The World Federalist Institute under the GlobalSolutions.org/WFM-IGP Partnership

Prior to the larger strategic overhaul, I worked with GS.org staff and members of the WFI Steering Committee to examine and identify ways to improve the program of the World Federalist Institute and its contributions to GlobalSolutions.org. The World Federalist Institute was intended to provide GlobalSolutions.org with an internal research group to examine issues and challenges in democratic global governance beyond the organization’s immediate political objectives. GlobalSolutions.org and WFM has recognized that, for all intents and purposes, world federalism will be a given in terms of the further development of international governance. The current mission for the Institute should be on identifying the emerging concepts in global governance where Institute participants can offer compelling models, tactics and actionable campaigns that could actualize federalism’s benefits to international governance. The Institute should advance dialogue on emerging concepts within the core action areas of GS.org and WFM/IGP—preventing war, law & justice, human rights, and United Nations reform. To expand the Institute’s relevance to current policymakers, topics should be build on contemporary and specific global challenges but propose policy options just “over the horizon” (within a time frame of 10-30 years). The overall goal of the earlier review was to further develop the Institute in these ways and better frame how it could bring added value to GS.org, to the Institute’s participants and to potential funders. This goal is still quite viable within the GS.org-WFM/IGP partnership. Through a number of one-on-one conversations with then members of the Institute’s steering committee, I learned that most participants expressed support for the Institute’s vision and the many hours of contributions by their Institute colleagues. On the other hand, there was widely shared concern on the “drifting” nature of the Institute’s discussions and attention to “administrative” tasks, uncertainty on how it nurtures worthy ideas or best uses the participants’ time and expertise, and an over-reliance on Fellows’ outside projects rather than collective, Institute-initiated efforts. There was continued concern over the relationship between the Institute and GS.org, the name of the Institute, and expectations on the Institute’s completed work. Most participants recognized the financial constraints which GS.org was still operating under and did not suggest unreasonable demands for support from the national staff. Despite these concerns, there was near unanimous support for the potential which the Institute could bring to GS.org and a number of proposals were offered for moving the Institute forward. Unfortunately, the potential for moving forward was curtailed, initially by the larger strategic review which many WFI member felt excluded their concerns, and more recently by vitriolic and unprofessional comments during WFI conference calls by individuals which have long opposed GS.org mission and vision and have consistently sought to undermine it in favor of a return to the previous organizational name and messaging. These individuals, while active in WFI—a program of GS.org—are not donors, members or otherwise supporters of GS.org yet demand access to strategic documents and a voice in GS.org policy. Revisiting WFI Reform

Given the resurgent concerns by WFI members—both from those who positively contribute to GS.org and others—and the new partnership to be formed with the WFM/IGP, I recommend another look at the previous effort and its recommendations. The program currently engages a number of active and published scholars in global governance, and their collaboration could facilitate broader exposure and examination of GS.org proposals in leading peer-reviewed journals, at professional conferences and with a number of academic networks, universities and law schools. With effective leadership and a focused program, the Institute can also play a role in placing

the immediate objectives of GS.org within a context of broad, principled global governance and help frame the essential direction for GS.org to advocate for the evolution of global institutions.1 Through the Institute, steering committee participants saw GS.org offering participants unique access to creative policy experts. This remains true with the GS.org-WFM/IGP partnership. Expert panels, sponsored events and white papers could highlight and offer critical reviews of emerging concepts, connect GS.org’s action program with WFM/IGP longer-term thinking, and offer participants an opportunity to go “over the horizon” in examining the impact and potential downsides to proposals being discussed in current policy circles. This would further GS.org’s strategic goal of being seen as a leader in offering compelling models and actionable grassroots support for advancing solutions to contemporary global challenges.2 In addition to working with scholars and policy experts, the Institute also has the opportunity to engage and introduce potential grantors and innovative thought leaders in global governance. GS.org has long-standing relationships with several leading foundations for its programs on treaty ratification and responsible U.S. multilateralism. Having first developed through the Institute effective processes and a reputation for contributing innovative ideas to the leading forums on global solutions, GS.org could invite program staff at these foundations to participate in the Institute’s review and assessment of emerging ideas. With continued development of the Institute, GS.org may be able to seek grants and other funding to specifically underwrite the Institute, its programs, publications and events. Complementing GS.org grant proposals on efforts with evident near-term results, the Institute would acquaint foundations with emerging and innovative scholarship and seek their support to promote and nurture proposals from their initial development. Achieving this scale of success will require refocusing the Institute’s processes, leadership and branding. A number of proposals approved and requested by the Institute’s steering committee in 2008 recognize these needs in part. 3 The following proposals reflect my recommendations, having interviewed staff and steering committee members, for moving the Institute forward in 2011.

• Leadership of the Institute should be vested in a volunteer Senior Fellow (as Chair and c3 Board member) with the academic or program management background essential to oversee and focus the Institute’s relationships and creative work in collaboration with the program and policy staff of GS.org. The Senior Fellow will need to convey a clear strategy and processes for which ideas to take up and how to evaluate or nurture them, and set clear expectations on what happens afterwards. The Senior Fellow could be given a modest honorarium and expense account, provided that resources are available and need is demonstrated.

