World federalism and peace….

 

 

EXCERPTS

 

 

From Interview with Stephen Gill by Dr. Prof. Jaydeep Sarangi, appeared in The Atlantic Literary Review, July-Sep. & Oct.-Dec. 2004, Vol 5, No. 3-4, pages 164-183

 

J.S.      You talk of world citizenship in your writing. Don’t you think it as more abstract and theoretical than anything else?

 

S.G. The idea  of world citizenship is not  abstract.   I  have developed this idea in my poetry,  have written  about it in  my  fiction and  have given talks and discussed it on radio and TV.  A selection  of these appearances has  been put together  in a two-hour DVD, titled Interviews of Stephen Gill.  I have  reflected on this subject  also in the introductions to Anti-War Poems, parts one and two, released by Vesta in 1984 and 1986.

       Thinkers and social reformers have been talking of  world citizenship  for centuries. In the initial stages every idea is abstract. When people saw the denizens of the air, they began to think of  flying. Man has reached the moon and  is striving now  to go beyond. In the same way, people saw creatures  in the sea. Man has now means to touch and sail  at   the bottom of these oceans.  Take the cases of some nations. This  idea appeared abstract  when the leaders wanted to form the United States of America (USA).  Now it is  reality. When people talked about uniting the entire Europe, the idea seemed to be  abstract. Now  Europe has its own currency,  and  its own parliament.

       The idea of world citizenship is no more abstract, because the world has already been shrunk to a city. In nearly every home there are goods from different corners of the world, including  computers, clothes,  shoes, cameras, medical supplies, cars and other electronic and non electronic goods. In the matter of taste and foods the world is one. Electronic devices spread the news in every  corner of the world within minutes. Emails and telephone systems have united the world.

       Humans are breathing in a world that has been reduced to a city, but this city is without its own council or parliament and its mayor.  That is why there is chaos everywhere. We need a democratically elected world government to take care of  this city.  One major step  that would  lead to world peace is  control  of  the international anarchy through  international government.

       The United Nations Organization is a sort of world government but it has some  defects. It is not effective because its representatives are not directly elected by their governments; it has veto power that is undemocratic; it has no way to raise its own finances through taxes; it has no judiciary with power; and above all, it  does not  have its own military force.   

 

J.S. Can you list a few important world personalities who support the idea of one-world government.

 

S.G.  A few utopian or crazy individuals have not launched the movement for a world government. Rather the concerned citizens of the world, including Winston Churchill, Charles DeGaule, Clement Attlee, Indira Gandhi, Lester  Pearson, Leopold Stenghor, Jawaharlal Nehru, Pierre Trudeau, Carlos Romulo, and Bertrand Russell, have supported this movement.

      Jawaharlal Nehru once said,  AI have long believed the only way peace can be achieved is through world government.@ Winston Churchill said, A unless some effective supranational government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects of peace and human progress are dark and doubtful.@ Pope John xx111 in April 1963, speaking to the world said that  the UN might eventually become Aa strong world authority.@ He argued that a supernational authority must be considered.@

       English author and actor Peter Ustinov once said, A World Government is not only possible, it is inevitable; and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritage so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good.@ Above all, there is the Nobel Prize winning scientist Harold C. Urey. He was instrumental in producing the first atomic and hydrogen bombs. He died  in California at the age of 87. He dropped most of his nuclear research expressing concern that this power would destroy the world. He admitted   Awe may not be able to secure a world government, but we will not solve the problems of peace vs. war by any other means whatsoever.@ .

       The idea of forming one-world government has been advocated also by  scientific romance  writer H.G. Wells and   Alfred  Tennyson, a  poet  of  the Victorian Age. I have discussed H.G. Wells in detail in my book Scientific Romances of H.G. Wells.  Both  writers envisage a global parliament in their works. AIn Wells=s  The War in the Air (1908) scientific progress leads to a cataclysmic war, which is followed by all sorts of miseries. This makes people aware of the futility of wars, and the necessity to constitute an international parliament to ameliorate the human predicament and to avert future disasters. Wells elaborates the same view in The World Set Free@ that was released in 1914 (p. 135).

 

J.S.      How  the  world government can make the world a better place to live?

 

S.G.     Nearly every country has been preparing  itself  for wars against real and imaginary enemies. Even the poorest nations are spending their hard-earned  foreign currencies on explosive to boost their  national pride. This waste ought to be eliminated. Moreover, these  preparations  for  war  lead to unnecessary tensions with  their neighbors.

       National  governments have been formed to render certain services to their citizens. One of them is to  protect life and property of their  people. In other words, they give security. But when all  national governments become sovereign  with no authority to control them and when they start  arming themselves  to give security to  their citizens from external aggression, the natural outcome is war. The sovereignty of several states leads to clashes. The United Nations has failed to prevent several wars because it recognizes the sovereign rights  of  national governments and resists interference in their domestic matters.

       Not only  is there  waste in the presence of  unethical national governments, there is also the  real danger of the annihilation of modern civilization through the  use of nuclear weapons. It took centuries to build this civilization and now  it may take minutes to destroy it. History tells us that every weapon that was invented has been used. Therefore, the nuclear weapons are likely  to be used on a  large scale. I have written several poems on  world annihilation through the weapons of mass destruction.

      National governments have failed  to solve  serious life-threatening problems, including international terrorism. Other problems include, hunger, pollution, and  weakening of  the layer of the ozone that filters out most of the harmful radiation of the sun. The damage to ozone layer will not affect  only one country. It is a concern of all humankind. Ozone is like a roof over the airship, inhabited by all  of the human race. Ocean pollution also threatens the existence of human life. Pesticide, lead, arsenic, oil spills, radioactive and several forms of  wastes present danger to the world=s ocean system.

       Just  in case of pollution only, no  single  nation can cope with this problem. Sweden with the hardest antipollution laws has discovered that it cannot solve their problem on a national basis. The Baltic Sea  is being poisoned by pollution from other countries, and it gets acid rain that can be traced back to British factories. These are international problems and the world needs an international authority to solve them.

       If there  were  a democratically  elected  world government, national  governments  would l  not be allowed to have their military power. They  would l have  a  police force to maintain law and order situations like the cities  are allowed  in  any country. The military force would be under the world government only. The citizens of the world will feel  safer this way.

      These steps will make the world a  better place to live  and also save money by eliminating waste on national military budgets. This saved money will be used  to open more schools, colleges and universities, more hospitals and  grow more food. Scorching deserts will be changed into the smiling fields to produce crops. The money that would be saved would be used to eliminate diseases and poverty.

       The world government does not mean to get rid of national languages and cultures. Countries like India and Canada are already multicultural and multilingual. World citizenship is an extension of these realities.   If languages  and cultures can survive   in these and  in   other nations, they can survive  also under the  one-world government. World citizenship does not mean to stop loving one=s  country; world citizenship is to include everyone in the fold of its care for the sake of  human survival and the betterment of life.

        I  would  like to admit  that it is almost impossible to form any  democratically elected world government under the prevailing situation. At the same time the world cannot  attain  meaningful peace and prosperity  without an international authority to take control of the present anarchy. To reach this goal, the citizens of the world should be educated right from the early days of their lives.

 

========================================

 

From Pakistan Christian Post

 

PCP: Would you like to present your World Government idea? You have been delivering lectures on these issues? D you think it is  a form of new world order that was presented by the US decades ago?

Dr. Gill: My philosophy behind a World Government is to stop the future horrors and wastes.  My idea of a World government  is different from the new world order. I am fully convinced that the United Nations is a sort  of a world government though it needs to be improved. A world government would save  incredible amounts of money and energy that are being wasted by  nations to defend themselves against their imaginary foes. All the armed forces everywhere will come under the control of the world government. Countries will be allowed to keep police forces to maintain law and order situations.   When there are no expenditures for  nations to build their arsenals for their armies, the money of these countries would be saved. Those  savings of billions of dollars every years will be used to improve  health and education facilities  for  the  rehabilitation of poor, and  to work for a  better  and more peaceful life on earth. Every government will have equal powers and  right to vote in this democratically elected world government. The European common market that has united Europe,  the United States of America and several democracies  provide some sort of a blue print for a world government.  South Asian countries should learn from them to achieve  unity and better understanding through exchanges. The world is moving though  slowly toward the destination of one world government. We are living in a global village, but this village does not have a democratically elected mayor and councillors. In other words,  there is a global village, but this village has several national governments which are  pulling the rope of progress and peace in different directions. This situation  is hindering the cause of peace. We need a one government now. According to Darwin, there is evolution. There is  evolution also in the political and national spheres. The evolution will not stop. After the emergence of  national states, an international state is bound to emerge sooner or later. No body should stand  in the  way of this evolution. They will hinder its emergence. It is the time for every individual and nation to work for the formation of a democratically elected world government. At present, every citizen of the world should strengthen the hands of the United Nations because it may emerge as a real world government. Without the United Nations, the world would be in a more chaotic situation.

================================

 

From

IDEAS DON'T REPORT TO CUSTOMS BY Terry Koch, staff reporter

 

*Appeared in At Your Leisure, Ogdensburg,

New York, USA, Sunday, April 9, 1978

 

 

There is a poster on one wall of Stephen Gill's book-filled office…It reads "Only One Earth. One Way To Preserve It. World Federalism."

            Stephen Gill--novelist, poet, non-fiction writer, publisher and "citizen of the world"-- is a national director of World Federalists of Canada" and the editor of its small newspaper. There in Cornwall, where three borders (Ontario, Quebec and the United States) meet, at a time when the Quebecois talk of separatism and other Canadians stress national pride, Gill is doing his share to try to bring the world together under a single government. "A person who is born here or has become a citizen is proud," Gill said. "and that is good. But we should be proud of being human beings. Just to be proud of being English, Canadian, American, German...l'm against that."

            Gill's own experience has perhaps broadened his views. He was born and grew up in India. From there he moved to Ethiopia, where he taught until he moved on again, this time he migrated to England. Finality he travelled across the Atlantic to Canada, took citizenship, and settled in Cornwall.

            "I became a world federalist," he said, "before I became a "World Federalist."  I noticed that there was a double standard in the world. The people were the same everywhere. They were friendly but the governments were not."

 

World Federalism

            We believe the whole world is one country,"  Gill said. "We do not believe in artificial things like passports."   World Federalists are not shadowy men in trench-coats furtively passing out pamphlets from dark doorways in Ottawa's By-Ward Market. They are, said Gill, usually lawyers, doctors, writers and "what you might call intellectuals" pursuing their end through peaceful and democratic means, avoiding partisan politics and recruiting members from among the ranks of high elected officials of all political parties in many countries. Norman Cousins, former editor of the magazine Saturday Review, is a member. So is an MP from Windsor, Ontario.

            The  Canadian chapter has about 2,000 members and is headquartered in Ottawa. "We have not used the grassroots method", Gill said. "We are small but have a great deal of influence." World Federalists believe they can achieve their goal by strengthening and restructuring the United  Nations  until  it  becomes  a  world  federal  authority  with  strong powers.  They advocate disarmament through, among other things, unilateral initiatives, control of the arms trade and monitoring of the export of nuclear technology and equipment (Gill is against all use of atomic energy). They support a strong worldwide peacekeeping force with power to intervene even if  not  invited.

            They believe in the abolition of all national armies except for internal "police" purposes and promote compulsory stepwise negotiations to settle disputes between nations.  Although they back strong efforts toward insuring human rights in all countries, they do not support interfering with a country's economic system or in other internal matters.

 

 

What About Quebec?

            While Gill works his way toward World Federalism, virtually next door to him Quebec struggles with the idea of separatism. "World Federalists,"  he said, "are quite free on the Quebec issue. Many of us are for a form of (Canadian) federalism that does not allow for exploitation. The fanatic or extreme part of nationalism we don't approve of. It hinders world unity.

            "We are of course," Gill added, "for federation, but we don't involve ourselves in that issue because it is not important. We should think about other problems. If there is a third world war there won't be a Quebec or a Canada or a United States left."

            Driving a wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada is the language issue. Some World Federalists, Gill said, support and learn the use of an "international language" like Esperanto or Interlingua, "but it's not an issue we involve ourselves in. We have sympathy for it, but it is up to the people."

 

=======================================================================

 

 

From

LITTLE PUNJAB IN CANADA by Pritam Singh

 

*Appeared in Advance (India)

June 1990.

