Note on "one world"
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". Gideon Rachman - Financial Times
One of my favorite commentators, Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times's chief foreign affairs columnist, just wrote a column advocating a world government, Matthew Drudge of Matthew Drudge fame caught wind of it and prominently featured a link to it. As they say, (hollow, baritone voice) "the rest is history".
Soon it seemed as if every hoogedy boogedy wingnut in the USA had started to write in comments and after about 150 the FT shut the comments section down.
Here are a few samples:
If you don't find the possibility of a one-world government alarming and frightening, you are a kool-aid drinker of the highest order.And so on and so on. I dropped Gideon a line telling him he was lucky that there is no Chinese or Muslim Drudge because I'm sure many of their readers would say much the same things as the American neanderthals do, but in Chinese and Arabic.____________
Uh, pal... have you heard of The Constitution? I'll distill my feelings for you: fck World Gov't, and the international bankers disguised as the Fed plans to drive an nail in the coffin of the USD._____________
The planet is not in peril. Our freedoms are. Gullible warming is a ruse designed to bring about global collectivism and the world government you speak of.______________
I just can't wait to start paying "entitlements" to the impoverished in Africa.
Hit the road lefty.____________
It will simply not happen. You're dreaming. We Americans would never allow it. "Live free or die" and all that!____________
Ironically, the only country that wants to "rule the world" is the USA. "World Government" would be seen by most Chinese and Muslims as a last attempt by the USA to prolong its hegemony, which it probably would be, and I'm sure they would express themselves colorfully too.
What might finally happen, if we are lucky, is sort of a universal "Yalta" with recognized areas of influence: Asia with the Chinese, Japanese and the Indians calling the tunes.
There would be a dividing line that would leave Pakistan, Afghanistan and all the other stans in some Muslim grouping connected to Iran and the Arab countries of the Middle East, with Turkey as a bridge to the European Union.
By then the EU will have discovered, with the Russians, how to get the best use out of their marvelous, made in heaven, synergies.
The NAFTA group will have done the same thing.
Central and South America will chafe under the direction of Brazil and Africa will probably continue to be an endless source of pain, trouble and wealth as it always has been.
The major problem that I see here, are the relics of western imperialism like Australia and Israel, that will tend to fall between the stools.
Aside from that, I imagine that it might not be too difficult to keep any conflicts that might arise in these spheres of influence contained within them and not have them spread any farther.
Instead of "one world", a world of peacefully coexisting compartments. Will this happen? Probably not for a long, long time, unless the USA really does fold up.
Advertisement
I give you Asimov's "Threats to Humanity", parts one and two.
December 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect something more like Kim Stanley Robinson and Charles Stross portray, governments competing with non-nationals that are mainly commercial corporations. There would be at a minimum two factions in a single world government, and that dynamic would prevent the formation of said.
The only thing that would encourage a single government would be a clear external threat, i.e. bug-eyed monsters. Even an incoming comet/asteroid would likely just cause sudden fighting over whether and how to prevent it. Then again, maybe the previous would lead to the same outcome, too.
Since humans have shown over and over again that they love to fight, why would they ever give it up?
December 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right wing goes nuts every time someone brings up World Government. It is their number one talking point and it keeps their following from worrying about their own economic interests. It is encapsulized by Bolton who opined that the top 11 floors of the U.N. could be destroyed and do no harm. The w makes him ambassador to the U.N.
After thousands of years of bloody wars, the EU is a most interesting organization. How the hell they ever did it is beyond me. And it is working for them. But there is more than just the U.S. standing in the way. China has no time for Muslims in it philosophy.
I think it boils down to how you define 'government.' It would be fun to come back here in two hundred years and see what happened.
December 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, David, for the post and the link.
My first long-term, live-in boyfriend was a rather opinionated and hardcore Republican who bordered on Birchist and I can remember him ranting and raving against one-world government, only to see him watch and enjoy Star Trek:TNG (as did I). I always loved ST:THN’s version (vision?) of Earth, being one Federation of countries on a globe first, then joining a Federation of other planets next.
My adoration for non-fiction doesn’t nearly match my love of Science Fiction, which is only a fraction of the total of my absorption in fiction-fiction (and mostly dark comedies or family sagas -- or a blend of both), so I’m not all that informed on most of the issues you (and others) write about. As I said to CaliforniaPaige recently, I sometimes feel rather stupid as compared to many fellow TPM bloggers when it comes to certain topics (well, actually, I was referring to my skills at Gamefish’s Geo Challenge game alone, but if the shoe fits…) and she responded, “Don’t say stupid, it’s just that you’re uninformed about geography. That doesn’t mean you’re not smart, and it certainly doesn’t mean you’re stupid”.
I appreciate the straightforward straight-talk in this post. Your writing here reminds me of Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything”, which is written in beautifully clear layman’s terms, and entertaining to boot.
I’m uninformed in a number of topics, but I have a great imagination and a love for John Lennon. His “Imagine” is what I imagine Utopia to be, or close to it. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting it, regardless of how difficult it is to reach. So, thanks for the post. I enjoyed it.
Peace,
Lis
December 9, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I meant ST:TNG.
December 9, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
i thought immediately of star trek when i finished reading the post. when does that take place? the 25th or 26th century? quite a wait.
December 10, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink