From ‘Citizen of the World’ to ‘Global Citizen’: 

The Challenge of UNGA’s Silence Procedure?

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

The notion, if not concept, of ‘Citizen of the World’ can have an ordinary or technical meaning. The truth is that every human person born into this world is necessarily a citizen of this world. However, it is not every person born into this world that is so recognised or issued with a world identity document. In international relations until UNGA 79, a ‘citizen of the world’ is any person that is issued with a ‘World Passport’ by the Switzerland-based World Service Authority, an organisation in Switzerland. The world passport is given to people considered to be stateless (Les apatrides). And true enough, people that already possess a national passport of any country and still want the world passport, can also be given. The world passport serves as an identity as a citizen of the world.

It is important to note that many countries of the world do not accept the ‘World Passport’ as a good and correct means of self-identification. Garry Davis, an American bomber pilot in World War II, was inspired by the provision of Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and therefore established the World Service Authority in 1953 as a non-profit organisation. His objective was to educate about world citizenship, world law, and world government, with the ultimate objective of ending nationalistic wars. In fact, Garry Davis, who lived from 27 July 1921 to 24 July 2013, renounced in May 1948 his American nationality in order to promote world citizenship. Most unfortunately, several governments see the World Passport as an “official fantasy.’’

With the adoption of the ‘Pact of the Future Document’ at the 79th UN General Assembly, the world appears to have shifted from the notion of a ‘Citizen of the World,’ either as conceived by Garry Davis to be ‘a neutral, apolitical document of identity’ or ordinarily as world citizenship by education and inspiration, to the new notion of a ‘Global Citizen.’ A global citizen understands global questions and seeks a planet that is more peaceful and worth living. However, in the context of the ‘Pact of the Future,’ the notion of a Global Citizen is a completely digitised person that is not defined by national sovereignty or belong to any country.

Pact of the Future and ‘Global Citizen’ 

Thus, the world is currently witnessing a new dimension to globalisation, which is the digitisation of the human being, especially in terms of identity and de-sovereignty of people or de-nationalisation. The implications of the development has prompted Dr Sherri Tenpenny to cry out in the United States against the implications for Americans. In this regard, how do we understand the new conception of a global citizen? What are the implications of the ‘silence procedure,’ provided in it and which, in any case, cannot be said to be new? Is global citizenship in the larger interest of the African and black people? 

When the late Congolese President, Mobutu Seseko came up with the policy of authenticity and the policy was translated into a very thought-provoking and melodious song, Yayweh Nakomitunaka by Verckys Kiamuangana Orchestra in 1972 and renewed in 2006 by his daughter, Ancy Kiamuangana, the Vatican proscribed the record because of the thrust of the record that whatever is good and honourable is painted in white and whatever is demonic and bad is always painted in black. The musician therefore asked himself why God created black colour for African people. 

So embittered by the politics of colour and why this was so, the musician advised Africans and other black people to rethink and never to forget their origins. But considering that the musician was trying to query God and apparently to avoid ethnic hatred, the Vatican vehemently kicked against the circulation of the record, Nakomitunaka. In this regard, global citizenship cannot but have the potential to completely obliterate any quest meant to remember Africa’s genesis and originality. This observation makes the exegesis of the Pact of the Future necessary at this juncture. 

Grosso modo, the pact underscored Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI), international peace and security, Global Digital Compact, transformation of global governance, youth development, and the impact of the Pact and Compact for the future. The Pact seeks to impact by compacting and transforming global governance. In this regard, multilateralism is to be sustained more effectively by making it just, more representative, more networked, inclusive and financially stable. Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and particularly the reform of the international financial architecture, are some of the commitments agreed to in the Pact. For instance, the UN wants to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. It also wants the enjoyment of all human rights through the UN human rights mechanisms. More interestingly, the UN wants to deepen cooperation and partnerships between the UN and all other stakeholders.

The Global Digital Compact, as an annexure to the Pact of the Future is particularly noteworthy because of its roadmap for global Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance ‘through the establishment of an AI Scientific Panel, Global Policy Dialogue on AI and exploration of the establishment of a global fund for AI capacity building.’ And perhaps most noteworthy is the fact that ‘it is the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation. It explicitly includes human rights and concrete commitments to accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda and puts emphasis on the role of non-state stakeholders.’

In essence, the Pact of the Future is designed to be a landmark commitment not only to rethink trade and development and to work towards an equitable and sustainable economy for all, but to also address various global challenges (including counter-terrorism, UN peace operations, violent extremism, etc.) through a multilateral framework. In achieving this, the world leaders made 56 pledges to provide more financial funding, work harder towards the maintenance of peace and security, promote science and technological innovation, as well as carry the youth along.

What appears to be concerning about the Pact for the Future is the raised issue of digitisation and digitalisation. Digitisation is more about the process of converting analogue data into a digital format, while digitalisation refers to the integration of digital technologies into business operations. There are fears that human beings may be involved in the business operations. The way Dr Sherri Tenpenny, an American anti-vaccination, controversial activist, and osteopathic physician explains it can be frightening if looked into from the perspective of how neo-colonialism can eventually be strengthened using technology.

As observed by Dr Tenpenny, United Nations’ Pact for the Future says that ‘everyone will be expected to have a biometric digital ID that marks them not just as citizens of an individual country, but as a global citizen.’ More important, Dr Tenpenny has it that ‘anyone that has a dissonant opinion will be labelled as misinformation. Perpetrators for unapproved information will be fact-checked and punished by the system, which will be operated and enforced by artificial intelligence.’

There is the report that the AAP FactCheck tried to reach out to Dr Tenpenny to get ‘evidence to support her claims but did not receive a response. The Pact for the Future is not a binding agreement adopted by the UNGA during the Summit of the Future held from September 22 to 23 in New York.’ This AAP FactCheck raises more questions than answers. First, has the UN a plan for a digital identification system and punishment for dissident opinions? Is it sufficient to argue rightly that, because nothing was mentioned about biometric identification in the Plan, there cannot be an intention to introduce a biometric identity for everyone? The Pact has been negotiated for several years without success. Was there no time that the issue of biometric identification for everyone was raised? If it was raised, why has it not been finally accommodated in the final document? In international diplomacy does the final document often agreed to by signatories a comprehensive reflection of all the discussions that transpired during the discussions that led to the adoption of the final documents? 

More interestingly, how do we explain the rationale for the video of Dr Tenpenny? She is a certified osteopathic practitioner. Her practicing license was once seized and returned. She opposed the anti-COVID-19 vaccines. Many times, she was agreed with, and many times, she was disagreed with. In this context, if Dr Tenpenny is wrong, does her submission point to or not point to an intention to have a plan to introduce a biometric identity for every citizen of the world? There is no smoke without fire.

Secondly, the AAPFactCheck (vide www.aap.com.au) reportedly based its conclusion on the point that Dr Tenpenny never responded to its inquiry on evidence. Is this sufficient to insinuate or even conclude that there is no intention to have a plan for biometric identity for citizens of the world? In fact, why did Dr Tenpenny cry out to the US Congress about the implications of a biometric identity that is not planned for? Could it simply be that she is raising an alarm? By raising an alarm, does she want a biometric identification for the global citizens by raising it indirectly? 

‘Silence Procedure’ in International Relations 

Without jot of doubt, the AAPFactCheck might have lent much credence to the falsity of Dr Tenpenny by going to the extent of investigating the matter at the level of many seasoned academics: Kathryn Jacobsen, Professor of Health Studies, at the University of Richmond; Ronald Labonte, Professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa; Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, an Associate Professor of One Health diplomacy at the Tufts University, etc. However, what really could have been behind Dr Tenpenny of seeking to misinform the general public? It is against this background that we seek an explication of ‘Silence Procedure’ as raised by Dr Tenpenny which is also thought-provoking. 

Silence Procedure is about the opportunity of at least 72 hours given to all UN Member States to raise objections on a draft UN resolution or decision as well as to explain or give their rationales for their position. One rationale for the adoption of the procedure is the impact of COVID-19 which did not allow for in-person meetings but which prompted the UNGA and the Social Council to adopt a version of the Silence Procedure. The procedure does not currently permit voting basically for technical reasons. As noted in UNGA Decision 74/544 of 27 March 2020, the UNGA adopted the ’procedure for taking decisions of the General Assembly during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)’ and also notes ‘the limitations recommended on meetings within the United Nations premises as precautionary measures aimed at containing require the spread of COVID-19.’

Etymologically, Silence Procedure is a resultant from the Latin expression qui tacet consentire videtur, meaning ‘he who is silent is taken to agree’ or silence is consent.’ In French language, it is interpreted as procédure d’approbation tacite or procedure of indirect approval. 

It is useful that it was Nigeria’s UNGA President, Tijjani Muhammad-Bande who circulated the proposed decision for adoption, after consultations with the General Committee of the Assembly. As put by Ambassador Muhammad-Bande, ‘it is quite clear that we all agreed that, under the prevailing extraordinary circumstances, the General Assembly has to be able to take essential decisions related to the Organisation. But how do we interpret a procedure that does not enable voting? 

For instance, there is an increasing preference in the UN system for consensus as the best method for decision, rather than by voting which is based on ‘One State, One Vote.’ In the context of procedural matters, it is still the principle of one state, one vote even if an affirmative vote of at least 9 of the 15 members of the UNSC is required for decision-taking.

On the application of the procedure, a Step-by-Step Document explains that the UNGA President is required to circulate a draft of a decision or resolution to all Member States, specifying the deadline of at least 72 hours for raising any objection. Additionally, the draft must be made available on the UN’s Official Document System in all official languages except in extraordinary circumstance. More important, any objection is normally communicated through a letter or a note verbale via email to the UNGA President who is then required to inform all the Member States that the silence has been broken. In the absence of any objection within the stipulated time limit to object to the draft or decision, the UNGA President ‘will circulate a letter confirming adoption … All decisions and resolutions adopted via the silence procedure will be noted by the UNGA plenary at its first possible meeting in the General Assembly Hall. This Silence Procedure varies in style from one agency to the other.

However, from the foregoing, can the Pact for the Future be subject to review through the silence procedure since the Pact has several follow-up mechanisms? To what extent can Africa affirm its sovereignty if the policy of silence procedure is adopted? Without doubt, three categories of silence have been identified by observers: psycholinguistic silence which can be fast time or slow-time: interactive silence; and socio-cultural silence. If the UN or the developed countries have whatever agenda of biometric identification which has been variously brandished here and there and using any of the silence procedure as means, what really is the self-protection procedure that Africa can boast of in the face of both digitisation and digitalisation of global governance? Was the adoption of the Pact by the Pact of the Future Summit a resultant from any of the three types of silence? 

Hypothetically, let us admit that there is an agenda for biometric identity for every citizen of the world and that it will be possible for everyone to be controlled by technology, what happens in the event of loss of national sovereignty? This question is necessary because the direct international control of the individual global citizen by any international stakeholder cannot but directly negate national sovereign control. This is why African leaders must learn how to weep and see at the same time. They can no longer have the luxury of not seeking a better understanding of how globalisation in its various ramifications is affecting national identity, national sovereignty, and national survival.   

African leaders must not close their eyes to the fact that international politics is increasingly becoming dirtier than ever before. UNGA resolutions, even though it is always rightly argued that it does not have the force of law, UNSC resolutions that have the force of law are flagrantly disobeyed with the express complicity of the Permanent-5 of the UNSC. The US-backing of Israel in its genocidal war against the Palestinians and the Russian-Ukrainian war that began with Russia’s special military intervention are living examples from which to learn lessons from. Africa is disintegrating gradually and the UN Pact for the Future must not be allowed to serve as a catalytic factor in the disintegration and underdevelopment of Africa’s international cooperation efforts. At the end of it all, what impression should one have about Dr Tenpenny? Is it that of a liar and irresponsible person? Might she have seen some of the working documents of the UNGA? Whatever is the case, time will tell but the position of Dr Tenpenny cannot be easily thrown away with the stroke of the pen.

Put differently, the essence of the submission of Dr Sherri Tenpenny is that the ‘Pact for the Future’ calls for everyone to have biometric digital IDs and the sanctioning of dissident opinions. She is said to be wrong. Agreed! But based on her well-established pedigree as an osteopathic physician, she cannot but have a hidden message that she is trying to send to the world indirectly but which appears not to have been well couched in the UN Pact for the Future.  The position of this column, Vie Internationale, is its belief in a Yoruba idiom that ‘what is behind six is more than seven,’ or in the English saying that there is no ‘smoke without fire.’ It believes that there is something about biometric identity for everyone that is in the offing. This is informed by the international politics of the COVID-19 vaccines. Consequently, Nigeria, in particular, and Africa, in general, should assume that there is an agenda for the introduction of a biometric identification of global citizens. If the assumption has merits, what will Nigeria and Africa do in responding to the presumed agenda? It cannot be sufficient to assume that Dr Tenpenny is wrong. If she is wrong, why is she not sanctioned for seeking to mislead the whole world? Why should democratic freedom be taken advantage of to mislead? As there have been different speculations about how to reduce Africa’s population and strengthen Africa’s dependency on Europe, Africa needs to engage in critical thinking more than ever before.