December 17, 2025

LIST of Articles 12/17/25 DWF NEWS

Subject line: Circumventing the UN Security Council's Veto

The Pentagon turns Christmas into a celebration of killing

#1 A Christmas Cartoon of Violence

Robert Rees and Clifton Jolley

Earth Constitution leads the way, a gift to the World 

#2 World Parliament Declares a "State of Planetary Emergency"

Glen T. Martin, Ph.D.

The P5 Veto is killing the World, and everyone knows it

#3 How to circumvent the veto and establish a Second UN Charter

Augusto Lopez-Claros and Andrew Strauss

Democracy Without Borders

Israel's biggest con trick is fooling the world into ignoring mass murder

#4 Israel's Biggest Con Trick

Jonathan Cook

 Coercive intimidation by elected officials to stop ICC prosecution suggests they know they are guilty of world crimes 

#5 States Parties and civil society defend the International Criminal Court

World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy

 #6 China Today "Make Trade Not War"

Fritz Pointer

WORLD PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM

Perhaps it is fitting during the Christmas season to bring to our readers some good news: There is a way to get around the undemocratic, dictatorship of the UN Security Council's P-5 Veto.

It is well known that the UN Security Council's P-5 nations with veto power have prevented the UN from doing its primary job -- ending war, and insuring justice. For example, the US uses its veto to allow Israel to commit apartheid and genocide against the Palestinians by keeping the UN helpless to stop the mass slaughter.

We can thank the Center for UN Constitutional Research (CUNCR) for originating the Article 109 movement which essentially opens the door to a legally required review of the obsolete UN Charter, and shows the way that nations seeking world peace and justice can establish a "new UN" and not be stopped by the dictorship of the P-5 Veto powers.

The other good news is that as the UN begins to take seriously Charter Review we will see that the World Constitution & Parliament Association will be able to work with the UN General Assembly and the ICC Assembly of State Parties toward replacing the fatally flawed UN Charter with WCPA's Earth Constitution -- a brilliantly designed world constitution with a World Parliament bringing decision-making on global affairs to "we, the people" and to thoss nations sincere about wanting world peace and justice. -- R. Kotila, Ph.D.

The Pentagon turns Christmas into a celebration of killing

A Christmas Cartoon of Violence  

 Robert Rees and Clifton Jolley 

When Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth unveiled a cartoon titled “Franklin [the Frog] Targets Narco Terrorists”—a depiction of a gleeful turtle firing a bazooka at boats supposedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean--it presented a chilling reminder of how easily violence can be trivialized, even celebrated, in the name of national security. The cartoon’s caption, “For your Christmas wish list,” makes the irony grotesque. 

At first glance, the cartoon might seem like harmless propaganda, a playful cartoon figure targeting faceless “narco-terrorists.” But the imagery is not abstract. The boats are manned by human-looking creatures. The bazooka is not a toy. The turtle’s grin is joyful. What is being depicted is the violent annihilation of people packaged as a holiday gift. This is not satire; it is state-sponsored messaging. And it raises profound questions about the moral compass of a government that conflates Christmas cheer with military violence.

The irony is layered. Christmas is a season of peace, goodwill, and reconciliation. It is a time when Christians reflect on the humility of a child born in a manger, heralded not by armies but by angels proclaiming peace on earth. To juxtapose that sacred imagery with a cartoon of a bazooka blast is to mock the very essence of the holiday. It suggests that what Americans should wish for is not peace, but the destruction of supposed enemies.

There is also a deeper danger in this kind of cartoonish militarism. By reducing complex geopolitical realities to caricatures, the U.S. military risks dehumanizing those it targets. Narco-trafficking is indeed a scourge, and drug cartels wreak havoc across the Americas. But to portray suspected traffickers as cartoon villains to be gleefully blown apart is to erase the human dimension of the problem. Many caught in the drug trade are themselves victims of poverty, corruption, and systemic inequality. They are people with families, histories, and futures. To obliterate them in a cartoon is to obliterate empathy itself.

The cartoon also reflects a troubling trend in American political culture: the gamification of war. For decades, military recruitment has leaned on video-game aesthetics, turning combat into entertainment. Now, with Franklin the Frog as a bazooka-wielding turtle, the Pentagon seems to be extending that logic into holiday messaging. The public is invited not to mourn the necessity of violence but to laugh at it, to cheer it, to embrace it as part of the national identity. This is not just propaganda; it is cultural conditioning.

