Open links in new window
PURETICS...

PURETICS...


Interesting Findings And World Unfolding Through My Eyes.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Global Citizen

I always think over this that how good and great it would be when we needn't to take passport and visa restrictions for travelling and if we want to shift our base there would be no one to stop we can live, eat,drink,wander from any part of earth to any country.Cosmopolitan world where no race,cast,creed,nation,language barrier would be.Then there would be less war but if I see it from larger point of view I found it will also create alot of conflict in individuals life as we have to deal with all kind of new relationship,differences will be many but it can be sorted out if world has able to find an International Order Or World Government it could be possible as technology has already reduced alot of barriers.I have got one more person who share and explore it deeply over this."David says,
"

It's not easy being a global citizen. In 1948, following his experience as a United States airman in the Pacific war, Gary Davis interrupted the United Nations general assembly to call for world government. He backed up his demand by inviting individuals to declare themselves world citizens. Never a man to issue edicts and then fail to act upon them, he renounced his American nationality and went on to spend decades promoting the idea of world citizenship - mainly by issuing "World Passports" to anyone who cares to apply (and pay a fee), while travelling the world himself in the attempt to persuade countries to accept them.

Davis got himself arrested in an impressive array of countries, for various obscure offences related to the passports' use and distribution ("confusing the public mind" in France is a personal favourite). A life dedicated to patronising the custodial establishments of the world, and generally irritating authority wherever it might lurk: clearly the line between being an active global citizen, and becoming a crank, is thin and indistinct.

The main problem is that there isn't a clearly defined global polity for us to be citizens of - being a citizen simply means having the right to live in a given country. And while we all have the right to live in one part of the world or another, this doesn't quite equate to an inalienable right to stride about the place with impunity - we are corralled into narrow strips of jurisdiction, and if we wish to decant to another we generally have to ask very nicely and fill in lots of forms. On the plus side, the minimal legal rights we are granted to inhabit our planet are at least a start, and there are no serious threats on the horizon to remove them - though I suspect Dick Cheney sometimes dreams of doing just that on stormy nights.


David Cullen is studying Politics and International Relations at Oxford Brookes. He has previously been a removals man, a pumpkin picker and run a sharp-shooter game in a funfair. In his spare time he DJs, is an activist in the Brookes People & Planet Society and blogs at inmyhumbleetc.co.uk

His article is the winning entry in the People & Planet / openDemocracy essay competition

To see extracts from the shortlisted entries, including the runner-up essay by Colin Rowlands click here

For a summary of the competition rules click here


The nation hurdle

The point remains: wherever you look for the forums in which we could begin our quest to make "global citizenship" less of a contradiction in terms, national governments keep getting in the way. The United Nations itself is a state-dominated body and continually hamstrung by the narrow self-interest of its constituent members. Our entire international legal system, including all our human-rights standards, depended upon the acquiescence of state governments in its adoption and still relies upon the whim of those same governments for its enforcement. Should we wish to gather with our fellow citizens at international events, often in the only role left open to us - that of protesting outside - we are at the mercy of state governments over whether such activity is deemed acceptable or not.

When I hurl my newspaper around the room in outrage at some global issue or other, the chances are the culprit is a government of some sort. And whether mine or someone else's, the chances of getting the matter attended to are disappointingly slim - I have petitioned the phone company a number of times for my own red telephone to harangue Australian prime minister John Howard in the dead of night, but they are strangely reticent on this front. Even when the mischief is being wrought closer to home and the authorities respond to complaints with pre-written stock letters that carry an air of paternal concern, actually getting the matter resolved is a rarity. Of course, under the United Kingdom's scrapbook constitutional arrangements we are technically subjects anyway (loyal or otherwise), and the prime minister wields a remnant of the divine right of kings in the form of the royal prerogative".Read More.


Posted by Ajay :: 5:27 PM :: 0 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------

 

http:// googlea0b0123eb86e02a9.html