EARTH FEDERATION NEWS                                    








June 11, 2021

 [The following recommendations for the upcoming Summit Meeting with Presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden are the product of discussions among a core group of international think tanks specializing in world peace, disarmament, and a federal geopolitical system change to transform the United Nations. -- R. Kotila, Ph.D.]



New Direction for Biden & Putin at the June 16, 2021 Summit


Dear Presidents Putin & Biden:


There is an urgent need for an inspiring, new direction at the upcoming June 16, 2021 Summit Meeting -- a different path that up until now most foreign policy experts have thought to be impossible -- until attention to the UN Charter's Article 109(3) opened new possibilities and the introduction of the Earth Constitution.    


Factually US/NATO and Russia appear to be gravitating toward war either by accident or design.  Tactical nuclear warfare is not out of the question. The Livermore Lab in California, for example, is suspected of working on first strike and tactical nuclear missiles/warheads.


The United Nations is unable to stop the emerging nuclear arms race, sidelined by its defective Charter and thus helpless when it counts the most -- a world in extreme danger if war breaks out between US/NATO and Russia.   Article 109(3) is a legal requirement for a review of the UN Charter, opening the door to establish a "new UN" and introducing the Earth Constitution.  


Under the present United Nations global system Presidents Biden and Putin are themselves victims, trapped by a geopolitical system which forces them to defend their country against secret operations by the Other, and requires them to prepare militarily in the event of war, or a surprise,  first strike nuclear attack.   


There appears to be an inexorable drift to war as each side demonizes the Other.  US/NATO with its 800 foreign military bases appears to be encircling Russia and China.  Instead of a peace race, an arms race is underway.  Our leaders know of no other alternative.  They are stuck in the old geopolitical paradigm where the final arbiter of conflict between nations is not a World Court, a democratically elected World Parliament, or the United Nations, but war. 


As reported in my lecture to the Academic Council on the UN System (ACUNS, 6/20) to end war and achieve complete nuclear disarmament only a democratic federal world union is realistic.  A new geopolitical system is what is required.  This means a new UN Charter and a "new UN."


The needed governing structure has been drafted by the World Constitution & Parliament Association.  It is the Constitution for the Federation of Earth (also known as the Earth Constitution), designed to serve as a model and guide to replace the fatally flawed UN Charter.  


Federating the 193 nations at the UN using the Earth Constitution has the capacity to resolve the underlying geopolitical system defects which even at the signing of the Charter in 1945 have prevented the UN from stopping war or eliminating nukes. The UN Charter has done some good things, but failed where it counts the most -- "ending the scourge of war."   


With a "new UN" under the Earth Constitution there is no longer a need for national military forces or for secret agencies which breed paranoia and undermine trust.  The June 16 Summit in Geneva is an opportunity for the leaders of two superpowers to radically change paths.  Calling for a "new UN" will change the current narrative from name calling which is lethal to constructive communication and counter-productive.   


Track II Diplomacy

The intention of this OPEN LETTER is to invite Presidents Putin and Biden to take seriously the world federalist think tank proposals described herein.  It is the practical alternative to having more wars, and sooner or later, suffering a nuclear nightmare.   


For world peace and humanity,


Roger Kotila, Ph.D.


