An Indian (and global) Dilemma

On April 2, 1956, I entered India on a World Passport, No. 00001, at Bombay. It was my first trip to India at the invitation of Nataraja Guru of Travancore whom I had met in 1950 in mid-Atlantic on the SS America on my way back from Europe.

On June 8, 1956, after spending a month with the guru in the Nilgiris, I presented an "honorary" World Passport to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in his posh New Delhi office. He accepted it with delight. I then asked him for his blessing "for our humanitarian work." He hesitated. I waited patiently. We stared at each other. The hum of the air conditioner was the only sound. Finally, with a sigh, he said, "Yes, of course, you have my blessing."

I have been to India three times since traveling each time with the World Passport. Twice was at the invitation of the City Montessori School at Lucknow, UP (a "mondialized" city) to attend its yearly Global Symposium, its 30,000 students advocating "enforceable world law for world peace."

In order to attend the 7th Global Symposium at the City Montessori School as an invited principal speaker, on November 30th last I embarked for India with an upgraded World Passport which already had two Indian visas on it, which had now expired.

In the past I always walked into the visa section of Indian Consulate with my world passport in the morning, and returned in the afternoon to receive back my passport -- stamped with a new Indian visa. However, this time the visa process had been "outsourced" to Travisa, an independent travel agency distinct from the consulate. They had never seen the World Passport and had to contact the Consul, who escalated it up the ladder to India for instructions. All this caused long delays, so when I left to India I had not yet received my passport back.

What to do? The conference was beginning December 7th, my non-refundable one-way Air India ticket bought and paid for. The organizers were counting on me to be a principle speaker at the conference at which, ironically, 84 national Supreme Court judges would also be participating together with over 800 peace workers from around the world. Besides, producer Arthur Kanegis and associate producer Melanie Bennett-were to accompany me on the trip.

I was told that if I showed the consular authorities at the airport in Delhi copies of my expired visas, the local authorities could issue me new temporary two-week visa on the spot. So the WSA issued me a duplicate passport and I proceeded on my trip.

Arriving at the New Delhi airport December 1st, after the duplicate World Passport had passed five security checks at JFK, Arthur, Melanie and I descended the steps leading to the Immigration desks in great glee that we had come this far. At first the local officials looked at my world passport, and said it would be no problem to issue a two week visa. However, they said, they did have to call a higher official for authorization. It was 3:30 Sunday morning, and whomever they called must have been abruptly awakened out of the wrong side of the bed because he mumbled something about the World Passport being fraudulent and when it was pointed out to him that it had been visaed in the past, he came back with the claim that India no longer recognized the world passport. This was blatantly false, because another attendee to the same conference had their world passport stamped the very same week.

Nevertheless, I was returned to JFK on the next plane! This just goes to show how arbitrary the whole visa process is.

Arthur and Melanie continued on to Lucknow to attend the conference. Fortunately, I had prepared a 97 page PowerPoint highlighting major developments of the World Government of World Citizens which I asked Arthur to present to the conference in my place. He did so, jointly with one of the students. He was also interviewed by numerous media outlets and spoke at the conference about my being rejected at the frontier.

Despite subsequent correspondence with the Indian Consulate in DC, with copies to Prime Minister Dr. Manhuman Singh and Ambassador Ronen Sen, the original World Passport, as of this writing, has not been returned to me.

This passport is mandated by article 13[2] of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, once issued, it becomes the personal property of its bearer thereby conforming to article 17 of the Declaration. "(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." As of this date, the Government of India, which historically was the first to honor the UDHR by recognizing the World Passport, in now in violation of the said United Nations Declaration.

Here the Government of India, the heir to Mahatma Gandhi, who considered himself a world citizen, is capriciously rejecting a passport based on a human right to which the Indian government is itself legally bound both constitutionally and through its United Nations membership. At the same time, this government is embracing THE NUCLEAR BOMB thus imposing on each and every Indian citizen a state of humiliation and shame. Not only the sages of yore extolling wisdom through sacred texts like the Bhagavad Gita but today's gurus, swamis, bodisattvas and sadhus are demeaned and damned by this obscene and monstrous engine of total destruction in the hands of politicians whose behavior would certainly sadden Mahatma Gandhi if he were alive today. The innocent children of India exemplified by the CMS student body are being betrayed by their elders who are thrusting them into a world where a holocaust has become a psychotic component of national policy.

If the practice and tools of fundamental human rights are deemed "fraudulent," who then is the culprit, the accuser or the accused?

Arthur Kanegis taped an interview with the honorable Benjamin J. Odoki, Chief Justice of Uganda who was attending the Judicial summit. "When I heard that India had sent Garry Davis packing his bags back to the United States without attending the conference," the judge told the film producer, "I was saddened and disappointed because I was looking forward to his speech. When I heard him speak at previous judicial summits, I was amazed. Even though he is not a lawyer, he is a man with a new idea, a vision and a dream to change the world and make it one world, one citizenry."He added that "The judges attending the conference need to learn about this idea so they can persuade their governments to accept this World Passport so we can move freely throughout the world of brothers and sisters."

Raj Chandola, one of the organizers of the Judicial summit asked, "What possible threat to India could an 86-year-old World Citizen represent? Why did the Indian government spend its limited resources paying for a return ticket to force a man who came only to speak of peace in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi? This is not only a loss to our conference, but also to India and to the world."

Some time prior to the conference, I had "googled" a few of the speeches of India's new president, Madame Pratibha Devisingh Patil with the intention of presenting her also with an Honorary World Passport as I had with the first Prime Minister.

Some relevant quotes:

"In a globalized and inter-dependent world, the good of all becomes a common global endeavor. Our planet belongs to all of us and to sustain it as well as to preserve it for future generations requires action by all of us."

"I am reminded of the words of Swami Vivekananda, who said, and I quote, 'go from village to village, do good to humanity and to the world at large.' Similarly, cultural activities help youth to appreciate the richness and diversity of our culture and imbibe our age-old values of truth, tolerance and respect for all."

"Speaking about India's decision to join the Commonwealth, Jawaharlal Nehru, our first Prime Minister, said in 1949 and I quote, 'it is necessary that we touch upon the world's problems, not with passion and prejudice. but in a friendly way and with a touch of healing.'"

Spoken like a true World Citizen. Spoken like a true World Citizen. Madame President met with the delegation of Supreme Court justices and lauded their efforts to promote a world in which global disputes are resolved in the courtroom, not on the battlefield But alas, I was not there. She was deprived of this important document and honor by the capricious actions of her own government.

So what to do with Madame President's honorary World Passport? Do I send it to her with a covering letter explaining why I am not there to deliver it in person? Do I skip over the thorny scanned visas question? Tell her that the document has been deemed "fraudulent" by her own officials despite its acceptance by the first Prime Minister? Laud her own global sentiments while deploring the nuclear policy of her government? Or simply throw it in the wastebasket?

In a larger framework, the history illustrates the dichotomy exposing the entire nation state world in which the content of a problem such as frontier constructs (borderlines) represent "degrees of difference...trapped along a scale closed by polar opposites at each end." (Meta Comment by cybernetician Stafford Beer). In other words, President Patil's one world philosophy and outlook are metalinguistic despite her sworn allegiance to the political and administrative content of an exclusive nation state which arbitrarily rejects a citizen totally dedicated to the wellbeing of humanity she herself promotes. This also serves to explains the contradiction between India's temporal allusion to democracy allied with the illusory nuclear security and its perennial, holistic wisdom heritage.

I’m constantly amazed at how things always seem to work out as if according to some divine plan. In perfect synchronicity, however, Dr. Evelin G. Lindner, Coordinator of the Tenth Annual Human DHS 2007 Workshop on "Humiliation and Violent Conflict" held at Teachers College of Columbia University on December 13-14th, had extended an invitation to me to participate prior to my Indian misadventure.

Upon my return from India-that is, from the "international territory" of New Delhi Airport-I emailed the author of Humiliation in a Globalizing World that I would be honored and delighted to attend such an unusual event since the Indian government had recently "humiliated" me--or was it my friends and fellow World Citizens at CMS not to mention the 84 Supreme Court justices? I penned some thoughts on this intriguing and utterly relevant subject to world citizenship and human rights and sent it along to Evelin who had also written that "In order to understand a globalizing world, we need 'global' research, as well as the participation of researchers who have a global outlook and global experience."

