DON QUIXOTE IN THE 21st CENTURY A Citizens Guide for Global Action

Transcription

1 DON QUIXOTE IN THE 21st CENTURY A Citizens Guide for Global Action In the 17th century Don Quixote loses his wits and decides to turn knight-errant and travel through the world, with horse and armour, redressing all manner of wrongs. His companion Sancho Panza, a down-to-earth person with common sense, reminds us that small concrete gestures can change people s lives more than grandiose designs. Nowadays, the millions of quixotes of the 21st century can act using their common sense to fight in a common cause those countries that violate international law and/or international agreements and/or international solidarity. Our world is now a global village where governments have frequently failed to tackle the world s big issues and international conflicts because they are beholden to voters, inhibited by their own political agenda and beset with domestic problems and opposing international interests. The scale of the global problems we are facing far exceeds the political will to tackle them. Competing national interests and the short-termism of modern-day politics deal more with self-preservation than making progress to solve these problems. Politicians alone won t do. It is urgent that we aim for a well-regulated global village, where members of the community whose behaviour damages the future of the village, or compromises other people s quality of life, are required to mend their ways. Politicians are failing in this task and the search for urgent solutions should be taken by citizens participating in global action, as quixotes of the 21st century. The citizens global action beyond their own borders, in the form of selected boycotts, should become the norm from now onwards. The globalised problems and the growth of internet and other technologies that link us all above nation, race and creed give citizens the possibility to act where governments have proven a failure. In very urgent need of a citizens participation is the common cause of fighting climate change, poverty and other world problems... but because of the global economic crisis our first proposal for a boycott should be a citizens' fight against tax havens. Below are details of the parameters and the way citizens, from all corners of the world, can participate in a boycott to exert pressure on a country that needs to mend its ways: 1. The way to participate: a Citizens Boycott The Boycott starts with a proposal to effect a confrontation with the government of a country that violates international law and/or international agreements and/or international solidarity in a common cause, with the aim of forcing that country to correct the wrong done. Every Boycott should stipulate a definite demand which cannot be negotiated and no time limit to be enforced. There is no possibility of negotiation because the citizens have no organisation and no representatives to negotiate. The result can only have one winner. The Boycott is born out of necessity because governments, although necessary, are failing us in tackling the world s big issues and international conflicts with the urgency required. We should not wait any longer because our common future depends on our actions today, not tomorrow or sometime in the future. The Boycott is based on the Don Quixote Guiding Principles of Common Sense, Common Good and

2 Popular Responsibility (see below). To decide whether to take part in the Boycott each citizen can apply common sense in judging if a country is infringing the common good, and if that country is in violation of international law and/or international agreements and/or international solidarity in a common cause. 2. Basis and means for a Citzens Boycott We, the citizens of the 21st century, have nowadays the possibility and the means to directly participate in global action beyond our own borders, by joining a global citizens Boycott to a nation-state. The possibility that individual citizens of the world can successfully exert pressure through boycotting a nationstate is based on the following: Globalisation which has helped countries to spread products and services all over the world. The stronger the economy of a country the easier to find its products and/or services in more parts of the world, and the easier to put pressure on that country by avoiding those products. For instance: the United States, the greatest power, has products and/or services at the doorsteps" of citizens throughout the world, with a variety that covers all aspects of our lives, and citizens committed to challenge that country would find it a very easy task to use their consumer power. The growth of internet and other new technologies which provide a global network, which can connect us all in a natural and effortless way "above nation, race and creed". 3. Don Quixote's Guiding Principles The following Guiding Principles provide the framework to proceed with a Boycott by using consumer power to convey the message that the boycotted country is in violation of international law and/or international agreements and/or international solidarity in a common cause. 1 Citizens' Common Sense: Citizens take the decision to participate in a Boycott applying their common sense based on their awareness on a given subject. 2 The Common Good: The common good is a utilitarian ideal representing "the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of individuals". 3 The Popular Responsibility: Popular sovereignty is the doctrine that the state is created by and subject to the will of its people, who are the source of all political power. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule of law is based on the consent of the governed. Based on this consent the citizens of a country that violates international law and/or international agreements and/or international solidarity in a common cause, are not personally responsible for the international "infringement" committed by their government. On the other hand, collectively those citizens have the responsibility to "force" their government to correct, for the common and greater good, the infringement committed or being committed by their rulers. 4. Citizens consumer power: the way to pressure a country The strength of the economy of a country depends in part on world citizens buying or using its products and/or services. The message, and the pressure to correct the wrong done, will reach that country loud and clear when enough world citizens avoid buying or using those products, and/or services, during a sustained period. A very important part of the Boycott is the creation of lists of products and services on offer by the boycotted country. Much data can be obtained through internet searching the webs of important companies of that country, but the help of local quixotes (activists and researchers) should give extra details. The