President, Democratic World Federalists 

San Francisco

May 15, 2021
U.S. Warmongering Includes U.S. Support of Israel
I find the current Israeli Zionist slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza sickening.  The US mainstream media describes Hamas as “terrorists” while a good case could be made to describe them as “freedom fighters" resisting occupation and apartheid.  These courageous Palestinians  take seriously “Give me Liberty, or give me Death” just like in America’s 1776 revolution.
The following article by Fernando Garcia Bielsa ("Can US Warmongering be Reined in by U.S. Society") on US arrogance and warmongering made me want to say something about the US government's ongoing financial and military support of Israel which is just one of many conflict areas that the U.S. military and its covert operations arm participate in directly and indirectly.  It's a long list:  Iraq, Israel/Palestine,  Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Taiwan, Columbia, Russia, China, Libya,  etc.  
Anti-war, peace, environmental, and human rights activists are doing their best to protest the U.S. and its war business and lust for world dominance.  Perhaps the U.S. should follow China's example and switch away from militarism to something positive and constructive like the Belt and Road Initiative.   
The United Nations may eventually play an important role for change if the UN General Assembly can unite those nations wanting global law and order and social justice, and then finding ways to apply sanctions to the U.S. and other nations that refuse to abide by world law and order.  Hopefully, the Earth Constitution can provide a leadership role for a "new UN" with enforceable world law and order, and an end to militarism. 
-- R. Kotila, PhD    Earth Federation News & Views

Can Warmongering be Reined in by U.S. Society?

By Fernando M. García Bielsa on May 6, 2021

Although the United States continues to be the world’s leading power, for several decades and in various fields the country has been experiencing a growing decline and deterioration of its industrial base, which among other consequences is manifested in greater inequalities and social fractures, including at the heart of the oligarchic power groups.

The goal set at the end of World War II of maintaining broad military superiority to deter its adversaries soon became an end in itself that has conditioned the arms race for more than seventy years, even after the end of the Soviet Union called it into question. Soon, other supposed threats to national security were articulated and inflated and served as the basis for shaping a broadly bipartisan will for military spending. Every year, resources and figures in excess of $1 trillion are allocated for such purposes while the country’s own economic infrastructure crumbles and the public debt outstrips the nation’s massive Gross Domestic Product.

Following this seemingly illogical course really responds to the enormous economic, political, media and cultural weight of the so-called Military Industrial Complex, an extensive network of private entities and corporations which, fed with public funds, is ramified throughout the country, and on which thousands of subcontractors and millions of jobs depend. This is reflected in the willingness of politicians associated with that network to enthusiastically support increased military spending, aggressive foreign policy and war adventures. The arms industry and the intricate world of associated entities, think tanks and media complexes have a major influence on the country’s power centers.

This situation is compounded by the effect on the country’s politics of its imperialist nature, its arrogance and reluctance to accommodate to the geopolitical changes underway, and the economic and financial interests at stake in various corners of the planet. Note also that in the policy-making structures, both in the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council, there has been an increased presence of neoconservative elements, as well as militaristic approaches. full article (copy & paste):

March 23, 2021
Journalist Eric Zuesse explains why US/NATO cannot be trusted.  Rather than NATO being a vehicle for world peace and justice, he sees NATO as part of a violent plan to conquer Russia even if it sparks WWIII and nuclear war.  Because the United Nations Charter is defective, the UN is unable to protect Russia, Europe or the world community.  A "new UN" under the Earth Constitution would put the UN in a position to intervene before it is too late. -- R. Kotila, PhD  Earth Federation News & Views  

Why It’s Especially Necessary to End NATO Now

MILITARISM, 15 Mar 2021

Eric Zuesse – TRANSCEND Media Service

13 Mar 2021 – In a previous article I argued “Why It’s Necessary to End NATO”. However, recent events are making clear that the urgency of this need is increasing, instead of decreasing.

In 2011, the U.S. Government started planning a take-over of Ukraine, which, at that time, was a neutral country that has a 1,625-mile border with Russia. At its nearest point to Moscow, that border is only 5 minutes flight-time away from Moscow, via the fastest missiles. Obviously, that’s far too little time for Russia’s Government to be able to evacuate themselves from Moscow and to launch a retaliation against a U.S. blitz-attack. The U.S. goal is to get Ukraine into NATO, so that America can position its missiles there and really achieve “Nuclear Primacy” (which I discussed in that earlier article as being America’s meta-strategy since at least 2006 — safely to destroy Russia, even though that won’t actually be possible).