So although I was unable to present a World Passport to president Patel, I was able to present an honorary World Passport personally to this exemplary "global citizen" who created this extraordinary and timely workshop on the universal subject of humiliation as a precursor to conflict will be the subject of my next blog.

Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy

Chairman: Senate Judiciary Committee

New York Times-Friday November 2,2002
"BUSH, DEFENDING JUSTICE NOMINEE, SEES UNFAIRNESS"

Your problem, Senator, is not with Judge Makasey whether he thinks waterboarding is torture or not; your problem is dealing with a defective and outdated constitution.

I quoted Thoreau in my first blog with reference to the Constitution's relative importance: "Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?"

You, Bush, Cheney, the Democratic and Republican candidates, everybody in D.C. keeps referring to "The Constitution," an 18th century horse-and-buggy, musket and cannonball document, as if it were the Holy Grail, immutable, absolute and eternal. (It took three months for President Washington to get a letter to his Ambassador in France, Ben Franklin, a period when England, France and Spain were eager to take on the states one-by-one with their man-à-wars.)

Your problem, Senator, is Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution which Patrick Henry declared treasonous and huffed out of the continental congress complaining that it bestowed on the president "discretionary powers" in time of war when wearing his Commander-in-Chief hat which put him in command of the army and navy "in the actual service of the United States."

In brief, that article contradicted the original premise of popular sovereignty.

Yesterday, Bush stated that "on too many issues, Congress is behaving as if America is not at war." And that's the clue to your present dilemma, Senator, for you and the whole Democratic caucus, and, indeed, for the entire United States constituency. Since September 11, 2001 he (and proxy Cheney) is wearing his Commander-in-Chief war bonnet. And does he love it! All manic-depressives do. But his power "umbilical" cord is attached firmly to "father" Cheney's suspenders.

James Madison, bless his immortal soul, knew that Article II, Section II was a deadly compromise to the democratic principle or popular sovereignty, the Achilles heel of the document. But hey, in 1787, someone had to speak for the new-born nation vis-à-vis those ancient fictions with their armed might, England, France and Spain, not to mention all the other smaller if established political nations beyond the shores.,

So what did this Greek-speaking political genius (4th U.S. president) do to offset the new president's unilateral, absolute war powers. I know you know but I also know you can't use it as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee or even as a U.S. senator and that is at the bottom of your frustration with Mukasey's testimony. It is, of course, the 9th amendment to the Constitution, that almost unknown and neglected reference to "unenumerated rights retained by the people." (See my blog #1, "The Hidden 9th Amendment").

You are already "inside" the Constitution's mandates whereas Madison, still "outside" as a Virginia citizen but not yet a United States citizen in a sort of political vacuum about to be filled, proved to be a veritable "citizen of the world" in that the 9th Amendment, in referring inalienable rights BACK TO THE PEOPLE, was acknowledging that THAT'S WHERE THEY CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

In other words, he made sure that the US Constitution derived its sovereignty from the sovereign people and not ever from the president as "Commander-in-Chief" even in time of war when he (or she) was speaking and defending the state AND NOT THE PEOPLE. The people, however, had to RECLAIM that sovereignty whenever the central government denied it. How? By exercising the prime right of political choice as did the Founders!

And this is your dilemma as well as every single United States' government official, including, ironically, Supreme Court judges. So, from the outset, the US Constitution contained and enshrined this basic contradiction of sovereign power. Why indeed did Bush (and his clan) "declare" a "war on terrorism" when clearly there was no real enemy "out there" beyond the shoreline? Both he and Cheney, especially Cheney, had to try on that war shroud. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hence Bush's talk about World War III using Ahmadinejad as the patsy. (See my last blog). Bush's fingers rigidly fixed directly above 3,000 hair-triggered nuclear missiles are itching to give them a final push before he (and the rest of humanity) "leaves office."

Go back, Senator, to that day when you took your oath of allegiance as US Senator. Remember "I swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic so help me God"? It was the same one George Washington swore to and 220 years later all would-be US citizens swear to today, including Supreme Court and all other judges. In this 21st century when a Space Station, communication satellites, the internet, etc., etc. have totally collapsed time and distance BETWEEN US HUMANS, this 18th century political con game continues to threaten humanity in the name of "national security."

