[Kosh]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1


Frankly anyone openly proposing this just a few years ago would have pretty much been told to STFU. I just think the timing of this is rather interesting.

[Polpolion]

I'm not registering to read the article. Can you copy and paste it here?

[Kosh]

There shouldn't be a registration, but okay:

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.

[StarSlayer]

It's a nice idea and certainly global warming and other items deserve a global initiative, but I think fear, nationalism, religion, bigotry and old wounds are still too powerful influences on people to make it work.  The EU is cited as an example but itself has been very reluctant to include Eastern European countries that  would shift the balance of power.   If a truly serious attempt at world government was made i think it would just as likely to spin into another Cold War as those nations who fear it group together against it as it would be to succeed.

[Black Wolf]

As long as there are more poor people than rich people, this will never happen, because they would immediately vote to take money from the rich and give it to themselves. That's the sensibe thing to do. That's the only thing to do in a global democracy. Evening out the field means that the people with money and power now would inevitably have to give it up in order to equalize themselves with people from less well off nations. There's no way your average Westerner, (population, what, one billion? one point five?), would let themselves become politically equal with your average non westerner (5 billion) because of the inevitable power shift.

And this isn't a theoretical soapbox standing either - "everyone else is stopping me from running the perfect world!!!111" sorta thing. I don't want my vote to be equal with someone from Afghanistan or Somalia or Samoa or - and this, to me is much scarier - India, China or Brazil. Maybe, 200 years from now, if we've moved into space to mine to decrease the resource depletion risk, if we've got cheap-as-free energy and if we're all more or less economically equal anyway, maybe, maybe then we'll get some significant worldwide cooperation. If not, then the closest we'll come is a beefed up UN still run by the major members security council, and a bunch of third world nations who, every so often, get either aid or invaded by one of the big boys. The consequences of this (international terrorism, fishery depletion, illegal immigration etc.) are more palatable than the alternative.

[iamzack]

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.

Uh huh... We've seen that happen loads of times. One good example is the US. Original thirteen states were meant to be states, like... countries. And we managed to fix all the sectionalism that grew in the 1830s after the Civil War. Lookit us now: usually very little local loyalty going on.

I think it has to do with geographical distance. Back when we travelled by horse or on foot, of course you're going to be more loyal to your region, even if you're technically part of a country. You've never seen the capital.

But then we got cars and trains, and suddenly it wasn't hard to see the country as a whole rather than as a sum of your region plus other regions.

And now we have planes and bullet trains and such.

Unfortunately, we're clinging desperately to our national identities because God forbid we be forced to realize that we are more similar to other people than different from them.

So, yeah, problem solved: emphasize international similarities over international differences. We've been doing the latter forEVER.

I don't understand why no one seems to be able to get beyond the "us vs them" mentality. :[

[NGTM-1R]

Because it's true. It always will be. There are limited resources to go around and we compete for them.

[iamzack]

That's true, but that's not what the "us vs them" mentality is about.

men vs women, blacks vs whites, religious vs non... No resource competition here.

Besides, the ultimate goal of society is to be as un-Darwinistic as possible.

[Mika]

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.

How does this make the world government any more plausible?

Besides, the ultimate goal of society is to be as un-Darwinistic as possible.

I was just about to write that I see this as a thing in the past, but realised that the recession will make relations with other people far more important and cut down the competition to a reasonable and more sustainable level. At least in Western Countries, hopefully.

Mika

[Kosh]

How does this make the world government any more plausible?

Because this lessens the opposition to it. The financial crisis is causing a lot of people some very big problems. The vast majority of people want something better, and will usually go for something like this as long as it promises to "make things better."

[Janos]

Uh huh... We've seen that happen loads of times. One good example is the US. Original thirteen states were meant to be states, like... countries. And we managed to fix all the sectionalism that grew in the 1830s after the Civil War. Lookit us now: usually very little local loyalty going on.

what?

[Colonol Dekker]

Upon reading the title i thought it was about some smit of Tinfoil slander. . . Thankfully i was wrong.
 
Reading the article quote made me realise that the EU (thank god we no use the euro dollar) is only one step away from the the GTA

[IceFire]

I can't see World Government right now.  I can see more regionalized economic blocks becoming normal in the next 50 years.  There is already the EU, North America already has something of that in NAFTA, the Africans have the makings of one with the African Union, and while Asia is somewhat more fragmented and divided between Japan and China with Australia seemingly trying to just be its own thing (maybe I'm wrong on that) I think eventually there will be some sort of body that has an overall governance there as well.

