To my fellow world citizen Barack

Since in her gracious letter of November 30th [in response to mine of November 12th] wherein she mentioned "the important work of true citizenship," and urged me "to stay active by sharing (my) thoughts online, " the First Lady, Michelle Obama, addressed me informally as "Garry"; and as your fellow world citizen since 1921 (my birth year), I am honored and pleased to address you also in the same friendly manner.

Though you did not acknowledge my congratulatory letter of 11/9/08 on your election wherein we enclosed an Honorary World Passport due to your Berlin declaration of world citizenship, I am obliged to state boldly here that, given your present dilemma both as a declared World Citizen as well as Commander-in-chief of the United States army and navy, you need us as fellow world citizens and, reciprocally, we need you with respect to our common crises of war and immediate environmental disasters.

You will be attending the Copenhagen Klimaforum in two days with your fellow heads of state.

This morning I tuned into "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman video-casting directly from Bella Hall. The news is not good Barack. Major disagreements abound despite our common and increasingly doomful problems.

Yesterday morning via Skype, I myself was interviewed by Edgar Kampers in the TV studio at the Klimaforum pavilion in Copenhagen. The subject was on global currency in relation to the problem of global warming by co2 emissions. I recalled Buckminster Fuller's notion of money as "crystallized energy" and suggestion in his book Critical Path that kilowatts should logically be the global unit of exchange between world citizens. Also his premier strategy of the "World Game" to link renewable energy resources around the world, that is, "all countries would interconnect their electric power grid systems between regions and neighbor nations, and tap the abundant renewable energy resources in each region." Fuller's key question is eminently relevant to today's global crises:

"How do we make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone?"

Then I quoted from the Klimaforum's Declaration itself that "We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world." That "everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world." That "The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live according to the principle of 'One among many.'"

Now back space to the crux of this note. Your acceptance speech at Oslo last week, in my view, underlying your rationale trying to justify "that war is sometimes necessary" as you put it, was actually a camouflaged appeal for world government! "To begin with," you said, "I believe that all nations-strong and weak alike-must adhere to standards that govern the use of force." "Governing the use of force" is the province of police force operating within the codes of social law..or government.

Then your opening words were addressed to "citizens of the world." That includes the world public as such. Taking your appeal literally and politically, world citizens by definition owe their prime allegiance to a government consistent with that status and with full recognition of fundamental human rights. In terms of human rights, article 21(3) provides that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." "It was this insight," you said, "that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, (by 'a regime of law' as stated in the Preamble) peace is a hollow promise."

Your dilemma was further exposed by admitting that "America alone cannot secure the peace;" that "Intransigence must be met with increased pressure, and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one."

Finally, the primordial dichotomy of the national constitution which provincially requires you to attempt to justify a war stance in Afghanistan quite against all reason-not to mention human rights which per se condemns a resort to violence-is found in Article 2, Section 2 defining the powers of the president when "acting as the commander-in-chief of the army and navy in the active service of the state. " While you didn't quote the article, with evident reluctance, even embarrassment, you ponderously referred to your "duty" as "commander-in-chef" of a nation in danger, etc. In short, a blatant justification of war itself, as former presidents have claimed.

In an interview with Michael Amrine, reprinted in the New York Times Magazine, 23 June 1946, Einstein is quoted as saying that "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels." "Often in evolutionary processes," Einstein continued, "a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we know it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival."

In referring to "citizens of the world," therefore, you implicitly acknowledged Einstein's solution for the elimination of war, in short, world government-without which he insisted war would eliminate us as a species. How else, indeed, did the separate states in 1787 eliminate the condition of anarchy between them thus "making" peace for one and all within that revolutionary period?

E pluribus unum. It's more relevant than ever.

Your world friend,

Garry Davis