Whether Mukasey becomes Attorney-General or not doesn't change the ultimate game of war or peace given the condition of anarchy between nation-states. Only world law, as Einstein, among others. stated, can do that.

Tom Paine spelled it out over 200 years ago: "Every age and every generation must be free to act for itself in all cases as the ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insulting of tyrannies. The circumstances of the world are continually changing and the opinions of men also change. And as government is for the living and not the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another."

Sincerely,
Garry Davis
World Citizen

Bush Threatens Humanity to "Save" Israel

Where's the outrage? Where is the screaming NYT's headline, "Madman Bush Ready to Launch World War III if Ahmadinejad Possesses Nuclear Arms"? Where are the TV commentators blasting this latest evidence of maddening provocation? Where are the bloggers , the pacifists, the nuclear scientists denouncing this obscene pretense of leadership?

In his Wednesday, Oct. 16 press conference, George Bush looked at the astonished journalists and with his smirking smile--televised on CNN--said "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel." He even seemed happy while he was saying it. He then followed that he had "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." This from a man with 3,000+ hair-triggered nuclear weapons at his fingertips who already claimed the "right" to use them preemptively at any nation which in his opinion threatened the "security" of the United States.

And what was his rationale for threatening the human race with annihilation? "The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, 'This isn't worth it,' and to me it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government."

In other words, if the Iranian public doesn't throw out President Ahmadinejad, the "Decider" might just push The Button and destroy the human race.

This is The Ultimate Threat! And Bush alone has the power to carry it through. Moreover as a closet fundamentalist, he is OK with the prophesies of Revelations of "wars and rumors of wars."

Forget the United Nations. Forget the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Forget the International Criminal Court. Forget the women of the world who are rising in wrath at the patriarchal nature of national politics. Forget the rest of the national leaders of big and small states who are equally committed to "observe and respect fundamental human rights." (Art. 56, UDHR). Forget the Noble Peace Laureates who till now have been utterly silent on the subject of world law and government. Forget even the American public who Bush is legally pledged to protect and which would itself be destroyed in WWIII, not to mention, ironically, Bush's own family and kin (unless, of course, they end up in a cave somewhere under a Virginia mountain). And forget the past religious leaders and sages, the philosophers and artists and entertainers, all who have recognized the world's and humanity's oneness from time immemorial.

And forget the millions of declared World Citizens now spread throughout the world community under the aegis of the World Government of World Citizens.

But even more important, forget planet earth which in a third world war would be the prime target given the radioactivity of nuclear weaponry. Environmentalists, be warned.

The brazen audacity of this man who claims to listen to "God's voice" when planning his earthly moves but thinks like a high school bully, must be exposed as clear evidence of deep paranoia. The human species is not George Bush's private gang willfully obedient to his every petty and/or destructive whim.

In legal terms, pointing a nuclear "gun" at humanity is a "global felony."

Under the Nuremberg Principles, Bush is an "enemy of humanity" formally indictable at the International Criminal Court.

Indeed, eight other heads of nuclear states are thereby also "enemies of humanity" and equally indictable.

Who then can submit this class-action suit in the name of humanity and argue it at this court before it's too late?

I ask as a father, a veteran of World War II and a registered World Citizen

Stay Tuned.

Marcel Marceau

A Citizen of the World

Marcel Marceau was only 84 when he passed on but he lives brightly in the memories of all who had the joy to see him perform on the world's stages. Poor words are unable to express our loss when he, above all, "spoke" to us in silent Truth.

Like the Munis of India, Marcel Marceau taught in the transcendent discipline and spiritual power of action-in-silence. He was the perenniel Renaissance Man revealing to us, in the darkened theatre, our own unity and universality. We watched him in fascination as he mimed human foibles, tragedies and comedies. He was us, all of us, in his masterly movements, expressions and motives. '
Alone on a bare stage bereft of sets and other actors, using the audience's imagination, he created a silent world of events, both mundane and catastrophic, to which each audience member could relate personally. By revealing in pantomime a fellow human, with wry, gentle humor, he magically erased our vaunted differences. That is genius. Remember that "wall" where he first appeared as a giant, then reappeared as a midget!. Michael Jackson borrowed his famous "moonwalk" from his sketch, "Walking Against the Wind." I recall especially the "Immigrant" when, boxed in, his hands desperately "felt" the enclosed cage, then discovered a tiny opening through which he squeezed in ecstatic freedom only to find himself again imprisoned in a larger cage, his bitter disappointment and anguish mirrored in that wonderful plastic face. In one of his most poignant and philosophical acts, "Youth, Maturity, Old Age, Death," he wordlessly showed the passing of an entire life in just minutes.