• A small advisory group should be selected in a similar manner to the c4 Board’s PAC to provide the Senior Fellow and GS.org staff appropriate feedback in developing the Institute’s working processes, outreach and fundraising, and how best to use participants’ time and expertise.

• GS.org’s current financial constraints prevent dedicated Institute staff for the foreseeable future, but occasional technical assistance by GS.org staff could facilitate the programs of the Institute and outreach by the Senior Fellow.

1 The Institute was created to provide a forum within GS.org for “developing a greater understanding of and interest in the values, concepts and principles of world federalism and its components, democratic international institutions and the rule of law” - GS.org 501(c)2 Bylaws, Article 6:1 2 GS.org Strategic Plan, 2010-2013, adopted by the Board in December 2009 3 Resolution adopted by Steering Committee in 2008

• The Senior Fellow and GS.org staff should immediately undertake a serious effort to find ways to brand the Institute more effectively in order to build strong relationships with academic networks and leading scholars.

Fundamentally Reforming the WFI

One of the recommendations heard from WFI participants was the need for a WFI-hosted panels or a collation of expert opinion on a single topic. Staff agreed with this, noting only the need to involve outside experts as a way of marketing the Institute’s interest in discussing contemporary and relevant policy topics. Such panels or publications would be more likely to secure outside funding. The following topics, for example, could provide the Institute opportunities to move beyond its current focus on definitions and ‘buzz words” and instead significantly influence current policy debates, nationally and internationally: o Aggression, the ICC and the Criminalization of War

§ What will the 2017 review of ICC jurisdiction over aggression mean for U.S. military policy, UN Security Council decision-making, and protection of civilians?

o Applying Environmentalism’s Lessons to Proliferation: Prevention, Mitigation, Adaptation? § Given the inevitability of significant climate change over the near future, should organizations

and multilateral institutions move to develop proposals on mitigation and adaption instead?

o When Not to Prevent War – Intervention and Legitimacy? § How and when might the “responsibility to protect” world citizens require the use of military

force legitimately?

o Achieving Nonproliferation Goals: Moving From Denial to Technology Governance § Article in Minerva (Spring 2010) by Elizabeth Turpen, on the challenges by globalization on

traditional arms control regimes and the need for buy-in on global technology governance

o Formulating a 5th Geneva Convention to Provide a Legal Framework for Combating Terrorism § A new norm to address non-state actors, terrorists, and “enemy combatants,” as proposed in

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/a_plan_b_for_obama?page=0,6 o The New Millennium Development Goals and Institutions to Address Inequality and Poverty

§ Framing the new post-2015 development goals within our context of international cooperation, global citizenship, shared prosperity, fair and lawful processes, and democratic accountability

o The G20 versus the UN: Who Rules the World, Who Should, Who Can? § Is the ability of the more assertive G20 to address global challenges a net positive over the

broader membership and accountability of other international institutions?

o Not Ready for Prime Time - Who Deserves a Seat on the Security Council? § http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66577/jorge-g-castaneda/not-ready-for-prime-time

and a rebuttal by David Shorr http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8685?

o Treaties and Norms: Developing a Responsibility Index for National Governments? § This unfinished WFI project could complement a new Council of Foreign Relation report card

which grades international performance in addressing today's most daunting challenges.

Another area of concern with WFI—made more evident by recent commentary—is the caliber and qualifications of individuals invited to become the new Senior Fellow. The staff and WFI Steering Committee members felt this person would need to

o to convey a clear strategy and processes for the Institute’s work o to oversee and develop external relationships and o to guide the creative, collaborative work with staff, and o and to set clear expectations on what the Institute delivers to GS.org, to donors and to

participants in its projects. The nature of the Senior Fellow position requires someone of significant gravitas and policy experience while serving in a volunteer and minimally compensated role. There were a number of potential candidates discussed among staff and the Leadership Committee – some then serving on the Steering Committee - but staff did not feel confident moving forward with an invitation at this time. In the interim, current and any new Fellows should be seen as establishing the momentum necessary for a future Senior Fellow to achieve these goals, particularly within the context of the GS.org-WFM/IGP partnership. To get the WFI moving in this direction, staff and WFI leaders should consider

o Evolving the Steering Committee into a small advisory committee within the GS.org-WFM/IGP advisory board, with its focus more on strategic planning than program proposals

o Continue efforts to develop projects of interest to non-WFI participants and, specifically, program funders, and

o most importantly really engage Fellows in ways that makes the most of their individual time and expertise in building a coherent WFI program with a standing programmatic identity of its own.

There are significant opportunities to better align the WFI within the GS.org-WFM/IGP partnership in ways that could contribute to the Institute’s success. Recommendations along these lines as well as WFI-specific strategic planning should continue to be explored as we move forward. Thoughts and contributions to this effort are, of course, always welcome.