Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
On UN Day Oct.24: What if a UN Parliamentary Assembly?
Share:
by worldlywise | October 22, 2009 at 08:43 pm
129 views | 26 Recommendations | 14 comments
Canada wouldn't be Canada without its parliament. And the world would be better with one.
What if we abolished Canada's Federal Parliament? After all, does it not duplicate the legislatures already found in every province? Without a federal parliament, the federal bureaucracy could be slashed as programs would be limited to those agreed by all provincial representatives and funded by voluntary contributions according to provincial GDP. Ontario and Quebec would have a veto over major projects. Disputes between provinces could be adjudicated by a non-mandatory national court to which the provinces could apply, or not. The federal army would be dissolved and replaced by provincial militias. Under such a new constitution which replaces federal government with a deliberative forum of sovereign provinces, would you recognize Canada and would there be peace, order and good government?
What if the European Union had never created a European Parliament? After World War II, millions of Europe's most productive young men and women had been killed; cities and infrastructure had been destroyed; huge debts were amassed; and ancient enmities still endured. But starting with the goal of "ever closer union", Europe transformed itself into a community with open borders, a common currency, a large trading bloc, and a shared identity among today's citizens who nonetheless retain unique national characteristics and cultural traditions.
The Europeans started with a seed that they nurtured - an assembly drawn from parliamentarians of member countries. Originally advisory in nature, this body was given legislative powers and converted to direct election in 1979. During the period of “Eurosclerosis” in the 1980s, this European Parliament (EP) played a key role in prodding decision-makers to overcome constitutional logjams. Through its questionings and special commissions, the EP kept bureaucrats and member governments on their toes, shined light on backroom processes, and provided mechanisms whereby citizens and NGOs could have direct influence. Without the help of a European Parliament, the economic, social and security advantages so compelling in attracting 27 states to the EU - and there are seven more currently waiting in line for admission - might never have materialized.
What if we created a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) that would begin the transformation of the UN from a deliberative forum into a global community? A UNPA could start as an advisory body -- a watchdog with moral clout -- that reviews the activities of the UN system, spurs needed reforms and nurtures a sense of global solidarity. Unlike current ambassadors to the United Nations, UNPA parliamentarians could not be fired by governments, would be accountable to citizens, and would be mandated to act according to conscience and the common good.
A UNPA could be created as a subsidiary body by the General Assembly under Article 22 without the approval of the Security Council and without reforming the UN Charter. Until direct elections can be held worldwide, national parliaments could elect MPs to the UNPA according to party ratio. This would mirror the evolution of the European Parliament where national parliaments served as ‘”electoral colleges” in the Parliament’s early years. Over time, the UNPA could gradually accrue co-decision powers over the the UN Budget, the election of the Secretary General, and the adoption of UN resolutions.
Since 2007, an international appeal for such an assembly (detailed at www.unpacampaign.org) has been endorsed by over 680 current national parliamentarians from 92 countries encompassing all the world's major regions. The Campaign is also supported by many prominent Canadians including John Turner, Lloyd Axworthy, Flora MacDonald, Ed Broadbent and Elizabeth May.
As currently constituted, the UN churns out much talk and files many reports. The addition of a democratic parliamentary body would give the UN more legitimacy to act at a time when millions of lives are at stake and earth's future is at risk.
Larry Kazdan is a council member of the World Federalist Movement-Canada.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (26)
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
israeli.agent
India
albertacowpoke
Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 03:28 on October 23rd, 2009
In theory this is a good idea and has been talked about a lot in the early 60s and 70s. In reality, we still have too many differences and conflicts in the world to make this a reality.
The original member state of the EU had more in common than there were differences and after years of wars and internal European strife, they realized that a Union was the only way forward.
Canada was an idea which became reality with the original four provinces creating a federal union. As the West opened up those territories were encouraged to join the federation, concluding with Newfoundland in 1949.
Until the world eliminates its differemce and hatred a World Parliament will continue to be a dream.
at 12:48 on October 23rd, 2009
At the end of WWII, after 6 years of intense propaganda, slaughter and devastation, the idea that French and Germans had much in common and could sit in the same European Parliament would have been unthinkable to most of their populations. Yet the Europeans did it anyway. So my response is that not only is a UN Parliamentary Assembly a good idea, but yes we can. Note also that we are starting with a consultative body that can prove its worth before it transforms into a full fledged parliament which would still share co-decision power with the General Assembly and Security Council. There will always be differences; a world parliament will help us bridge and manage them by means other than violence.
at 12:56 on October 23rd, 2009
Should we get attacked by space aliens to realize the dream of a world parliament?