His presence on stage alone transformed it into a cherished place of reverence, self-revelation and love. One left the theatre somehow fulfilled, feeling better. Indeed, what else does a World Teacher do but reveal the truth? His biggest inspiration, he claimed, was another world citizen, Charlie Chaplin.

The French Government had conferred upon Marceau its highest honor, making him an "Officier de la Legion d'Honneur", and in 1978 he received the Medaille Vermeil de la Ville de Paris. In November of 1998, former President Chirac named him a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit; and he was an elected member of the Academy of Fine Arts in Berlin, the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich, the Academie des beaux-arts France and the Institut de France. He held honorary doctorates from Ohio State University, Linfield College, Princeton University, and the University of Michigan, America's way of honoring his creation of a new art form, inherited from an old tradition. In 1999, the city of New York declared March 18 Marcel Marceau Day.

He accepted the honor and responsibilities of serving as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Second World Assembly on Aging, which took place in Madrid, Spain, in April 2002.

Following the death in 1999 of Sir Yehudi Menuhin, who served our world government for many years as Coordinator of its World Cultural Commission, I had the honor and pleasure of appointing Marcel as the new Coordinator of this Commission. He expressed his delight and acceptance at a dinner we shared together during his last tour of the US.

Talking about his universal and lasting appeal, Marceau once said: "Mime, like music, knows neither borders nor nationalities."

I for one am extraordinarily grateful and blessed for having known this inimitable cosmopolitan artist personally since my own Paris days in 1948.

A true lover of humanity has departed our current scene, May his ennobling inspiration continue to guide us.

********************************

Another Anniversary & Another 9/11!

Fifty-four years ago this month, on September 4th, a new government was declared: a world government no less. Read all about it at www.worldgovernment.org/ells.html.

But that's not where it really started.

On September 11th, 1948, this writer, having renounced his U.S. nationality on May 25th, was being threatened with imprisonment by the French Government if he did not leave French territory. Once becoming stateless, I had exercised my inalienable right of political choice that very day by claiming world citizenship publicly.

Was this declaration "legitimate"?

Citizenship, by definition, must be grounded somewhere. Nations are mere fictional creations imposed on parts of the world's surface, granted, with historical backgrounds, to encompass their particular humans as "citizens." Legitimate? Their very constitutions all claim that their authority derives from the sovereign people.

Before they became "legitimate" citizens.

Was not my sovereign right to claim a citizenship grounded in world territory undeniable in legal terms as I owed no allegiance to any nation-state?

If a nation-state, however, could "legitimately" claim part of the world territory, why could not a publicly declared world citizen claim the whole parcel? Indeed, world citizenship and world territory are political and environmental corollaries.

Enter a historical anomaly.

The United Nations Charter is not a world constitution in recognition of the sovereignty of either humankind or each human as a "legitimate" member of the race despite its allusion to human rights 17 times.

It is a mere membership organization of separate and equally sovereign nation-states, indeed, the very antithesis of human rights.

But contradictorily the UN claims its own territory! Over which it then presides and even policing. This so-called "territory" is separate and distinct from that claimed by its very individual members.

It's designated as "international territory."

But what is the law "governing" this "international territory"?

It doesn't exist. Why?

Because it has no sovereign citizenship from which derives all positive law.

Now world citizenship is an ancient concept. Google the phrase and you will be amazed at how many illustrious humans in the past going back to Socrates and further to the ancient Greeks and Stoics have claimed it.

On September 11th, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations "expropriated" a tiny section of Paris, Place de Trocadero and Palais de Chaillot, for its exclusive use during that Fall 3 month session.