On February 1st of 2021, Ukraine’s President, Volodmyr Zelenskyy, made undeniably clear his intention to fulfill on Obama’s plan, for Ukraine to become a NATO member. Whether Joe Biden is going to push for that will be the most important decision of his Presidency, because it would be a commitment to World War III. It would, in effect, be a U.S. declaration of war against Russia. Whether the blitz-invasion would come from the U.S. (presumably assisted by missiles placed in Ukraine), or instead from Russia (in order to wipe out those and all other U.S. missiles), would be the only remaining question. Who will try the blitz-attack first? Either way, the world — at least the biosphere that sustains human life — would end.

Zelenskyy said:

We are grateful for everything, but Ukraine is not just saying in words that it wants to be an equal member of the Alliance, an equal member of NATO, because this is one of the most important security points – the same security that President Biden is speaking about. How should we further state the desire to accede [join], if it is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine – the movement towards the European Union, European integration, as well as accession to NATO? Therefore, I have a very simple question – why is Ukraine still not in NATO? Putting away these phrases that we will all contemplate and communicate, the first simple question from me would be: “Mr. President, why are we not in NATO yet”?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO-member, then Ukraine will have the right to demand that America join its war to grab back the former Donbass region and also the former region of Crimea. The U.S. Government would then be put into the position of having to either fulfill its NATO commitment to the new NATO member (presuming that restoration of both Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine would be accepted as being a part of that commitment to what then would be a fellow-NATO-member) or else become very embarrassed by not doing so. If such a NATO commitment would be fulfilled, the world as it has always been known would end very fast — less than an hour.

The way that WW III would then start is that Ukraine would become more heavily armed by the U.S. and then would invade both Donbass and Crimea, Russia would then attack Ukraine for doing that, and the U.S. would then launch a blitz-attack against Moscow from Ukraine, and, simultaneously launch against all other command-and-control targets in Russia, so that before those have become hit, Russia would already have been decapitated.

The United States Government is fortunately not obliged to allow Ukraine into NATO and has many ways to prevent it from joining NATO. Some of these ways wouldn’t at all embarrass the U.S. Government, and the reason for this is that if any one NATO-member nation refuses to okay Ukraine as becoming a member, then Ukraine won’t become a member, and the scenario that has been described won’t then happen. The U.S. Government has enormous clout with each existing NATO member-nation, because NATO was created by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the “Washington Treaty”) in Washington, DC, on 4 April 1949, at a conference that was chaired by U.S. diplomat Theodore Achiles, who subsequently retired to become a Director of the Atlantic Council, which also is in Washington, and which is the PR arm of NATO. The U.S. Government could easily get at least one NATO-member country to say no to Ukraine’s joining. However, if U.S. President Biden announces that the U.S. endorses NATO-membership for Ukraine, then that’s, in itself, virtually a U.S. declaration of war against Russia, and Russia might not wait for it to be made official before responding to it — blitz-invading the U.S. and its allies.

According to Achilles’s account of the creation of NATO:

The NATO spirit was born in that Working Group. Derick Hoyer-Millar, the British Minister, started it. One day he made a proposal which was obviously nonsense. Several of us told him so in no uncertain terms, and a much better formulation emerged from the discussion. Derick said, and I quote, “Those are my instructions. All right, I’ll tell the foreign office I made my pitch, was shot down and try to get them changed.” He did. From then on we all followed the same system. If our instructions were sound, and agreement could be reached, fine. If not, we worked out something we all, or most of us, considered sound, and whoever had the instructions undertook to get them changed. It always worked, although sometimes it took time. That spirit has continued to this day, I believe, although the size to which NATO has grown makes it far less easy. Two years later we began in London to put the “O” on the NAT by creating the organization. Some of the members of the delegations had been members of the Working Group, some had not. 

Was that the beginning of the end of the world? Perhaps Biden will decide whether it is, or not.

However, if he does decide to do it, then I doubt he’d do the attack prior to getting Ukraine into NATO — if he can do that. On March 10th, The Saker headlined “Is the Ukraine on the brink of war (again)?” and speculated whether Biden will provide now the backing that the Obama-installed stooge-regime there wants. Though the stooge-regime might re-invade Donbass (and maybe even attack Crimea), I doubt that Biden will provide the type of assistance that the U.S.-stooge regime in Kiev would need in order to retake that land (and certainly not Crimea). I would expect that Biden is therefore informing Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy not to try. So, I would expect that, instead, the crucial decision will be whether or not the regime in Washington will decide that it really does want Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

On March 10th, Sweden’s Defense Research Agency issued in two different parts, a 300-page report, “Western Military Capability in Northern Europe 2020,” which concluded that Russia would likely win WW III in Europe, and which analyzed only conventional war and virtually totally ignored even the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in WW III — the presumption was instead that the meta-strategy “MAD” still would prevent that, and they ignored the U.S. regime’s actual abandonment of “MAD” and switch to “Nuclear Primacy”. They also simply presumed that the U.S. is their ally and non-aggressive and that Russia is their enemy and is aggressive. In other words: it is fantasyland, at least in the Swedish Government.

Furthermore: the core strategic question, of whether the loser in a conventional WW III would accept defeat instead of blitz-nuclear-attack the opponent so as to ‘win’ the war, was simply ignored, as if there would be a 100% likelihood that the conventional-war loser would just surrender and not escalate to a blitz nuclear attack against the opposite side in order to ‘win’ and would leave its enormous nuclear stockpile unused. They ignored the fact that NATO, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is the trip-wire to an all-out nuclear war — the exact opposite of an asset to its participants’ national security. NATO-participation makes all of them inevitably a part of the battlefield, and forces Russia to target them. Sweden’s Defense Research Agency produced there an insanely stupid study, and one which shows that Europeans, at least in Sweden, are being ‘defended’ by a government that is either in the pocket of the U.S., or else is simply idiotic.

That study is shockingly stupid; it makes some of the craziest assumptions imaginable — assumptions that are tragically at variance with established facts (facts such as that America is, by far, the world’s most aggressive nation, and perpetrates far more coups, sanctions, and invasions, than does any other nation). At least regarding foreign relations, Sweden’s Government is monstrously disserving its public, and yet Swedes aren’t enraged against it. Are their news-media really that bad, so as for Swedes to tolerate a military alliance with the world’s most aggressive nation?

The only sane path forward for the nations that currently are NATO members (or “Partners” as Sweden is) is to withdraw and to urge other members (and Partners) likewise to withdraw, so that NATO will end — as it should have ended when the Soviet Union’s NATO-mirror organization the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. End the Cold War, finally. NATO — the American military alliance against Russia — is simply the trip-wire to WW III. End it. Now. Even 30 years after 1991 isn’t, yet, too late to do it. But, maybe, 31 years would  be. That’s why it must be done now, delayed no further. Either NATO will end, or it will end all of us.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, of Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

January 25, 2021 (lightly revised/updated February 2, 2021) Earth Federation News & Views
The Psychology of Nuclear Disarmament: Only A Democratic Federal World Union Is Realistic
By Roger Kotila, Ph.D.
SUMMARY and EXCERPTS revised and updated  from a lecture on psychological factors to the Annual Meeting (June, 2020) of the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS):  The United Nations Charter is part of a geopolitical system which breeds paranoia.  Paranoia, coupled with character defects among some leaders of nations, produces perpetual conflicts, wars, and a dangerous nuclear arms race.  Core masculinity issues, racism, greed, sexism and lust for power frustrate diplomatic UN solutions.  Powerful psychopathic leaders mock the UN and international law;  the undemocratic and defective Charter allows them to be above the Law. 
The Earth Constitution addresses these shortcomings in the outdated Charter while evoking alarm bells and psychological resistance by those fearful of change, but also raises a sense of excitement and anticipation at the vision of a "new UN."  Will the 188 nations in the UN General Assembly, all denied voting rights,  launch Charter Review as required by Article 109-3) using the Earth Constitution as their model and guide for a "new UN" which transforms into a democratic world federal union government?   Such a new governing structure for the nations must be established if we are to end wars between nations and to permanently eliminate the ever present danger of a nuclear nightmare.  
Treaties are a mixed blessing
In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal.     Unfortunately, history shows that agreements based upon treaties are eventually broken or ignored.  Time and time again, particularly with the more powerful, treaties are discarded when seen as inconvenient (just ask indigenous/native Americans).

Although the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) appears to be a positive step in reducing the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, in reality it will do little to change the fundamental problem of an UN geopolitical system which is so badly designed that militarization, wars, and maintaining nuclear weapons is virtually inevitable.  
Similarly the now activated Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) will hit a brick wall.  The nuclear powers are refusing to disarm.  The fact that possession of nukes will now be illegal is helpful.  It will put public pressure on the Bully nations to abandon the nuclear arms race now underway.  "Pressure" is not enough we must END the very existence of nuclear weapons, or they will end us.
When nations sign treaties, it gives us a false sense of security.  Treaties, therefore, must be understood as only an interim step.  Nevertheless, by addressing issues such as nuclear weapons (and war) via treaties, nations are acknowledging problems of broad concern and importance despite differences in culture and tradition. We can reasonably conclude, then, that there are areas of ethics and conduct which the majority of people worldwide accept as valid -- universal standards that can be applied to all.
Because we cannot rely on a multilateral approach for nuclear disarmament (treaties), we must think in terms of a stronger type of governance between the nations.  The next step from multilateral agreements are constitutional, as outlined by the Center for UN Constitutional Research (CUNCR) based in Brussels.  CUNCR has provided a legal basis to open up the fatally flawed UN Charter for a long overdue review, the beginning step to revise or replace the outdated Charter.  
The UN, like the League of Nations, is not Constitution-based, but instead is a multilateral treaty agreement which makes it too vulnerable to the whims of powerful, Bully nations.  Fortunately, the World Constitution & Parliament Association's Constitution for the Federation of Earth (aka Earth Constitution) anticipated the problem, and is ready to serve as a model and guide for the UN General Assembly to create the urgently needed "new UN." 
With the U.S. (Federal) Constitution, if Texas and California have a conflict they don't go to war, they go to Court or to Congress.  Similarly, France and Germany are unlikely to go to war since they belong to a semi-federal government -- the European Union.
The United Nations must federate.  The Earth Constitution can be the foundation for a "new UN."
Institutionalized paranoia and character defects
What do psychological factors have to do with achieving complete nuclear disarmament and ending war?

The key psychological dynamic associated with national sovereignty is institutionalized paranoia.  A paranoia grounded in the myths, stereotypes, and deliberate lies about the dreaded "Other." 
To understand this type of paranoia, one only needs to examine prison gangs, an opportunity I had professionally while working as a psychologist within the California prison system. 
Like nations, these racially or territorially constructed gangs are "sovereign," and like nations, gangs fear that the other side is seeking an advantage.  Hence, even when prison authorities do a complete, clean sweep of weapons, within weeks the various gangs are rearming themselves.  

Why?  Paranoia.  This is the psychiatric disorder which the current geopolitical system of sovereign nations cannot overcome.  It is an inherent response to the system of national sovereignty and secret operations... Nations routinely spy on each other in a world flooded with a winner take all, survival of the fittest mentality.   

