And now for a world government (Financial Times)

**dajo** · 02-14-2009 06:16 PM

That's kind of interesting, no?
Financial Times is not like.. an internet blog.

And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

[email protected]

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c...nclick_check=1

Thoughts?

**Techno** · 02-14-2009 09:37 PM

What exactly is wrong with a world government? I feel we've been force-fed since the days of our youth by radical conservatives that such a concept is irrationally and inherently evil, and we can't see beyond that veil of fear to realy reasons and argument for or against this sort of thing. I want to see an argument that shows that a world government is a BAD idea for times like these.

**ChrissyMaria** · 02-15-2009 12:13 AM

World government is evil today because of the people behind it are not good people, they aren't nice, they don't care for us very much, they care for expanded power and control, not for our benefits.

These crises are generated, like the current economic crisis, it was created, by the elite...so they can push for their world government, so they can have more control.

Now, if world government was being ushered in by say the Dali Llama or Ghandi, or Jesus or John Lennons of the world, then world government would be great.

But, world government being ushered by the corrupt US and China, and the corrupt UN, and all of the corrupt central banks, including the rockefeller controlled Federal reserve, I fear for THAT specific world government.

I fear their brand of one world order is a communist dictatorship, globally.

Many people in the bilderberg group have stated they want to see a global dictatorship, where everyone pays a carbon tax because co2 is oh so dangerous

they have also bragged about depopulation methods, they want to drastically reduce global populations, mass murder anyone?

That to me is reason enough to hate this version of one world government, its a dystopia, not a utopia.

**dajo** · 02-15-2009 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

What exactly is wrong with a world government?

It wouldn't be a democracy anymore.
And history just tells, what comes with power.
That is the argument against all other
than democracy. Monumental changes are
being made, noone really can foresee
what will happen, especially at this point.

It would take an awful lot of trust in government,
to actually put the entire global strings in their hands,
without a serious opposition - and hope for the best.

This affects everything. That's the point, why
stuff like this needs to be questioned.

**drewmandan** · 02-15-2009 12:43 AM

Why would a democracy be any better than a dictatorship? Why the hell should a guy in Africa be able to determine the way that I live my life, or vice versa? Democracies need to be made smaller, not larger.

**dajo** · 02-15-2009 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Why would a democracy be any better than a dictatorship? Why the hell should a guy in Africa be able to determine the way that I live my life, or vice versa? Democracies need to be made smaller, not larger.

But many democracies != large dictatorship.

Some guy in Africa should NOT be able to determine the way your live, of course. A global democracy would not work. But a world dictatorship wouldn't either. But I don't disagree with your post, soo ...

**Serkat** · 02-15-2009 01:37 AM

World government would be good if it had extremely limited control, basically only providing an official constitutional framework for progressively smaller democratic communities to build upon. The smaller the scale, the more control the official institutions get.

World government should concern itself with human rights and basic freedoms. But i should not concern itself with drug laws, for example (like the UN does).

The fact that hallucinogenic drugs are outlawed THROUGH the UN TODAY should be reason enough for anyone to understand that world government would be a disaster. If a CURRENT institution controls something as private as harmless drug use TODAY, I don't see how you can honestly think that a world government would be totally awesome.

So that's just like saying "I'd love government if it wasn't naturally full of stupid old douches who don't care about people."

World government would be awesome if the universe was the chocolate land of acid rainbows and dancing wine gums. But since it is not, world government just means that centralized power increases beyond what we can now imagine.

It isn't so much about it DEFINITELY being something resembling totalitarianism from day one as the possibility of the people being completely incapable of defending themselves against totalitarianism. Dissent would become incredibly hard. I know that totalitarianism seems kind of "out there" if you grew up in a relatively free democratic society, but the fact of the matter is that totalitarianism is always a real possibility.

**Xaqaria** · 02-15-2009 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

What exactly is wrong with a world government? I feel we've been force-fed since the days of our youth by radical conservatives that such a concept is irrationally and inherently evil, and we can't see beyond that veil of fear to realy reasons and argument for or against this sort of thing. I want to see an argument that shows that a world government is a BAD idea for times like these.

In theory it is a nice idea but is has a fatal flaw. Right now the world's number one problem (as far as I see it) is that government has become too far removed from the people that it governs. We have a hand full of people in D.C. making choices that directly effect the lives of 3.5 million people across the country here in the U.S., and the lack of connection is evident in the problems that arise in our political system. How much compassion do you think that handful is going to have once they gain direct control over the 7 billion people across the globe?

**Invader** · 02-15-2009 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

In theory it is a nice idea but is has a fatal flaw. Right now the world's number one problem (as far as I see it) is that government has become too far removed from the people that it governs. We have a hand full of people in D.C. making choices that directly effect the lives of 3.5 million people across the country here in the U.S., and the lack of connection is evident in the problems that arise in our political system. How much compassion do you think that handful is going to have when once they gain direct control over the 7 billion people across the globe?

I agree with this to some extent. 'Control over ~~anything~~ anyone' is such an ugly phrase to be used when talking about how humans interact with other humans.

Oh, I think you meant 300 million people, by the way. When you were talking about the U.S., see?

**dajo** · 02-15-2009 12:22 PM

Wasn't it like 280million? Anyway...

There would be very many reasons, that would speak
against a world government. I think, the moment we're
ready for that will be, when we don't need any kind of
governance anymore.

But for now, I wouldn't really want a system that
sees humans as machines, as products, as consumers
- one as inhumane as ours, to rule over everything.

**Xaqaria** · 02-15-2009 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Oh, I think you meant 300 million people, by the way. When you were talking about the U.S., see?

Yeah, that is what I meant. 3.5 wouldn't have even covered New York.

**TheMoon** · 02-15-2009 05:03 PM

Hey btw guys, you do realize theres no such thing as a democracy anymore?

The last true democracy was ancient greece. There is no Democracy anymore.

The United States Government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Yes its "Democratic" Because we are alloud to elect in people to run the country. But a Democracy means the people run the government, not the government running the people.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

" government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

If the bush administration has showed us anything, that our elected Agents, are not for the people, just themself's. And we have no control over it.

Sure id like to see obama do better. But it still doesn't matter, this ain't a democracy. When i have a vote in things such as gun control, legalization of pot, when to goto war, who to tax, what to tax, ect ect.

Then this will be a democracy. But as of right now the people have no say in what happens in government, we are just aloud to elect new dictators every 4 or so years.

Thread: And now for a world government (Financial Times)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

And now for a world government (Financial Times)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions