematically devalues the affection that most people have for their home culture.

Once again, the contrast with the career of Edmund Burke could not be more revealing. Although Burke’s fame rests on his criticism of the French Revolution, his last fourteen years in Parliament were equally concerned with Britain’s mistreatment of the peoples of India. To that end, Burke led an impeachment effort against the Governor-General of Bengal, Warren Hastings.

Burke became intensely interested in the land and peoples of India; he studied the Qur’an, pored over maps, examined Muslim and Hindu sources of law, and hosted the high-caste Brahmin who came to Britain to plead the case of the Mahratta people.

Creating sympathy for India was difficult. In his India speeches, Burke stresses similarities between Indian and British customs as seen in particular religious, social, or legal practices. By pointing out the affinities between the customs of British and Indian cultures, Burke tried to pass along the sympathy for India that he had begun to feel. At a deeper level, he argued that when customs and laws benefit a people, however alien they appear to us, they show their faithfulness to the underlying natural law that governs the cosmos.

Burke’s appeals to natural law, Providence, and justice are inseparable from the actual laws, customs, and misdeeds of people, both in Britain and India. His globalism is the opposite of that of the contemporary global citizen. Burke finds the universal embodied in the actual practices of citizens and the natural expressed in local customs. Burke did not conceive of India as an inferior, exotic “other.” It was precisely his attachment to cherished British cultural forms that enabled him to see the value of India’s analogous but different traditions.

Law without Foundation 

For Burke, sympathy moves from the heart to the understanding by way of the moral imagination. Particular, embodied persons and institutions come first, along with the affection and sympathy they create.

From his earliest writings on Ireland, Burke’s thought derives its moral power from his belief in the rational order established by God for the providential guidance of the cosmos. At the end of his four-day speech at the opening of Hastings’ impeachment, Burke concludes:

I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed . . . I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights and liberties he has subverted . . . I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of justice which he has violated. I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured and oppressed, in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation and condition of life.

Burke begins with the specific “parliamentary trust” that Hastings has betrayed and only then moves to the “eternal laws of justice.” His principles are general, but they are not abstracted from the situation in which they arise. They are universal but, unlike the French revolutionaries’ language of rights, they cannot be disembodied from their social context.

Reading the theorists of global citizenship is a different experience in every way. They reject the rational, divinely ordered cosmos of Burke. Like other postmodern thinkers, they are skeptical of narratives that try to describe a society’s history over time. They consistently downgrade our obligations to the communities into which we are born. Instead, they put forward lists of principles (equal worth, autonomy, etc.) that aspire to universal acceptance and binding obligation. Once we depreciate the ways in which actual societies have justified their laws and traditions, however, it’s hard to imagine much enthusiasm for founding a global society on such general principles.

A rare exception to this approach is Kwame Anthony Appiah. Like Burke, Appiah reflects critically and sympathetically on various stories, customs, and images from his past. Raised in Ghana, Appiah’s cosmopolitanism is rooted in conversations with people about particular novels, histories, films, and works of art and philosophy—not in abstract principles. His few universal beliefs seem to arise naturally from these conversations. Like Burke in his India speeches, he provides a model of listening to voices from other cultures, of optimism that a generous mind can gain moral guidance from them, and of affection for the people, institutions, and customs he encounters along the way.

When I returned to Egypt in 2012, a year after the January 25 revolution, I heard nationalistic language and saw nationalistic imagery. I didn’t miss the absence of global rhetoric, but I would have felt more optimistic about the future if these affections had lined up with the second half of Burke’s approach—an underlying order that goes beyond Egyptian politics or an Islamic society.

Obviously, successful legal reforms in any contemporary country would differ from anything Burke had in mind. Still, his way of going about that task has much to teach our cosmopolitan age. Ultimately, he passes down to us an embodied version of a familiar phrase: love your neighbor as you love yourself. We cannot do better than that.

Daniel E. Ritchie is Professor of English at Bethel University in Minnesota. This article was written with research assistance from Amy Riggins. They would like to thank the Edgren Scholarship Fund of Bethel University for research support.

Original publication by Daniel E. Ritchie, September 4th, 2014. Re-published by Globcal International as a significant article on the topic of global citizenship.

Are you a social dissident or a civil society advocate?

I read an email this morning that asked me if I were a dissident of society, since I consider myself a revolutionary (re-evolutionary or re-voluntarist) which is often confused with 'dissident' so I decided to read it through. At least in my mind "dissident" is the complete opposite, so it was a psych trigger response, it is the revolutionaries that bring positive changes, dissidents are usually abstainers or objectors, they could be lots of other things too like alcoholics, pessimists, or drug addicts.

Dissidents today are also those who promote the status quo and refute positive and otherwise needed change. Have you ever heard the quote, "If you are not part of the solution then you are the problem." that would be a dissident too. But maybe dissent can be good? Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

George Washington, Ben Franklin, Francisco Miranda, Thomas Paine and Jefferson were all great revolutionary leaders, all very liberal and progressive, the monarchs definitely saw them as dissidents. Today we enjoy modern revolutionaries including Barack Obama, George Bush, the Dalai Lama, Queen Elizabeth, and Pope Francis who have all been revolutionary in their own ways forging major global changes, among their constituencies, and with other world leaders that will affect everyone's future on the planet indefinitely. None of them were ever considered dissidents though.

The global struggle to separate the church from the state is an ongoing one, cooperative global governance remains a top-priority in the United Nations to establish global universal equality among all people. Prejudice, politics, discrimination, fundamentalism, and intolerance for personal freedoms under a global understanding continue to plague humanity. Many fear corporate governance and fascism, that's the category I fall into.

I am a goodwill ambassador not a dissident, or can I be both?

Goodwill defined means friendly, helpful, or cooperative feelings or attitude. "the plan is dependent on goodwill between the two sides" synonyms: benevolence, compassion, goodness, kindness, consideration, charity; cooperation, collaboration; friendliness, amity, thoughtfulness, decency, sympathy, understanding, neighborliness "your acts of goodwill have not gone unnoticed"

The subject line in the email read, "Are you some kind of dissident? Personally I am not, but I soon realized when reading it that many of my friends may be in some way from my perspective; this is because they are not in sync with the changes, indisposed, uninterested, or just too self-centered (ego-isolated) struggling to survive and pursue a decent life, I can't blame them for that, but I often pity them as victims of the matrix instead of its playing characters. They have little time to take to understand all the changes that are really occurring (now so quickly) in and all over the world or how our futures are connected in a single sustainable global ecosystem.

Making the change we want is required of all people living in a society or community. Being a responsible member of society also means being informed, getting involved, and showing personal goodwill!

It said in the email: "Some of us might like to call ourselves the more positive-sounding "civil society advocates" - which seems to be a label popping up at the Summit of the Americas​ now going on in Panama​. Being a "civil society advocate" is positively tame and a helluvalot less aggressive than being an "activist" or "agent of change" or than being an underground-sounding "agent of resistance", let alone being a system-changing "revolutionary"." -Sustainability Doings, Newsletter

Time for Change?

Are you in tune with the mostly "untalked about" "big changes" occurring in the heart of all political and economic circles? Are you ready for big changes to make the world a better place?

Do you find yourself or know someone preoccupied or more worried than they should be about sports scores, fashion, and other nonsense or caught up in local political strife, religion, and over human rights at the state level? Forget about national politics, the only globally accepted laws are the new course of the day. Many years and great pain of labor developed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Declaration on Sustainable Development, they are all global treaties nations collectively have ratified under the UN that must be adhered to in order to establish the kind of world we want. It is difficult to see the sensibility of some of these perspectives like human rights, indigenous peoples, or the environment when we find ourselves embroiled and clouded in less relevant politics like who will be the next president, governor, or mayor.

All elected officials need to comply and respect the same global international laws since established whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or from the People's Party unless they decide to separate from the rest of the world. The only change anyone can make anymore is in favor of these laws. We ratified the first Universal Human Rights law in the 1940's, nations still today have not fully complied with its measures or been able to fully implement it. Perhaps local politics has to do with expedience, which candidate will do a better job, personally I see it is a waste of time, a political official that does not do a good job will be sacked and removed by his own people. The global international system is always fair and based on pretext of many nations, best practices, equality for all people, the laws provide equal administration.

The only way we can really see or understand one may need or want to remove themselves (or part of yourself) from the nation to empower your voice globally and become more capacitated from an international perspective. Study and observe the developments at international level summits and events, like the Summit of the Americas this Friday. Then decide if you want to adopt a new perspective and enfranchise yourself in the international perspective and globalization.

We should all be concerned more with the whole planet than with just our community? Personally I am more concerned with the global aspect, everyone I know today lives someplace else in different countries, including my children and friends; its only natural that I am concerned with the whole planet.

I have a strong sense for all of us to be equal in some way, with equal good fortune, and prosperity under equal collaboration and work efforts that are earnest to grow and flourish in life, no matter what country we live in. These sentiments are at the root of society everywhere within most people on the planet, it's not a national ideal. So how do we get there?