Critics will argue that the cartoon is harmless, that it might simply be a morale booster for troops stationed far from home. But morale built on mockery of human life is not true morale. It is cynicism disguised as cheer. It is the normalization of violence under the guise of festivity. And it is profoundly corrosive to the values America claims to uphold.

The timing of the cartoon is equally disturbing. In an era when global conflicts are escalating and the line between military necessity and political theater grows ever thinner, the choice to release such imagery during the Christmas season is a deliberate attempt to fuse religious symbolism with military might, to sanctify violence by wrapping it in holiday garb. It is obscene to present a favored children’s cartoon character as a figure of gleeful destruction.

This Christmas, Americans should reject the Pentagon’s wish list. We should demand peace, not propaganda. We should demand justice, not jokes. We should demand leaders who understand that the Prince of Peace cannot be invoked to bless bazookas. And we should demand that our government stop trivializing violence in the name of holiday cheer.

The cartoon of Franklin the Frog as a bazooka-toting turtle is not just a misstep. It is a symptom of a deeper sickness: a culture that has grown too comfortable with violence, too eager to laugh at war, too willing to conflate Christmas with combat. If America is to reclaim its moral compass, it must reject such messaging and remember that the true gift of the season is peace—not destruction.

Robert Rees, Ph.D. is an academic, humanitarian, and peace advocate living in Marin County, California. He is the co-founder and president of Fast Forward for the planet, and co-founder of BOUNTIFUL a children's foundation.

Clifton Jolley, Ph.D., is president of Advent Communications

Earth Constitution leads the way, a gift to the World 

World Parliament Declares a "State of Planetary Emergency"

Glen T. Martin, Ph.D.

 The Provisional World Parliament in India concludes on this alarming note.

EXCERPTS

12 Dec 2025 – The 16th Session of the Provisional World Parliament operating under the authority of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth concluded its deliberations on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2025. This Parliament session was both in-person and online from Pondicherry, India, with participants from around the world. As President of the Parliament, I gave the Presidential Address and emphasized the framework under which we operate, known as the Earth Constitution.

Each session of the Parliament acts as a legislative body, discussing and passing “World Legislative Acts (WLAs) that address the problems of governing and redeeming our broken world system. Drawing on the background of the previous 73 WLAs that began with the first Parliament session in Brighton, England, in 1982, voting delegates discussed and then voted on a host of new WLAs, numbered from 74 to 91. A great deal was accomplished that, of course, will be duly recorded on our websites.

The Provisional World Parliament exists as a nascent democratic world government, joining the peoples and nations of Earth together under a system in which the people of Earth are sovereign, and the nations receive their share of sovereign authority from the World Parliament that represents the whole of humanity. ...

Many people around the world are dimly aware of the need to grow up in the first two or three dimensions. But most still take the sovereign nation-state system as “natural” (it is not), or a simple self-evident “given” (it is not). In fact, the nation-state system, invented in Europe some 375 years ago, is an outdated and immature way of organizing humanity, creating international chaos, endless wars, and huge planetary problems (such as the inability to deal with the climate crisis or to eliminate extensive global poverty or to disarm the world of its weapons of mass destruction).

In fact, the very existence of this dysfunctional global non-governance system exacerbates the problems of growth in the other three dimensions: it encourages hate and fear in the subjective dimension.  ...READ MORE

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/12/world-parliament-declares-a-state-of-planetary-emergency/

The P5 Veto is killing the World, and everyone knows it

How to circumvent the veto and establish a Second UN Charter Augusto Lopez-Claros and Andrew Strauss   Democracy Without Borders

EXCERPTS

 Given the scale of the world’s challenges, ranging from climate disaster, to the ever-present danger of nuclear war and potentially out-of-control AI, few believe that the United Nations Charter, drafted in 1945, is fit for purpose in 2025. So, why hasn’t the document been significantly amended?

 In a nutshell, the member states of the United Nations have long considered transformational Charter reform a non-starter because its text empowers any one of the Permanent Five members of the Security Council to veto such reform. There is no way, the logic runs, that those same Permanent Five states—the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France—who enjoy special Charter-given prerogatives would all unanimously agree to relinquish their privilege. Maybe that logic is correct, but perhaps there is another way.

 Faced with the perennial reform thwarting concern that the mere prospect of a veto by any one of the Permanent Five countries could defeat their reform project, the Commission drew inspiration from the framers of the United States Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789, amendments required the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. This unanimity rule rendered reform virtually impossible. ...

Recognizing that modifying the Articles by resorting to their own amendment provisions was futile, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia took a bold step. They exceeded their mandate to “revise” the Articles and instead drafted a new Constitution establishing a stronger federal government. The new framework retained the same national name, “the United States of America,” but conceived a new legal entity. Crucially, no longer bound by the amendment requirements of the Articles of Confederation, it provided that the Constitution would take effect once ratified by only nine of the thirteen states, instead of all thirteen.

Emulating the American founders, under the Second Charter’s acceptance and ratification provisions, the Commission provides that if a General Assembly initiated Charter Review or “Renewal” Conference were to reach broad agreement on reforms, but a permanent member was then poised to veto the outcome, the reforming states would have the option to constitute a new legal entity under the same name, “the United Nations.” This new organization would inherit all rights, responsibilities, assets, and treaty relationships of the old one, ensuring continuity of international obligations. In essence, it would replicate the institutional substance of the United Nations but under a renewed constitutional framework reflecting democratic legitimacy and contemporary priorities.

Legally, this approach is sound. International law permits states to establish new organizations and to agree among themselves that the new body will assume the rights and duties of its predecessor.  READ MORE

https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/39791/how-to-circumvent-the-veto-and-establish-a-second-un-charter/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Israel's biggest con trick is fooling the world into ignoring mass murder

Israel's Biggest Con Trick

Jonathan Cook

EXCERPTS

 These people were killed (MURDERED) by Israel destroying their homes and leaving them with no shelter. By Israel destroying their water and electricity supplies and their sanitation systems. By Israel levelling their hospitals. By Israel starving them. By Israel creating the perfect conditions for disease to spread. The list of ways Israel is killing (MURDERING) people in Gaza goes on and on.

(Despite Israeli disinformation campaigns, the Israeli military itself believes more than 80 per cent of the dead are civilians.)

Or even that these “debates” always ignore the fact that, early on, Israel wrecked Gaza’s capacity to count its dead by destroying the enclave’s governmental offices and its hospitals. The 70,000 figure is likely to be a drastic under-estimate.

No, the biggest con trick is that Israel has successfully penned us all into a “debate”, one entirely divorced from reality, that relates only to those killed directly by its bombs and gunfire.

The truth is that far, far larger numbers of people in Gaza have been actively killed by Israel not through these direct means but through what statisticians refer to as “indirect” methods.

These people were killed by Israel destroying their homes and leaving them with no shelter. By Israel destroying their water and electricity supplies and their sanitation systems. By Israel levelling their hospitals. By Israel starving them. By Israel creating the perfect conditions for disease to spread. The list of ways Israel is killing people in Gaza goes on and on. Imagine your own societies levelled in the way Gaza has been.

How long would your elderly parents survive in this hellscape?

How well would your diabetic child fare, or your sister with asthma, or your brother with cancer?

How well would you cope with catching pneumonia, or even a common cold, if you hadn’t had more than one small meal a day for months on end?  READ MORE

 Coercive intimidation by elected officials to stop ICC prosecution suggests they know they are guilty of world crimes 

#5 States Parties and civil society defend the International Criminal Court

World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy

Dear friends and colleagues,

In our November 23 Update we reported, amongst other things, on current cases and investigations in the International Criminal Court (ICC); as well as the United States sanctions against the ICC Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutors, a number of the ICC judges and three foreign NGOs; and the draft amendments on the crimes of aggression, slavery and ecocide.

Last week, from December 1-5, States Parties of the ICC met in the Hague for their annual Assembly to discuss these issues.

Despite the US sanctions and other attacks on the ICC, the court continues to be strongly supported by an overwhelming majority of governments. The 125 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute include 33 from Africa, 19 from Asia-Pacific, 20 from Eastern Europe, 28 from Latin American and the Caribbean and 25 from Western Europe and other States.

ICC officials (judges, deputy prosecutors and staff) also participated in the Assembly, along with civil society organizations and victims/survivors of atrocity crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression).

The Assembly adopted a number of resolutions, including on States Parties’ cooperation with the court (such as the obligation to arrest individuals subject to ICC arrest warrants), and on Strengthening the ICC and Assembly of States Parties.