Institutionalized paranoia between nations originates primarily from fear that the Other will get the upper hand in terms of use of force or military might, and fear that the other will gain economic advantage and control.  
This type of paranoia in our current UN system will never be resolved no matter how many disarmament treaties are signed. It is a hard psychological fact among sovereign states -- always a fear that perhaps the other nation is cheating or gaining advantage.  Such a fear is not unrealistic when we see that some nations are ruled by sociopaths or psychopaths. 
In Kathleen Barry's "Unmaking War, Remaking Men" the danger of leaders with "core masculinity" issues is very real.  "We are number one!" they proudly proclaim.  Such leaders  brag about having a powerful military and feel more important because they possess nuclear weapons.  To make matters worse, such sociopathic and/or psychopathic leaders are characterized by dishonesty, sexism, racism, lying, being greedy with a lust for power, and lacking conscience or empathy.  
Every nation therefore, whether or not fully in the Federation (i.e.,"new UN"), must accept open inspections at anytime, anywhere.  Only a world federal union government ("new UN") can eliminate the paranoia which fuels militarization and a nuclear arms race.    

President Ronald Reagan's famous quote regarding disarmament "trust but verify," was absolutely correct, but incomplete.  Because some leaders are psychopaths, there must also be serious consequences (jail or prison) for criminal acts.  No one should be above the Law.        
Good medicine for a mentally ill world and a means to control psychopaths
In a federal world union governing system, laws would be enforceable on all individuals no matter what their level of authority.  This rule of law is absolutely necessary.  Whereas people with a normal, healthy conscience will do the right thing without threat of punishment,  those who are sociopaths or psychopaths must be restrained by knowing they will face real punishment for wrongdoing.           
Put bluntly, there is no shortcut except to establish a constitution-based democratic world federation -- just as world federalists have been saying for over sixty years.    
The psychology of full nuclear disarmament and world peace requires a global structure which can eliminate the mental illness of paranoia, and control the dangerous behaviors of psychopathic leaders.  The Earth Constitution/Earth Federation government ("new UN") is the required medicine to treat paranoia and to simultaneously create a healthy and positive world -- free from the tyranny of fear, greed, lies, dogma, and lust for power. 

A federated democratic world union under the Earth Constitution has the potential to end paranoia, and a democratic designed World Parliament with a World Judicial/Enforcement system will provide a means to control the handful of sociopaths and psychopaths who destroy and impoverish our world. 
With the healthy foundation of the Earth Constitution to start anew, the world can free itself from the undemocratic roots which were incorporated into the UN Charter, and begin an era where "we, the people" have a true voice regarding global affairs.  
Roger Kotila, Ph.D. is a psychologist (ret.) and President of Democratic World Federalists.  He is co-editor of DWF NEWS, and editor of Earth Federation News & Views. 
November 20, 2020   Earth Federation News & Views
UN Charter's "Sovereignty" Gives Brazil the Legal Right to Destroy the Lungs of the Earth 

Roger Kotila, PhD

The Center for UN Constitutional Research (CUNCR) based in Brussels is a leading edge think tank challenging the notion that the United Nations Charter  cannot be revised or replaced.  The Charter's flaws are serious.

CUNCR along with Democratic World Federalists (DWF), the World Constitution & Parliament Association - India (WCPA-India), and the Earth Constitution Institute (ECI) have launched THE SAN FRANCISCO PROMISE, a plan to have the UN General Assembly review the defective, obsolete UN Charter.  The goal?  A "new UN" using the Earth Constitution as a guide and model to fix the Charter, or replace it.     

Destructive sovereignty
The principle of national sovereignty in the Charter gives any national government the legal right to destroy Mother Earth and perhaps, humanity itself.  This is not an exaggeration.   From climate change to war to nuclear weapons, the UN has been frustrated and unable to get the job done as self-centered governments defy the common good.

We routinely see the effects of climate change with its extreme weather conditions.  We are horrified by the growing nuclear arms race which the UN is trying to stop, but has no means to enforce the new international legal ban against nuclear weapons.  The USA and other nuclear states are brazenly defying the UN's new legal ban.  The Pentagon is leading a dangerous nuclear arms race which it calls a "modernization" Life Extension Program, but which is better described as a Life Extinction Program.