Sustainability is at the heart of all this in case you did not know! Its also the solution through international cooperation. Our global compliance with a pact made by 178 nations in 1992 called Agenda 21 and the development of a resource based economy in a balanced and ecologically sustainable planet scheme is under implementation everywhere on the earth, every nation 180 of them now as of 2012. How it is actually implemented and applied though is the controversial part, and managed under each nation, often corruptly. No matter how you look at it, you are hard pressed to understand "any of it" very well from a nationalistic perspective and may find yourself on the unfortunate or unwilling side of it with a different perspective as a "subject of the changes" we must all yield to as a dissident, instead of promoting a better tomorrow.

Change is the Only Constant

Become part of all of these changes now. Remember, "the future belongs to those who prepare for it!" Get informed, get involved, become a key person in building a balanced sustainable planet and ecosystem where there is no fear or uncertainty, let us create balance. Use your best abilities, your goodwill, to render justice personally in overseas missions and international exchange programs making the world better for everyone.

Today you can now become a global citizen or perhaps even become a goodwill ambassador through Globcal International's special programs like the "Global Citizenship Registry". Global citizenship is a legal status and process developed by Globcal providing special benefits that are available to individuals when traveling promoting goodwill through advocacy and education. It is 100% legal, provides new dual and multiple citizenship opportunities, and is exclusive through our special international pilot program being observed by the United Nations and other international organizations.

I think people really need some real positive change, especially if they have been held down to the system or one place with no real logical ties; or especially if they don't like their current job.

What I notice is that so many people with great skills and abilities, with grand motivations to travel and work globally feel trapped wasting their lives being held in place by family members or through obligations, debts, and financial uncertainty. I say take a chance and dedicate yourself to world service. You do not have to go on a mission right away, there are many things you should know, learn, and must prepare for.

Globcal International

Globcal International sees the future, a globalized future based on local cooperation at an international level, many countries, nations, states, cultures, and people all integral parts of a global world. We see well-intentioned private individuals united through a "cloud of consciousness," through many thousands of organizations effecting positive change (thinking similarly) to ease the pain of change, and giving their goodwill to make change happen.

Industrialized everything was seen many years ago as our own doom, but we were already on the roller-coaster. In 1970 we created Earth Day to be a wake-up call for our ecological downfall, for as long as we have known that we were harming the planet, corporations and governments have been on a spree to claim and dominate the world's remaining resources.

Currently we are seeking global citizens, new ambassadors, social media activists, and reform advocates to promote environmental projects involving international cooperation, ecotourism, sustainability education, and much more. Our goal is to be the change we want to see and teach others our vision.

If you think you can see the world from a different perspective, if you can maintain a non religious, non political, and nongovernmental stance over global issues please contact us and get involved. We have special opportunities for associate, annual and lifetime members with additional programs for volunteers. Be the change you want to see, be part of the future and not a subject of it; join the cooperative. To learn more write to: goodwillembassy@gmail.com

This is a commentary article by Col. David Wright, Col. Wright is a co-founder and chairman of the Globcal International Cooperative Development Commission founded in 2009 during the Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad, this month is their 6th anniversary. For more information about Globcal International or the author please use Google. Opinions and comments may be directed to goodwill@globcal.net 

Global Citizenship

An Ideal of Necessity 

by Herbert London February 24, 2014

When President Obama visited Berlin a couple of years ago he raised the prospect of an idea that circulated throughout the twentieth century: world citizenship. Eminentos such as H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell contended that unless humanity embraced this notion, it is doomed.

Whether this idea has veracity or not is beside the point since the president believes that trans-national progressivism, a form of world government, is the impetus for his foreign policy positions. It explains in part why he has channeled key foreign policy matters through the United Nations and why he maintains the U.S. is neither more nor less exceptional than any other nation.

Universities have climbed aboard this ideological bandwagon arguing that the world's great challenges demand a global perspective (read: world citizenship). What these programs do not answer is the obvious question: As a global citizen, to whom do I pledge allegiance? Moreover, as a global citizen what entity protects my rights? From whom do I obtain a passport? And on whose laws should I depend?

If a national allegiance is eliminated, how is one identified in this global melting pot? Clearly this is one of those utopian ideas that only a group of scholars can take seriously. However, in Washington circles it has gained traction through the voices of Dean Koh, Amy Gutman, Ann Marie Slaughter, among others. There is a well entrenched belief that American interest should be subordinate to an abstract international interest. The discussion of the Treaty of The Seas, to cite one example, falls into this category since our rivals, in this case Russia and China, pursue their national goals and the U.S. reiterates global goals.