The Assembly also released a Declaration affirming “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and reiterating a joint commitment to “uphold and defend the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity, undeterred by any threats and measures against the Court, its officials, and those cooperating with it.”

The Declaration expresses concern regarding “the impact of threats and sanctions on victims, which adversely affect access to justice and compromise the Court’s efforts to ensure accountability and reparations” (see, for example, How sanctions imposed by Trump are taking a toll on the International Criminal Court) and regarding the “malicious cyber activities directed at the Court and its information technology infrastructure since 2023” (see ICC detects and contains new sophisticated cyber security incident).

And the Declaration confirms a commitment to undertaking “measures aimed at ensuring that the Court, its officials, and staff are able to carry out their mandate impartially, undeterred by coercive measures or intimidation, including the use of sanctions or arrest warrants against elected officials.”

The Declaration concludes with a powerful assertion that “Crimes under the Rome Statute, which threaten the peace, security, and well-being of the world, shall not go unpunished.”

READ MORE

https://mailchi.mp/e0ef8a442d07/states-parties-and-civil-society-defend-the-international-court-of-justice-9302239?e=184f7032b2

Editor: Western media too often treat China as an adversary, an "enemy", a threat to the USA. The sources of demonization are racial bigotry ("yellow peril"), hatred of communism, and restrictions on free speech and religion. America's capitalists oppose communism (and socialism) in part because China's economic model favors "we, the people" over capitalism's private profit for the Few. Pundits such as in the Wall Street Journal's editorial section are quick to falsely proclaim that "capitalism is the only economic model worth having." - R. Kotila, DWF NEWS

China Today

  "Make Trade Not War"

Fritz Pointer

Dr.Victor Gao, is Vice President of the Center for China and Globalization as well as Chair Professor at Sujo University. He is very experienced in media talking about US/China relations. What follows is my annotated transcription of some of Prof. Gao’s responses to interview questions posed to him by Danny Haiphong, journalist and author with Roberto Sirvent of "American Exceptionalism and American Innocence."- Fritz Pointer

For the 140 countries in the world which consider China as the largest trading partner of theirs, no one was threatened with a gun pointed at their head and saying “Deal with China only, only buy China products. And when you sell your commodities to the rest of the world, don’t sell it to any other country. Sell only to China.” No, we engage in free trade. We engage in real freedom and liberty of trading with each other. China will really excel in excellence and China will become one of the most important and impactful countries in the world, as China has been for the past 5,000 years.

Since 1978, China rose up and committed itself to reform and opening to the outside world and engaging in massive amounts of industrialization, urbanization and modernization of all kinds, and that is the basis for China’s complete transformation. If anyone in the world believes that China does not have a legitimate right to develop itself to become not only one of the largest and the most developed countries in the world but probably the leading country in the world in terms of technological innovation and new qualitative productivity focused on innovation and creativity, then probably that person does not know the world she or he is facing.

China's successes not a threat to the US

China today is a major power that the US should be engaged with for mutual benefit. Washington appears to worry that if China becomes bigger and bigger that it will push the United States away from the center of the global stage, and then impose its values, its political and economic system, its ideology on the US. The US needs to detoxify itself of this idea; and China needs to convince the US that it does not seek to be a global hegemon. Rather China wants to be the standard bearer of free trade: to do the right thing: to help all countries in the world to gain economic development: China wants to promote peace, stability and development not only for itself but for mankind as a whole.

On the other hand, the United States, holds a gun at every country’s head and says, “You must listen to my dictates. You must do whatever I tell you to do.”

Even demanding that Canada become the 51^st state of the US; demanding that Greenland become part of the US. Now faced with massive maximum tariffs launched by the US against China, China rises to the occasion. China, of course, retaliates and the US says, “No you should not retaliate; when I strike you with tariffs you just take it and eat it.” 

No, that’s not how China will react. Other countries may have their own considerations and calculus to decide how they will react to such pressure and manhandling by Washington. But for China if you try to manhandle China; if you slap China in the face, China will slap you back. If you hold a gun to China’s head, China will hold a gun at your head. If you say, “I will impose maximum tariffs on Chinese exports to the US,” China will do the same against your exports. China will stand up firm and say, “If you launch a tariff war, we will fight you to the very end. If you want to block all Chinese exports to the United States there will be no more exports of US products to the China market,” the largest market in the world today, and will become more and more important in the coming years and coming decades. Of course, Washington does not have the decency to tell the American people that tariffs are a tax on them; that the US consumers pay for tariffs. That companies like Walmart pass on the costs to them.

There’s been a lot of talk about the United States considering building a “Golden Dome” missile defense system. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson recently said that this needs to be stopped; that the US should pull this back and get rid of this idea.

For this moment in human history, mankind is faced with a choice, peace or war. And the golden dome idea is a major attempt to weaponize outer space, which is very dangerous. Mankind has already had too many wars, too much suffering. US leaders should know what the consequence will be if they were to weaponize outer space. China is doing the right thing calling for stopping the attempted weaponization of outer space; every country in the world has a legitimate interest in protecting their own sovereignty and territorial integrity. And no one should blow the situation out of proportion to weaponize outer space. That’s number one.

Number two is that China has never been assertive, according to the definition of that word. China has always been very strong and very firm in defending its legitimate rights to sovereignty and territorial integrity. And if any country is pushing China in the attempted violation of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, China will fight back. That is not belligerency. That is simply the firm resolution of the Chinese nation under the leadership of the Chinese government and the ruling party. So the United States needs to be very careful and clear as to where China stands. To repeat, China has been and will continue to be a major force for peace and stability in the world as well as for development not only for China but for all stakeholders in the world.

If we look at world history since the end of the cold war, more or less in 1991, the track record for China is that China has not been involved in one single war. So, China’s record is zero war for China. Whereas for the United States, it has been involved in one war after another, in multiple places in the world. So, we are talking about, just recently: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Ukraine, and now threatening war in Venezuela and Nigeria. Their track record is carved in stone. That’s number one.

Number two is that China’s philosophy, throughout the ages, teaches us that war should be very much considered as a last resort. You need to exhaust all other possibilities: diplomacy, mediation, negotiation etc. before resorting to war. Now we are living in the nuclear age. If you compare China’s philosophy with the American philosophy, you should be startled. 

China’s philosophy is that China will never be the first country to use nuclear weapons against any country. That’s number one. Number two is that China will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons country or region. China will only use nuclear weapons in retaliation against a nuclear attack on China; or against a very serious violation of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Whereas the United States has never given up the right of first use of nuclear weapons; it considers using nuclear weapons as part of its right.

China's foreign policy is "win-win" 

China goes out to different parts of the world to trade, to help to build bridges, railways, highways, dams of all kinds, trying to cultivate friendships and to promote win-win situations. For example, China helped Laos, Kenya and Tanzania build railways, Indonesia build a highspeed railway from Bandung to Jakarta, is helping Malaysia build the eastern corridor to reach the Indian Ocean, is helping Peru build a sophisticated container port north of Lima and is working with Brazil to build highways and railways connecting the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. On the other hand, the United States, given its huge wealth and economic and financial power at its disposal is not building any meaningful connectivity projects anywhere in the world: no roads, no railways, no bridges, no schools, no hospitals. It’s amazing. 

All these wars America has been involved in have destroyed not only hard infrastructure of all kinds, but hundreds and thousands of lives around the world. We all hope that the US will really think more about peace rather than using war as a means to solve problems. China’s conviction and hope is the inevitability of peace between China and the United States. Even after reading Harvard professor Graham Allison’s Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? – “A Critical Examination of Historical Patterns Leading to War Between Great Powers” – to apply his analysis to China and the America is a fallacy. Because Allison forgets to inform mankind that all the cases of war he analyzed were conventional wars. Whereas China and the United States are both very important countries with nuclear weapons. Therefore, comparing conventional wars to two nuclear powers is fallacious and does not reflect reality.

As such, war is not and should not be an option at all between China and the US. Because any war between China and America may escalate from conventional war to nuclear war. And in a nuclear confrontation, there will be no winner. Both China and the United States will be wiped out. And in between there will be Armageddon for mankind. Do they really believe or indulge in the fantasy that they can wipe out China with 1.4 billion people and the United States will remain unscathed? No, that’s not going to be the scenario. If war breaks out between China and the US there will be no winner. All of us, the 8 billion people in the world will be the losers.

With all our hearts and minds, China appeals to decision makers in Washington and the Pentagon and the deep state, to not indulge in the fantasy of launching a war against China. Engage China in peace and become convinced of the inevitability of peace between China and the United States. Make sure that the American people and the Chinese people are both winners