Blueprint For an Article 109 Charter Review Conference
I.
Article 109
Article 109 expressly provides for a "General Conference" of the "Members of the United Nations for
the purpose of reviewing the present Charter." This is generally referred to as a "Charter Review
Conference" and it may be initiated "by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by
a vote of any nine members of the Security Council." Notably, those "nine members of the Security
Council" do not have to include any of the permanent members with the single-nation veto (Russia, China,
France, Great Britain and the U.S.).
Once the Charter Review Conference is called, each Member Nation will have a single vote and two-thirds
of the Members, again including any nine Members of the Security Council, can approve a new Charter or a
comprehensively amended one. Once the Charter Review Conference is completed, all of the amendments
approved by the Charter Review Conference must be ratified by the two thirds of the Nation-State members
and such ratification must include the approval of all five of the Nation-States with the single-nation
veto.
Many will ask the obvious question: Why even try to have a Charter Review Conference if, at the end
of the day, the United States has to say "yes" to the new charter or Comprehensive Amendments? Everyone
knows about the Bush Administration’s attitude toward the U.N. But, the answer to the question must be
a resounding "yes", we should have the Conference and is why:
- Our concept is that, since the first two steps (Calling the Conference and adopting comprehensive
amendments) are not subject to the veto of the U.S. or any other Nation with the single-nation veto,
with the united people power supporting the effort and the momentum that will naturally be built-up
during the first two steps, it will be very difficult for any Nation, including the U.S., to deny the
people of the World the democratized and empowered structure of global governance they will then be
seeking.
- And it cannot be assumed that the United States would veto ratification. A Yankelovich Poll,
taken not too long ago, revealed that about 60% of Americans favor a stronger United Nations. There
is no doubt that, with the 2008 elections coming up, President George W. Bush will not be leading
America and because we will be making the Charter Review Conference a major issue in the 2008
campaign, there is a reasonable chance that, even without the momentum and global people power
mentioned above, the U.S. will ratify a new or comprehensively amended Charter.
- The foregoing scenario is made even more probable in view of the of the extent to which the U.S.
has become isolated as the result of its preemptive strike against Iraq without developing the active
support of the U.N., as former President Bush did in the Gulf War. Countries with the veto, such as
France, Russia and China, and many other major Nations who do not have the veto, have demonstrated
their independence from the U.S. on many major policy decisions. There is reason to believe that the
climate for U.S. ratification will be much better in 2009, than it is now.
- The fourth reason that we believe ratification can be obtained, and the most imperative one of
all is that American citizens, like all other world citizens, have no choice.
If we are to prevent a slow, ongoing descent into Armageddon, we must create a democratized and
empowered structure of global governance. Article 109 of the United Nations Charter provides us with
the vehicle for getting this done.
II.
Recent U.N. Summit On U.N. Reform Failed To Make The Needed Reforms.
The recent Summit on U.N. reform produced a few commendable minor amendments but fell far short of
expectations, hopes and goals. In any event, the initial reform goals were not even close to those
were needed if we are going to get serious about redeeming the Planet from decay, ridding the World
of shameful poverty, ending war and terrorism, protecting the individual and human rights of all World
Citizens and creating the kind of global structure of governance that is absolutely necessary to prevent
Armageddon in this century.
With this failure to take advantage of the opportunity to make meaningful reforms, the need for
the 109 Revolution becomes even more obvious.
III.
Gradual Versus Comprehensive Reform
There are many supporting U.N. reform who sincerely believe that the only way to achieve it is
through gradualism, "a little bit at a time", because, they say, the Nation States and in particular
the United States, simply will not support comprehensive reform. But there are five important
responses to this assumption:
- First and foremost, the global crises are so many and so overwhelming that the Planet Earth
and human society simply do not have time for gradualism. The "two-minute warning" has sounded
with regard to war, global terrorism and proliferation of w.m.d.'s; global warming, ocean pollution,
over-fishing, loss of rain forests, erosion and desertification; global pandemics such as the
Avian Flu and AIDs; worsening of natural disasters such as Katrina, Rita and the tsunami tragedy;
continuation of extreme poverty for over a billion people; persistence in old and proliferation in
new (such as human trafficking) human rights abuses; dangerous under-population in certain areas
and over-population in others; exhaustion of non-renewable resources; the increasing number of
children forced into begging, serfdom, and military combat; and a perilous worsening of the global
balance sheet, as we keep pouring over a trillion dollars a year down the black hole of arms, war
and killing each other.
- The gradualism suggested does not confront the crucial structural issue - how to get the
decision-making into the hands of the people (really the peoples’ chosen representatives) and for
the most part out of the hands of the Nation-States, recognizing that the existing Nation State
system - as shown by the fact it has just taken humankind through the bloodiest and dirtiest
(pollution-wise) century in our history - has not proven able to effectively run the world.
Nationalism, indeed even xenophobia, will continue to constitute obstacles that prelude swift,
effective and just global solutions in a "gradualist" U.N. We have to recognize that the foremost
challenge with regard to U.N. reform is the creation of a directly elected U.N. legislative body
that is responsive to the will of the people and has the power to enact binding global laws (subject
to protective vetoes). This is somewhat the same challenge that confronted the American people in
the late 18th Century when they abandoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution.
- Gradualism is a dangerous "opiate of the people", inducing the notion that we are taking
effective steps to solve global problems, when in fact the primary thing that is being accomplished
is a cosmetic make-over that may reduce bureaucratic waste and corruption – which is certainly
commendable - but does not get at the root of the problem. The power to deal with global crises
will still be reserved to the Nation-States and the totally inadequate treaty process and that is
the root of the problem.
- The gradualists' contention that the major powers of the world simply will not permit
comprehensive reform, ignores the reality of people-power in today's world. The second Russian
Revolution, resulting in a freer, more open and more democratic society in Russia (though recent
events demonstrate that it is certainly not an entirely open and democratic society), was generated
by sheer people power. And look at what is happening in the Ukraine. People power apparently
forced a new vote in their presidential election. And, as discussed by Michael T. Kaufman in his
Op-Ed article in the Dec 5, 2004 issue of the New York Times, entitled
"Heeding the Roar of the Street", there are a number of instances in the latter part of the 20th
Century where democracy has been advanced by people power: Bolivia (1977 and 1982); Sudan and Haiti
(1985); the Philippines (1986); South Korea (1982); Chile, Poland, East Germany and Czechoslavakia
(1989); Mongolia and Nepal (1990); Madagascar (1993); Bangladesh (1996); and Indonesia (1998). The
back room billionaire power brokers need to realize that sunset is rapidly approaching for their
imperious control over global politics. “We the people” (to quote the Preamble of the U.N. Charter)
can bring about comprehensive reform of the U.N. if we just have the will to make that phrase a
reality.
- Using gradualism there is no way that the United Nations can be transformed into a structure
of governance that has all the ingredients of what we understand a true "democratic government"
must have in order to function: a legislative branch that possesses the sovereign power to adopt
laws; an executive branch to administer the government and enforce the laws adopted by the
legislative branch; a judicial branch to apply U.N. law, resolve disputes and interpret laws,
including the Charter; an independent watch-dog branch to monitor for waste and corruption; a
military force to keep the peace; and the power to tax and spend. The people of the world have
a clear choice - they can leave in effect a crippled institution that has no possible power or
way to deal with the global crises we face OR they can demand that a Charter Review Conference
comprehensively amend the U.N. Charter, thus creating the kind of institution that the world
absolutely must have - a democratized and empowered U.N. with appropriate checks and balances.
IV.
The Proposal Timeline For the Charter Review Conference
Despite the gross shortcomings of the Annan Panel’s report, the summit meeting of the Nation-States
in New York in September provides us with an excellent opportunity to commence the Article 109 move and
get "comprehensive reform" onto the public stage. We propose that we initiate and carry out the
following time-lines:
- January, 2006 to December, 2006: Plan for a large grass-roots conference (possibly in New York,
Europe, South Africa, Brazil, Bombay, Tokyo or Nairobi) in June of 2007; work on support from all
over the world for the 109 Movement and for such global conference; gear up a lobbying program with
the U.N. Ambassadors, their staffs and heads of state; accelerate fund-raising efforts; continue
working on the issues to be resolved by the new or comprehensively amended Charter that we will
propose to the Charter Review Conference; generate infomercials public TV and internet programming;
and increase our efforts to include, as many as possible of the NGO’s in the 109 movement and
global conference.
- June, 2007: Attend the world conference on the Article 109 movement (wherever it will be held);
make every effort to come away with the basic structure of a grass-roots organization in every
country of the world; at the meeting, review plans leading up to the Charter Review Conference in
2009; and have workshops on various proposals for the new U.N. and with regard to the issues the
new or amended Charter needs to address. This will be the key meeting on our journey to the Article
109 Conference.
- June, 2007 to September 2008: Plan for bringing before the General Assembly in September of 2008
a vote on the “Call” for a Charter Review Conference for September of 2009 or 2010; with the people
power generated at the June, 2007 Conference, a public media campaign and vigorous lobbying effort
we should be able to bring about an official Call for an Article 109 Charter Review Conference in
2008(remember even if the United States opposes the Call, the Conference can still be called because,
as explained above, there is no single Nation veto to a vote under the first two steps of the
Article 109 process).
- September 2008: Hopefully, the Call be adopted at the September, 2007 meeting of the U.N.; the
Call will appoint a U.N. commission to lay out a timeline for all steps leading up to the Charter
Review Conference one to two years later, including provisions for submitting proposals, the
participation of NGO’s and grass roots organizations, the preparation of the protocol for the
Conference, and a plan for our Article 109 Committee to work closely with the Commission appointed
by the U.N. to plan the 2009/2010 Conference.
- September, 2008 to September, 2009/2010: This of course will be the two most important years in
history - the years that the U.N. will prepare for the Charter Review Conference, at which Conference,
hopefully, a Charter establishing a democratic and empowered structure of global governance will be
adopted; during this critical 2 year period, we will be working on so many things - infomercials and
TV programs; expanding the grass-roots, people power in every country; continuing the dialogue on the
new Charter and completion of the language and texts of proposals; raising additional money;
increasing the support of grass-roots organizations and N.G.O.'s; intensifying and continuing the
lobbying effort with regard to the ambassadors, staffs and governmental leaders in every country;
and working with the U.N. appointed Commission and its planning of the Conference and the protocol
for it.
- September 2009/2010: Holding the Charter Review Conference, at which conference we will
hopefully finally realize our basic goal of obtaining the votes of 2/3rds of the member Nations
for a new or comprehensively amended U.N. Charter that will democratize and empower the United
Nations. We will work with the U.N. Commission on the Charter Review Conference with respect to
all facets of the Conference, so as to ensure its success.
- September, 2009/2010 to 2012: Participate fully in the ratification process, with special
committees and emphasis on the five Nations with the single-nation veto, whose ratification will
be required; continue all support efforts by raising money, coordinating the support of all
grassroots organizations and N.G.O.’s, and with the use of media programs; and conduct broad and
vigorous educational programs about the contents of the new or amended Charter, what the amendments
mean for the world and just how they will enable the United Nations to solve global problems.
- By September 2012: Complete the ratification process. Finally, the world will have what it must
have to survive in the 21st Century - a democratized and empowered United Nations with appropriate
checks and balances.
Respectfully submitted,
Benton Musslewhite
and The Preliminary Working Committee on the 109 Process