The front page of the Paris Herald Tribune revealed the French Foreign Minister, Robert Shumann publicly presenting a large key to UN Secretary-General Trygvie Lie signifying France's acquiescence to this "legitimate" relinquishment of part of France-for 3 months.

Faced with jail by French authorities if I did not leave its territory by September 11th, after declaring my intentions to the world press on the evening of September 10th, at around 8 a.m. the next morning I "exited" from France and "entered" the "international territory" of the United Nations at the Place De Trocadero, Paris.

A legitimate World Citizen now had a legitimate place to stay and survive in freedom unfettered by national laws!

I had also become a true world peacemaker as I had no "enemies." Nor further territorial claims!

This is what I wrote at 9 A.M.sitting alone at a table in the deserted restaurant opposite the Palais de Chaillot on that fateful day:

"I am in the restaurant of the U.N. headquarters. Guards have been passing back and forth giving me covert glances. Two helmeted police are standing about ten feet away, probably debating whether they should ask me for pepers...I am sure that the uniform and the official-looking typewriter have scared them off...Another man is approaching but he has turned away as have the two policemen. I seem to want to put off this meeting with the world or rather with this tiny world here until the very last minute. I realize that at ten o'clock there will be photographers and reporters here, but now I feel quite alone. Alone with a great avalanche about to break over my head...This void I am standing in is quite exciting. I sincerely feel that I can be a force toward achieving some measure of world peace..." (The World Is My Country, G.P. Putnam, 1961).

Following an impromptu press conference of several hundreds journalists plus newsreel camera trucks recording the hectic proceedings, I returned to my Olivetti typewriter:

"I have just been through the mill with photographers and now they are taking pictures of my typing here. I am now in a goldfish bowl. Everything I do will be recorded by word and picture. If I thought that the renunciation was an act drawing attention, it was merely a ripple to what I feel will happen now. I must prepare carefully. Much is at stake. Many people are watching. I perhaps symbolize a great deal to many people without hope. I must not in any way destroy that principle. But on the other hand, I must not presume too much. This is perhaps a greater danger than the other...The photographers have just left. I am being made more and more aware of the power of the press and the...Life is now taking pictures. Oh brother, history is being made today. Keep your equilibrium, Garry. Great things can happen today. And tomorrow..."

Thus a human "worldgovernment-in-microcosm" was immaculately born, as it were, that other September 11th "midwifed" by the world press! When questioned by journalists as to my new "status," assistant UN Secretary-General Konstantin E. Zinchenko of the USSR was quoted as having said, "Davis is a world baby. The U.N. Charter did not foresee being a nursemaid. States may join; diapered citizens, niet!"

In brief, the world's public was exposed virtually overnight to the self-evident fact that the space above the entire nation-state system could be (and is) already populated!

By humanity...and each one of us...at birth.

Legitimately.

On that historic September 11th, 1948, from that tiny human seed in the middle of cosmopolitan Paris, the World Citizen population literally exploded on the world scene.

And continues to this day.

Thus, fifty-four years later, the World Government of World Citizens is daily operating through its administrative agency, the World Service Authority (www.worldservice.org) providing vital global public service to one and all.

***************************

But Are They Relevant To World Peace?

Sixty two years ago today, "Big Boy" exploded over Hiroshima instantly
pulverizing 70,000 humans going about their daily tasks.

In my first letter to World Citizens (circa 1956) written from
Bangalore, India, I claimed that The Bomb was "our" bomb, that "We,
the People" at whom it was pointed "deserved" it. Why? Because we
remained mentally, socially and politically attached to our latter-day
tribes: the nation-states. Between them was anarchy. World anarchy.

The Bomb was an omnipresent and omnipotent reminder of our failure to
recognize our fundamental unity.

Einstein, who wrote President Roosevelt that from the equation e=mc2,
a new weapon could be constructed, "the ultimate weapon." He was
right. But when it was finally demonstrated, he told the world that
"Everything had changed except our ways of thinking politically. It's
presence in the world," he added, "rendered war obsolete. Because it
was 'indiscriminate' in its violence, thereby a socially genocidal
threat to the human race."

To consider its use therefore was madness. To eliminate it from the
human scene was evidence of sanity.

