Continuing global power and competition as usual.
Critical Support Omissions:
The G.E.T.V.P. free global education project would enhance individual skills and thought processes worldwide, thus empowering individuals with productive and creative tools for contribution and accelerating solutions to our mutual problems. Bypassing this need deny individuals from their vision to prosperity.
Insufficient Contemplation Among Global Citizens:
Nations may not initially understand the goals and expectations of the proposed global highest ideals and may be hesitant to support them. Alternatively, current leadership may have very limited interest in the proposed global changes and could fail to fully inform and advise their constituents regarding every known benefit.
Governments must discuss all obligations and expectations among their own people and to all global cooperative entities for support. Global highest ideals must receive formal approval by all nations. The cooperative operating model is the way to global cooperation and global peace.
Substandard Vision and Commitment of Global Leadership:
No vision can be executed and sustained on behalf of the people without authentic and shared support from leadership. Governments must understand the harmony between policy and adopted ideology. They must remain steadfast knowing that their ideals always serve the people and not government or themselves. Governments exist to serve the people, where tyranny is the exact opposite of global highest ideals. Governments must serve at the request of and subject to the will of the people, especially with respect to domestic concerns. They must recognize adopted global highest ideals as their primary tool for direction and motivation.
Governing Covenants and Political Posturing:
Major resistances will exist among nations from their varying governing covenants. Some of those resistances will emanate from concerns regarding the security of nations. Contemplations must resolve current governing laws and perceived vulnerabilities to achieve the desired globally adoptable highest ideals as defined by the people.
During the initial years towards pure global cooperation, some nations may choose protectionist-style laws, actions and beliefs to minimize the risk of change. This thinking creates international vulnerabilities affecting associated communities, families and individuals. For this reason, extensive interactions are required at every level of every government and their people to generate a consensus regarding how to adapt and optimize the global resource distribution model. Emphasis should be placed on contingency planning for trade disputes, capacity changes, logistical obstacles and other disruptive influences.
Global cooperation does not require a supreme global government, unless this is deemed to be the will of the global people. Supreme ruling entities insert undue obstacles to free community exchanges. In this regard, world government as a supreme ruling entity is unnecessary if not detrimental. Actually, successful global cooperative relations could be implemented at local citizen levels acting multilaterally in cooperation with all other locales worldwide. A global network of local communities can successfully exchange resources as needed.
To achieve stable and optimized communications between individuals and governments worldwide, communication freedoms and opportunities must be broadly enabled. Accordingly, governments and other communications technologies management entities that currently censor or otherwise inhibit free and open communications of one or more humans must retire these restricting philosophies to participate in authentic global progress.
Sovereign Rights Extremes:
Nations claim sovereign rights to WMD devices. Justifying control by sovereign right is flawed with the unbearable risk to every nation outside the sovereign territory of WMD devices. Sovereign right justifications should be rejected when the consequences of their acts and materials controlled risk human life outside their own sovereign borders.
Independent WMD controls represent extreme examples of this global risk. Without global commitments to remove independent WMD, all humans remain potential targets for annihilation. Restructuring control of all WMD under one global defense council transfers focus away from annihilation vulnerabilities between governments, peoples and other entities by properly redirecting focus to endeavors that could actually benefit the entire human race.
WMD Policy Implementation:
WMD management possess consequences too critical to plan, execute or manage haphazardly. Strict checks and balances must ensure that only relevant factors contribute to global defense council selection, management and very limited mission of planetary defense and any other mission for global benefit. The global defense council must be invulnerable to every worldly conflict, including conflicts among council membership.
Because membership is either bestowed or withdrawn based on due trust, experience, wisdom and commitment, no nation shall possess the power to transfer global defense council membership. Furthermore, no entity will separately own or control WMD devices. Therefore, changes in global defense council member status does not revert previously owned or controlled WMD devices for separate national control. In essence, all WMD control strictly remains with the global council.
Global defense council officials must pass ongoing assessments for judgment and stability. After careful consideration, any nation choosing not to participate in the global cooperative must strictly cooperate with the global defense council with respect to possessing any development stage of WMD materials, technologies and plans within its territory or control and to satisfy all other global security mandates.
Global leadership will occasionally offer policies to mutually dismantle all WMD devices worldwide. These policies can potentially be successful only if there can be agreement and action to mutually dismantle WMD worldwide and sustained by highest ideal commitments among every successive world leader to prevent future WMD re-escalation. However, dismantling of WMD worldwide could be soon followed by rapid WMD re-escalation or initial escalation by rogue entities resulting from unresolved foreign relations or balance of power conditions.
Furthermore, in the absence of effective alternatives, complete dismantling of all WMD worldwide potentially places the entire human race at risk of having a less effective defense on a planetary scale. Nevertheless, if directed, the global defense council would be the appropriate council to facilitate dismantling all WMD worldwide.
Contemplating a global defense council, or other more appropriately named structure, will be met with predictable resistance among many entities. However, when presented with the alternative of inevitable future increases in WMD knowledge, developments and potential threats among nations, it must be eventually concluded that secure control of worldwide WMD materials and technologies should be operationally controlled by one responsible global council.
If both administrative and operational control under one global council is deemed as investing too much power in one organization, then administrative and executive control can be bestowed to the head of state of every nation. In other words, a unanimous approval of in excess of 200 independent minds representing their sovereign nations must agree on the decision, timing and targeting before an operational WMD launch by the global defense council would be possible. Multiple layers of software, electronic, cryptology and human protocols would safeguard against an accidental or unauthorized launch.
Because global sharing or need-based resource allocation is the goal, reports, certifications or inspections may be necessary under some circumstances to confirm and optimize resource consumption, productivity and efficiency of all nations.
Governments participating in Unidentified Flying Objects or Unidentified Submerged Objects (UFO/USO) programs will never fully obtain the trust of their people or other nations as long as these operations continue to be clandestine. If such objects are friendly aliens, then global citizens continue to be denied the privilege to participate in forming and advancing cooperative relations with them. If they are unfriendly aliens, then global citizens continue to be denied relevant information for personal contingency planning. If they are solely advanced human technologies, then global citizens continue to be denied opportunities to participate in expanded transportation technologies and other everyday applications that could potentially end any perceived global energy crisis. Nevertheless, every excluded global citizen continue to be denied the chance to grow now from formally releasing every coveted truth.
Continuing global power and competition as usual.