But these are all economic with some semblances of political power.  I think some of these may become strong and some may come crashing down if there is some sort of conflict where members are forced to take sides.

[iamzack]

Uh huh... We've seen that happen loads of times. One good example is the US. Original thirteen states were meant to be states, like... countries. And we managed to fix all the sectionalism that grew in the 1830s after the Civil War. Lookit us now: usually very little local loyalty going on.

what?

ssectionalism that grew in the 1830s -- we mostly fixed it after the Civil War

[Janos]

Uh huh... We've seen that happen loads of times. One good example is the US. Original thirteen states were meant to be states, like... countries. And we managed to fix all the sectionalism that grew in the 1830s after the Civil War. Lookit us now: usually very little local loyalty going on.

what?

ssectionalism that grew in the 1830s -- we mostly fixed it after the Civil War

ooo!

now i parse correctly sentences these

[Flipside]

Thing is, as Zack says quite rightly, it is the 'Us and Them' attitude that will always stand in our way. Even in the US, people in California refer to people in, say, Ohio, as 'Them', even though they are us. We are used to communities that cover small groups and small territories, it's difficult for us to comprehend the idea of 'Us' being people who are over the Horizon, let alone an entire Ocean.

[Mars]

People in LA are suspicious of people in San Fran, but aknowlage they're in the same state. People in California still see people in Ohio as being in the same nation . . . the same boat so to speak. People in Colorado both aspire to and are suspicious of the large coastal populations, but we know we belong to the same country. In a similar way, if that could be expanded, so that every continent is it's own "boat" and eventually the whole world, why not?

Of course, you always have your Alaskan secessionists.

My title makes it really hard to take myself seriously

[Flipside]

Same nation, yes, but they are still people from other states, there's already a mental 'toolbox' that identifies them with a bunch of behavioural stereotypes, because that's the only way to deal with the situation, and, whilst it's possible to see them as the same Nation, there's still very limited feelings of loyalty to each other except in cases of National Crisis, each state attacks each other states laws, opinions, beliefs etc.

It's the same in the UK, Londoners stereotype Midlanders, Scottish stereotype English etc, it's not done viciously, at least, not always, it's just the only way we can cope with other people is think of them as 'Us with strange habits'.  Kind of like how Star Trek makes aliens into 'funny looking humans.'

[Mars]

That national identity comes out not just in times of national crisis though. Here in Colorado, the majority of people you meet everyday aren't from Colorado. They're from California or Texas. I poke fun at nearly every Texan I meet, and I know that if I went to Texas they'd do the same. But here's the thing, I can go to Texas, and expect things to be more or less the same there as it is here. There are some different laws, and some different attitudes, but I'm still very much in the western United States.

National identity can be strained, but, it works, and it doesn't require an outside threat to function. Here in the US, we have standardized currency, (pretty much) unrestricted movement between states, our national news really does cover the entire country, we have a military made up of every state and indeed territory (in part, to prevent any one state from trying to succeed), we have one top diplomat in Secretary of State, and one national image. When a bridge collapses in Minnesota and kills a bunch of people, we all here about it and the states all worry about their infrastructure. When a hurricane hits Florida, it hits the entire US; it matters to us more than if it hits Mexico. Obviously, if Colorado was hit by . . . well it's safe here . . . but if somehow CO was hit by a hurricane, it would matter more to me, but that doesn't change the fact that Florida is still part of where I live.

UK might be a bad example. Although it has an impressively large population, it's still geographically smaller, and less diverse, than my own state. Although Londoners might look down on midlanders they only live a few hundred kilometers away. The EU is a tempting example, but they're not really a nation, more of a trade alliance and legal board.

[Flipside]

I remember hearing an American Comedian once saying:

'Look at Bin Laden's M.O; Flak Jacket, Beard, Automatic Rifle. He could hide in Kansas for years!'

I suppose that's sort of what I mean, it's not vindictive or cruel, it's more 'ribbing' than anything else, but it's also a slight 'looking down the nose' attitude. You are probably more metropolitan than many people older than you, you've been raised with the Internet and are far more used to a Global way of thinking than your parents' generation.

This generation will inevitably get some spill over, purely because of parental prejudices (hence the fact that racism still exists in the Bible Belt even now), it'll take a while for those prejudices to filter out of the populace, and that's just for a single country. Once you start going global you have far more deeply grained prejudices to deal with.