by Harold S. BIDMEAD
« If our strategy is sound, we can afford to make tactical mistakes and still win through to victory. If our strategy is unsound, no amount of tactical brilliance will redeem us from disaster. « (Admiral MAHON)
The United Nations charter is officially due for revision in 1996. The world would have been a better place if such revision had taken place immediately after the Charter was signed, 50 years ago. Revision of the European Union treaty complex will also start next spring, extending into early 1997.
Most statesmen, politicians and diplomats worship an idol with feet of clay, national sovereignty (the claim to act as judge and jury in one's own case). Therefore, the terms of reference for the revisers will most probably be "to amend, reform and/or improve the status quo."
To federalists, faced with this gloomy prospect, it is some consolation to recall that when the American League of Friendship failed so ignominiously some two hundred years ago, those charged with the task of patching it up resolved to ignore their mandate and to scrap the league in favour of the federal constitution that has endured to this day. They found such radical, material, intrinsic and fundamental vices in all cooperative systems among sovereign states that no prudent person could be expected to trust any league. Let us hope that our present-day "revisers" will prove as courageous as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and their lesser known colleagues.
All those who realize that the world cannot have both peace and national sovereignty must exert every effort to steer the blind leaders of the blind in the right direction, towards some system of peacefully (policefully) enforceable law, remembering that law cannot be enforced without violence unless it operates directly on individuals.
There is thus a pressing need for Constituent Assemblies for both the UN and for Europe to correct the criminal follies of the past. In order to save valuable time at such conferences, draft constitutions will be invaluable. These fall into two categories, which I shall call the tactical (those that go into every detail) and the strategic, i.e. those that outline the broad requirements if any system is to be workable.
TACTICAL. Although detailed drafts (of which there are many) may be of value in demonstrating to doubters that every little hitch is capable of solution, they are illustrative only. They may also save much of the valuable time of the many subcommittees of the Assembly that will be needed to draft the details of the constitution when the time arrives. Current proposals will of course have to be updated to meet the exigencies of the time.
The Parliamentary Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union has already drafted what it calls a "federal" constitution, though this is not entirely federal. It adheres too closely to the Maastricht Treaty, which the Committee nevertheless admits is "a legal hotch-potch that is difficult to understand even for the initiated".
This, too, must be counted among the tactical drafts.
STRATEGIC: At the present time, however, our main attention should be directed to the broad lines along which Europe and the world must travel if we are to find workable solutions. For this reason, the proponents of tactical drafts should be encouraged to publicize the strategic considerations behind their proposals. The devising of new strategic outline drafts should also be encouraged and discussed. (...)
In my opinion our main objective must be a system of peacefully (policefully) enforceable law. There are many proposals aimed at providing the world with effective international law, but few attempts to make such "law" peacefully enforceable. We must cease trying to maintain peace by means of military or economic warfare, which punishes the innocent, the poor and the weak instead of the guilty. This is the main UN principle that must be scrapped, a solecism in theory and an abomination in practice. Law must act on individuals, not merely on states or whole communities as such.
Surely the parallel strategic aim must be to ensure that such peacefully enforceable law is just and equitable law. If not, it will not long remain enforceable without violence. To a democrat, this would seem to lead inevitably to laws made by the citizens themselves, not law imposed upon them by some despotic agency. It would seem that the UN principle of universality will have to be sacrificed to democracy, if only in the interest of efficacy. This indicates direct elections.
Care must also be taken to minimize the risk of national bloc voting. Elections as direct as practicable (even if via electoral colleges such as in US Presidential elections) would probably ensure this automatically, cf. the European "parliament", where voting is already along ideological lines.
In order to ensure the adherence of the greatest practical number of democracies to the new constitution, it is strategically necessary to deny to the general government powers over purely national affairs. (The fact that this is one of the main principles of federalism is in this context purely incidental). In other words, the powers of the general government must be strictly limited to duties essential for the attainment and maintenance of just and enduring peace : e. g. defence, foreign policy, civil aviation, nuclear energy and taxation for its own financing. (The list could be longer for Europe than for the world). Even this limited list will make general ratification difficult. Realists must resist efforts from woolly idealists to lengthen the list and thus shorten the list of accessions. For the world-embracing commonwealth, any functions beyond peacekeeping could continue to be dealt with by the old wasteful method of treaty-making, which the diplomats call "cooperation" and the man-in-the street "muddling through".
Another strategic aim is to ensure that the new commonwealth does not lack the necessary funds to carry out its duties. The UN system of voluntary contributions, carrying the hat round, must give way to taxation. Considering the vast savings inherent in a federal system, as compared with trying to make every nation more powerful than every other, federal taxation would represent no real burden on the commonwealth, and would probably - like most federal activities - pass almost unnoticed by the populace.
The fact that, in the present state of political science, such a system would inevitably be federal is of minor importance, since we should recall Cromwell's entreaty and realize that some future genius might conceivably come up with an even better solution.
Nor must we expect the new commonwealth to be called "federal". In a world where two of the world's four true federations are officially mis-styled Confederations ( i . e. leagues) the United Peoples of America keeps its old name of U.S.A., the new League of Nations is called "United" and the European semi-league a "Union", we need not complain if our new creations bear names that do not perpetuate the term federation. After all, the ignorant believe "federal " to be a dirty word.
Finally, if only to satisfy the universalists, the new Commonwealth should be open to all other states able and willing to satisfy the democratic requirements of the Constitution. That consent to accession would probably be vested in the hands of the Commonwealth I place in the category of tactics, not strategy. There will probably be no serious dissention on this point.
Democracy must leap the frontiers.
***