 

           

He is a crusader for peace and is closely associated with the movement of World Federalism. He is president of the Co-ordinating Council of Catalyst 87 Clubs of Canada E; and the first national officer to the Movement for Political World Union in Canada, headqurtered in the Hague, the Netherlands. He is also a former national vice-president of the World Federalists of Canada; Indo-Asian Association of Cornwall; and of the Multicultural Council of Stormont and Dundas. He edited the Canadian World Federalist newspaper for many years. According to Stephen Gill, "Art is beauty and I see real beauty in peace and l strive to bring it out in my writing, whether it is poetry or prose. No sensible person will deny that we are living on the mouth of a volcano. It took millions of years to build human civilisation, which nuclear warfare can destroy in minutes. No sane reader will endorse barbarity, and condemn peace and world unity, which are basic to all the religious and human survival. Peace allures me as does any beauty. To go one step further,  peace  and  beauty  are  identical  terms  for  me.  A poet expresses what produces a powerful impact on him. One of my obsessions is the danger imposed by the sophisticated engines of destruction, which have the capability to destroy the world many times over.  Man  seems  to exist only on this earth throughout the whole universe.  It will be catastrophe-- an  irreversible step-- if man annihilated himself."   In his poem  "The Dove of Peace", he laments:

 

For a long time

I have been hearing

the dove of peace will be freed,

shortly

and for that dove's total safety

cannons have been installed

over dead bodies,

flesh-famished weapons have flown,

dirge-chanting vultures set free.

Players are engaged in fire games,

robots thirsty now for more blood

and the Animal of Hostilities

is preparing the last dance.

 

============================================

               

 Every nation of the world is free and sovereign. You say often that  their sovereignty is  a danger to world peace. How it can be a danger?by Professor Anuradha Sharma.

 

From the interview that is being published in Prof. KV Dominic’s book Stephen Gill’s Poetry: A Panorma of Peace

 

A. National governments provide certain services to their citizens, including the  services for    protection of  life and property.  Problems arise when  governments become sovereign with no authority to control them. When every government starts arming itself to assure  security to its people from external aggression, real or imaginary, wars become inevitable. The security of the people is endangered when countries become sovereign and fully independent of one another. This leads to clashes among them.                                                                                        

 

Sovereignty or complete independence of national governments is the reason for the failure of  the UN  to prevent several wars. The UN recognizes the right of all the  nations of the world for self-determination and to resist interference by any foreign authority in their   domestic matters. As long as national governments remain  independent in the international arena, clashes are bound to arise. To stop those clashes, there have  to be some rules and laws for all the nations of the world to observe when they deal with one another. A parliament of  nations will make those laws which will define clearly the limitations of national governments. A democratically elected world parliament will see in the first place that such a situation does not arise. If it does, it  will deal with the warring nations appropriately. Armed clashes between nations have been taking place primarily because one of them is the aggressor and deceitful. Or the reason could be that the one nation wanted to swallow the land of the other nation.                                   

 

Presently, the world is like a large house  which is unsuitable for living because several workmen with the help of their individual plans and skills and without any design have built it.  The world has international institutions but there is no world authority to organize them. The world has become a global village, but this village is without its mayor and councilors. National governments have failed to bring sanity to the insane situation,  primarily because they are not based on the principal of cooperation and sharing for the good of others. Every nation thinks of its own citizens first.                                                                                                                            

If the world is to be turned into a safer place to live, it is vital to pass laws to control arms through legislation. Otherwise the demonic power of sophisticated arms that humans have created will destroy humans for ever. To avert this situation,  the world needs the next step in the development of human civilization and that is to form a democratic world government above all the national governments. If the law of the sea, the law of diplomatic immunity, the postal conventions and civil aviation can work, then the parliament of the nations can  also work.              

 

Space travel was not achieved in one day. Other scientific and technological discoveries were not made in minutes either. It took years of research and dedication. The same argument applies to this parliament of the world. After the formation of  nations, now is the time to form a world parliament. This does not mean that national governments will go away. It also does not means that  national languages and cultures will go away.  They all will continue to exist  as usual. The national governments, as provincial governments are at present, will have jurisdiction over their marked boundaries to enforce their sovereignty. These governments will hand over a part of their sovereignty to the international parliament to deal with international affairs.      

 

To maintain sovereignty, every nation at present has armed forces and intelligence  agencies. When a parliament of the world is formed, there will  not be  any need for them. At present, citizens are governed  by a set of laws framed by  their respective governments.  They will continue to be governed this way. However,  their national governments will be  governed by the government above them as provincial governments are governed by the federal government. The parliament of the world will restrict the powers of the national governments to produce and to arm themselves against any possible or imaginary aggression. Assurance against any aggression will be the domain of the world parliament. This is the way to make the world free from wars and to stop waste on arms preparation. This will save  billions of dollars that every nation can invest on schools, to open hospitals and to give better care to its citizens..

 

==================================================