This mind set reminds me of Samuel Butler's novel Erehwon (Nowhere spelled backwards). It is the name of a country discovered by the novel's protagonist. But in essence, it is a utopia - a place that exists solely in the human imagination. In most respects, it is very much like "the citizen of the world," an idea that sounds reasonable but is utterly absurd and unworkable.

For advocates of this viewpoint, global citizenship is a way to transform America, to change the idiosyncratic idea of this republic into an amalgam of ideas borrowing from variegated sources. The curriculum in most colleges is moving in this direction. NYU, for example, contends that the "traditional state-to-state mindset may be at odds with the realities of our increasingly globalized planet."

A case can be made for economic issues that transcend geographic boundaries. Pneumonia in Europe causes a cold in North America. However, social and political matters are largely national and those attempts at post-national enterprises such as the European Union, have a dubious history and uncertain future.

There is little doubt a world government will not soon be upon us unless, of course, Islam conquers the world or China's notion of the Middle Kingdom gains ascendency. But there is a valid concern about procedural policy issues that rely on global principles. To cite yet another example: A recent Supreme Court decision, presumably guided by the U.S. Constitution, relied on a precedent in Zimbabwe's Courts. Even if the precedent is useful, this globalized viewpoint has serious implications for the future of American jurisprudence.

One need not be narrowly nationalistic to assume world government and its global citizens are a fantasy most likely realized as dystopia. Unfortunately the advocates of this notion have penetrated the porous walls of the Academy and have even influenced those in the corridors of influence and power.

Herbert London is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the President of the London Center for Policy Research. He is president emeritus of Hudson Institute and author of the book The Transformational Decade (University Press of America).

Family Security Matters Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

World Leaders Coalition to be Launched on Facebook by Globcal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

International Online Newsfeeds, Thursday, June 18, 2009 -- The World Leaders Coalition is scheduled to initiate its activities on Facebook through Globcal and its groups; the "Facebook People's Embassy" and "Facebook Diplomatic Corps" this Fall. The coalition group consists 32 world leaders and up to 450 other global role models that include movers and shakers like; Nobel prize winners, former presidents, current heads of state, and many well known celebrities currently serving as goodwill ambassadors for the United Nations, the European Union, and other noteworthy organizations and efforts.

The world leaders featured in the program include US President Barack Obama, Brazilian President Lula Da Silva, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Argentina President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, and other European, African, Latin American, Caribbean, and Asian Leaders, including the Presidents of China and India. There are also religious and political leaders involved based on the non-conflict peace based coalition message campaign they will support together. Some of the goodwill ambassadors include Oprah Winfrey, Angelina Jolie, Elton John, Sting, and many more.

These leaders and motivated personalities are united through their base public alignment, common beliefs, causes, and similar idealism on certain matters including human rights, organized labor, peace, anti-corruption, cooperation, fair-trade and more. The program is an interactive cross-platform communications sub-network that allows transparency between the extremes using agents (ambassadors) as intermediaries.

It is from the Facebook People's Embassy that anyone on Facebook can communicate with ambassadors from its diplomatic corps whom will be representing the World Leaders Coalition.

The Facebook People's Embassy program ambassadors are assigned for each geopolitical and cultural niche to include most social circles, groups of people, and geo-regions, these Ambassadors are given the privilege to directly post a weekly dispatch and communicate directly with these all of the world leaders collectively. Ambassadors post their weekly dispatch based on their communications in the Embassy and from the special Ambassador pages assigned and authorized by Globcal on local and global matters presented by their constituencies. Dispatches are presented under strict protocols and ambassadors are trained to be familiar with presentation rules and writing style.

The Facebook People's Embassy and the World Leader's Coalition will become fully operational on Facebook beginning in September or October. Their programs and development will be done through the Globcal Cooperative which is developing the contacts and interface for the cross-platform application that permits this facilitated communication that results in "power to the people."

Globcal is working with the Facebook People's Embassy to find, qualify, and train many more ambassadors from many countries, groups, and organizations to feed the World Leader's Coalition communications Dispatch. Since much of the development work is done on a spare time and volunteer basis much additional assistance is also still needed to accrue content for the base website as well.

To follow the news and stay informed join the Embassy and become a Fan of the Globcal page on Facebook. Outside of Facebook you can keep up with new developments by bookmarking Globcal.Org or subscribing to the Globcal blog at Blogger.

For more information contact: Col. David Jeffrey Wright, Founder and Project Developer, Facebook People's Embassy (formerly MUNSNE) in Caracas, Monday through Friday at +58(212)516.03.61 or write to embassy@globcal.org

-30-

The final list of participant leaders will be amended to this article no later that June 19, 2009.