Last Saturday evening ABC-TV's ten o'clock show was called, "Masters
of Science-Fiction." As a Scifi fan, I watched it. An elderly man was
being "interviewed" by a woman psychiatrist in a posh office. He
didn't know why he was there, he exclaimed. He had an appointment in 2
hours to pick up his wife and two daughters. Gradually, it was
revealed to him by the clever interrogator finally showing him the
burnt remains of his wife-the clue was the ring on her finger-that he
was actually the former president of the United States who had given
the order to launch a new-type bomb which resulted in the elimination
of most of the human race. He broke down sobbing, devastated. "What do
you remember now, Mr. President?" she demanded harshly, "I have to
know." (Her two children had died in the holocaust) "Do you remember
where it would strike?" she asked harshly. Down on his knees, head
between his legs, between sobs, he wailed, horrified "..to protect the
democracy..I believed in what I was doing,..I considered the
options...I thought things through.. of course, there would be
consequences. I didn't back down." "Democracy?" she replied coldly.
"The nation you protected? It prevailed. It's 871 strong. Mission
accomplished, Mr. President. And we are all here in an underground
fortress in Virginia."

Only a world government, Einstein claimed, would be able to outlaw,
not only the nuclear "option," but war itself. "Either we eliminate
war," he warned, "or war will eliminate us."

Only a world government, Einstein claimed, would be able to outlaw,
not only the nuclear "option," but war itself. "Either we eliminate
war," he warned, "or war will eliminate us."

Barack Obama, responding to a journalist's question, after claiming
that as president he would never order its use backtracked immediately
by adding "against civilians" as if the indiscriminate violence
distinguished between "civilians" and soldiers. This mindset indicates
a blatant denial of the deadly reality threatening the human race
itself by nuclear "weapons." (To use the word "weapons" incidentally
for nuclear violence is misleading because it connotes a legitimate
instrument of war, an option as opposed to "conventional" weapons. In
short, it is not a "weapon" of war being genocidal or total in
character. Hence Einstein's original claim of the need for a
revolution in thinking).

Hillary Clinton, feeling upstaged, replied that even to mention the
nuclear option in a campaign was "naive." Apparently, eight years in
the White House have not yet penetrated to her that the president has
his/her fingers poised directly above upwards of 3,000 hair-triggered
nuclear missiles all directed at Russia. And vice versa.

Talk above naivete!

But you may ask, so why is The Bomb ours? It's obvious. We paid for
it!

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Ron Paul, Kuchinich, Gravel,
Giuliana, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Brownback, Tancredo and Thompson
(if he runs) are obviously on the wrong level to execute world laws
outlawing The Bomb and war itself. First of all, there is no world
parliament or congress yet to make such laws. For instance, we talk
glibly about "global warming." But where is the world constitution
incorporating nature within its legislative framework? And also, is a
war fought with nuclear "weapons" winnable? Do you not see the
contradiction? "Winning" and nuclear "weapons" just don't compute. No
one "wins" total destruction. So how can these so-called intelligent
national candidates seek a political office which not only can not
protect the citizenry but has the potential of destroying it? With
their fingers on The Button! Are they not mad?

Emery Reves wrote "Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely
within the institution never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They
speak of moving society, but have no resting place without it."

As a stateless World Citizen, I offered my candidacy for world
president back in 1983. I am now calling upon World Citizens
registered with the World Service Authority, our own world
government's administrative agency, either to vote for me via my web
site, www.garrydavis.org or solicit other politically active World
Citizens to declare themselves legislative candidates for world public
office. (The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine
elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be
held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Art.
21[3), Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

A web site is presently under construction (www.worldcandidates.org)
through which World Citizen candidates for world public office will be
able to present their credentials, platform, experience, etc. for
world citizen voters throughout the world to mandate their
representation. Already established programs such as "mondialization"
and the World Syntegrity Project are valid tools to supplement a
global voting protocol. The World Citizen Referendum operating from
our main web site has a database of hundreds of thousands of world
citizen who have voted on major global issues (www.worldservice.org/
wref.html).

If indeed we, the world's people "own" The Bomb, then we have the
grave responsibility to decide what to do with it.

Otherwise, we will surely find out to our infinite sorrow that The
Bomb "owned" us.

Views From My Space: Open Letter to General David Petraeus

Views From My Space: Open Letter to General David Petraeus