.Agent.
at 14:00 on October 23rd, 2009
They could because of the US, the UK and Canada, for the most part. We set the conditions by winning WWII.
Yugoslavia. We couldn't set the conditions and when the Warsaw Pact fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, our military restored order with Canadians and others.
Talking didn't do it.
Parliaments to discuss is one thing.. Joint operations with command given to our troops or police to commanders who don't answer to our commander-in-chief is questionable.
The Frenchmen I knew in Milan during the Gulf War did not like American commanders telling the French what to do. For a temporary situation, I feel as the Frenchmen I knew did: I can accept it with objection as temporary.
Not OK to make it permanent unless we get to look at the world parliament constitution, and get to vote on it.
Canadians, do you realize that this loyalty to something higher beyond your nation, an institution, not a principle, smacks of the very reason that Canada exists?
Canada was the home of the people loyal to an unelected British king and became the home of "Americans" who didn't like the American Revolution left the newbie US to live in Canada. You are the nation of non-revolutionaries. We are the nation of revolutionaries.
Sometimes I wonder if you all up there are not still looking for a King George to be subject to.
at 13:48 on October 23rd, 2009
Well, this boy is dead agin' any world gummit tellin' me what to do. Just what we need, another level of government telling us what to do, or what not to do.
If the UN is any indication, a governing body at that level is an invitation to disaster. The smaller (relatively speaking) national governments of the world today can't govern what they are supposed to.
What makes anyone, short of the starry-eyed, think that a single entity made up of fallible men, has even a snowball's chance, of governing the world?
at 15:47 on October 23rd, 2009
Absolutely Hugh! Oh my goodness I can't imagine the corruption in a World Government.
The UN is certainly an indication. I wish we would get them off our terrain. Ron Paul was correct about this and has tried to get legislation about it.
Who really has the scrambled brains to think this should be even on a table ?
at 15:58 on October 23rd, 2009
The UN is plagued by the Veto right of the five wish make it what it is today. This veto right is fundamentally undemocratic and counter productive and does invite troubles such as corruption and lack of transparency.
The UN is not the problem in it self, The Nations with veto right are the main trouble here, why that veto right has to be abolished and the UN needs to be democratised and transparent for all.
Further the UN lacks to have a strong constitution and this in large part due to the Veto Nations.
at 10:59 on October 24th, 2009
Not the veto power of the Gang of Five that allows the muslim countries ignore UN Resolution 181, nor has the UN proven up to the task of enforcing any sort of lasting peace there. In fact, over a long period of time, it begins to look like the UN is an impediment to lasting peace in the region.
at 14:23 on October 23rd, 2009
We have city governments, provincial or state governments and a federal government. We have loyalties to each and would never consider abolishing any of them. There will be no problem with another level which exists anyways in the form of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the Security Council etc, except these are not democratic. So your choice is to introduce elements of democracy through a parliamentary body or continue with autocratic bureaucracies at the international level.
at 14:32 on October 23rd, 2009
WTO, World Bank, etc, gee, the phrase, "spawn of the devil" comes to mind.
So, American and European and Asian businessmen get together to form a "Mafia" of the world's trading partners, and take a "blood oath", not to their nation, but to the trading court of the WTO to honor and respect its decisions and get their countries to sign away their rights to make up their own laws about stuff such as whether tuna can be sold in stores that was caught in nets that allowed dolphins to be killed so we can have "parity".
You love that Trojan Horse, don't you?
at 14:33 on October 23rd, 2009
WTO, World Bank, etc, gee, the phrase, "spawn of the devil" comes to mind.
So, American and European and Asian businessmen get together to form a "Mafia" of the world's trading partners, and take a "blood oath", not to their nation, but to the trading court of the WTO to honor and respect its decisions and get their countries to sign away their rights to make up their own laws about stuff such as whether tuna can be sold in stores that was caught in nets that allowed dolphins to be killed so we can have "parity".
You love that Trojan Horse, don't you?
at 15:38 on October 23rd, 2009
The only way to peace, justice and equality through out the World is true a United World Parliament based on the EU model and going even further then the EU does today.
at 19:16 on October 23rd, 2009
OK. How to do that? It cannot be imposed, Paschen.
at 13:17 on October 24th, 2009
The social, economic and security benefits of the EU are so attractive that there are currently 27 members and seven more lining up to get in, desperate not to be kept out. So it only needs to be offered, not imposed. And that is why the modest step of starting a consultative body at the UN is so important - it will start the process and momentum of building a global community where people recognize that all will be better off with institutional methods of co-operation rather than the national rivalries that currently exist. There are too many wars, too many hungry people, too much damage to the environment. The world is too small these days to shrug and say "Too bad - the hole is at your end of the boat".