3 following can serve as a guideline to start a list of products and services to be avoided. Avoiding products owned, totally or partially, by the boycotted country, whether manufactured inside or outside that country. Avoiding products which contain ingredients or parts supplied by a company owned directly or indirectly by a company of the boycotted country or by nationals of that country. For instance: pastry made wholly or partially with flour from the boycotted country; a machine with parts belonging to a company of the boycotted country, or designed by a company of the boycotted country; or using software from a company of the boycotted country. Avoiding all kinds of transport handled, or owned, or leased totally or partially by interests of the boycotted country. Avoiding visits to the boycotted country. Avoiding buying products from the boycotted country by mail order. Avoiding investing in the boycotted country. Not attending or supporting sporting events or leisure events in which the boycotted country participates. 5. Extending a Boycott to external leverage entities The Boycott may be extended to apply to external leverage entities - directly or indirectly connected to the boycotted country - being: corporations and/or companies outside the boycotted country. This may be the only way to pressure countries which have little economical exposure, like the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Panama and others. Group 1: An airline flying to a boycotted country or any holiday company that organize trips, or any other company that trades with the boycotted country. For example: if the Cayman Islands, as a tax haven, is under a citizens Boycott, any airline flying to that country. Group 2: Also extended, for example, to any company providing services to companies of Group 1. This can be extended to others connected to groups 1 and 2 as in a chain. Group 3: A chain of hotels, restaurants, banks or any other business which has one or more units in the boycotted country. For example: all Hilton Hotels if there is one unit in the boycotted country. 6. Extending a Boycott to exert pressure through a third country Exerting pressure to a country that is giving aid to another country which is under a citizens Boycott. Exerting pressure upon a country from which cooperation is vital, directly or indirectly, to help the progress of a citizens Boycott to another country. For example: if Monaco, as a tax haven, is under a citizens Boycott, pressure on France should also be necessary. When Monaco refused to co-operate with France on tax laws in 1963, Charles De Gaulle cut off some of its services (The Principality is dependent on France for rail and road transport, electricity and other essential services). 7. Proposals for a Boycott to a country Proposals for a Boycott may be submitted in the future by many citizens from around the world on different subjects, but we believe that only those few proposals that can impact on the lives, expectations and/or feelings of the many will have a chance to attract enough activists and participants to achieve success. Boycotts should be selective and serve as a leading example to others. The reason for being selective is that where there is more than one country to be boycotted for the same or similar infringement, it may be more effective to boycott the worst offender first in order to serve as an example to the

4 others in the waiting line. The citizens individuality and anonymity should help. The boycotting citizens do not need to make public their participation if they do not wish to. The boycotted country will not be able to exert pressure - as they normally do country to country - because they have no way of knowing who those citizens are or the countries in which they live. 8. The Boycott s aimed progression The proposal for a Boycott is to be put on the "web" based on pass-it-on to others, in search of quixotes (activists and participants), starting with a version in English. As this is the first time that a Boycott to a country is tried out, it can only be hoped that it will progress according to aspirations, and that the natural indolence of citizens to participate in something new is not a major obstacle. The natural progress of the Boycott is based on finding committed quixotes, who should work hard to put the Boycott in the news, to create the necessary impact on other citizens, in order to increase the number of participants. Quixotes in every country should create further websites in their own language, improving and extending the contents, creating lists of products and services associated with the boycotted country with the names and characteristics given in their respective country, in a manner that participants find easy to use. The network of websites, in different languages, could end up covering large parts of the world and serve as a forum for participants to source information about products and services, and also to submit local information to the websites. 9. Boycott to Multinationals We, the citizens of the 21st century, have the means to participate in a boycott against tax avoidance by multinationals. This companies escape the fiscal regulations using tax havens to avoid taxes. The boycott to a multinational should last until it applies the Country-by-Country Reporting. 10. International law By boycotting countries that violate international law and/or international agreements, and/or international solidarity in a common cause, Citizens for Global Action are, indirectly, aiming also at reforms within the United Nations to make international decision-making more effective, transparent, accountable, and democratic. The United Nations Democracy is really on trial at the UN when, in a General Assembly vote on a resolution, there is an overwhelming majority but a single veto from any of the five veto-holding members in the UN Security Council stops it dead. Not too democratic. Yet, despite this, the UN remains the world's best hope of a just global-governance and ideally this organization has the forum where the poor and weak can have some influence over the actions of the rich and powerful. It is unfortunate that the future of the UN lies in the hands of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council: the United States, China, France, Britain and Russia. The UN is only as effective as its most important members want it to be. We are unlikely to see an improvement here until there is a reconfiguration of the Security Council. The Council reflects the world of 1945 not But there is little evidence that the present incumbents are ready to see their power diluted. We must sadly conclude that the present deadlock is likely to continue. However, as Citizens for Global Action we can apply our common sense and accept the voting of the UN General Assembly, the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice as follows:

5 UN Security Council Citizens for Global Action would accept as binding a vote with a minimum of 11 positive votes, including at least 4 permanent members (abstentions of permanent members to be considered as positive votes). Veto not accepted. UN General Assembly Citizens for Global Action would accept as binding (with the same value as a UN Security Council vote) with a minimum of 70% of positive votes of all the countries, including at least 3 Security Council members, representing at least 70% of the world population or 80% if both China and India are included in the positive vote. International Court of Justice The International Court of Justice, commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ, is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in The Hague. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly. The ICJ should not be confused with the International Criminal Court, which potentially also has global jurisdiction. The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. In a famous landmark case, the ICJ ruled in 2004 by 14 to 1 (the US judge) that the construction of the Separation Wall (also known as the Apartheid Wall) being built by Israel, the occupying power, in the Palestinian Territory, is contrary to international law. Also that Israel is obliged to stop the Wall s construction, dismantle what had already been built, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall. Nothing happened after that, and the wall s construction continues. The process against Israel could have been continued through the Security Council, but once there the US veto would stop it. Solution: Citizens for Global Action would accept as binding (with the same value as a UN Security Council vote) with a minimum of 12 positive votes in the ICJ.