Professor Glen T. Martin (*Martin, 2020) warns about the sovereignty principle in the UN Charter which allows governments to endanger the Earth and humanity itself, and to do so legally.

Here are EXCERPTS from Dr. Martin's eye opening critique of the UN with its Sustainable Development Goals obstructed by "sovereignty".  Martin writes:

"Consider the implications of this dogma of sovereignty. The government of Brazil happens to host “the lungs of the Earth” that produce nearly 50% of the world’s oxygen and moderate the global climate in a variety of ways as explained in detail by climate scientists.  Under this system, the government of Brazil has the legal right to destroy the lungs of the earth through development by its private, profit-making corporations. The United States has the legal right not to sign the Law of the Sea convention and to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, even though that withdrawal by the world’s largest polluter could mean bringing down the global climate for the entire Earth." (Martin, 2020)*

Martin makes it clear that the UN system has a fundamental defect:

"Under the UN system, China has the legal right to produce all the CO2 it wants and send this into a global atmosphere that is daily increasing the greenhouse effect of overheating our entire planet.  All the nations of the world have these same rights, including the legal right to militarize themselves to the teeth, wasting resources badly needed to protect and restore our planetary environment. To understand this is to discern how absurd these Sustainable Development Goals and the UN system that supports them really are." (Martin, 2020)*

Finding a solution
Dr. Martin believes the answer can be found in the Earth Constitution:

"The Constitution for the Federation of Earth (aka Earth Constitution) does not abolish the nations but unites them within the World Parliament that represents the common good of everyone on Earth. The people of Earth are sovereign and the Earth Federation government representing them is designed to address precisely these global problems that the UN system is not designed to effectively address...." (Martin, 2020)*

Democratic World Federalists, seeking a peaceful, just and prosperous world, has adopted THE SAN FRANCISCO PROMISE as its primary strategy;  it calls for the UN General Assembly to launch a review of the Charter, butressed by CUNCR's legal analysis.  

[Charter review opens the door to identify what's wrong with the Charter and what is needed to fix or replace its fatal defects.  Article 109(3), according to CUNCR,  provides the legal mandate for the review, a promise made in 1945 but never fulfilled. -- Editor]

CUNCR's young climate ambassadors are spreading the word all the way up to the UN itself that climate change will require more than appealing to nations to cooperate, it will require a change in the UN's governing system itself. 
Peace activists, moreover, understand that forming a world federal union governing structure ("new UN") is necessary to end wars between the nation-states, but also the only practical way to eliminate the danger of a nuclear nightmare. 

The 193 nations making up the UN, like the original 13 colonies of the US, must unite under a federal constitution.  This is the only practical, realistic way to have a safe world to live in.  There is no shortcut.

The World Parliament &  Constitution Association - India (WCPA-India) will reach out for support from nations.  The Earth Constitution Institute (ECI) provides the visionary Earth Constitution as a model and guide for the UN General Assembly to revise or replace the outdated UN Charter.  

A "new UN" is therefore possible, one given the tools it will need to actually save the world from the harm allowed by selfish sovereignty.  After all, why should Brazil, or China, or the USA, or any country have the legal sovereign right to endanger humanity?

Roger Kotila, PhD
Psychologist (ret.)
President, DWF

*(Martin, 2020) -- EXCERPTS from Dr. Glen T. Martin's Tour de force: "The UN Sustainable Development Goals as World System Ideology"
October 18, 2020         Rolling Stone magazine / the Dalai Lama / and the Earth Constitution
Earth Federation News & Views
by R. Kotila 
"A Message of Hope from the Dalai Lama" reads the title of an article in Rolling Stone magazine (Oct., 2020) complete with a full page picture of this spiritual guru who stated that his "number-one commitment" is to "try to promote a sense of oneness of 7 billion human beings."
Move over, Rolling Stone, the wise one has already been introduced to the Constitution for the Federation of Earth (aka Earth Constitution) by a member of the World Constitution & Parliament Association-India.  []