Round 2. Beelzebubba v IsaacKoi: Nationality: Earthling., page 1

Premise: A unified World Government will eventuate by fair and peaceful means.

My thanks to The Vagabond, the Judges, the readers, and my opponent.

______

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew
From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

Tennyson

The notion of a One World Government is not as far-fetched or as undesireable as some may think it is. Processes have been put in place to ensure that the topic of this debate will indeed become a reality. There are many avenues to be explored that will provide evidence that not only are many in powerful governmental positions prepared to make such a transition, but that many ordinary people are ready to live in a global village.

During this debate I shall provide evidence that a One World Government will cease to become the stuff of conjecture and will indeed enter the realm of reality. If not in our lifetimes, certainly in the future.

We will look at past attempts to create this new governing body, why they failed, and why mankind is becoming increasingly prepared to enter the world of global governance.

Topics such as International Politics, International Criminal Law, International Labor Laws, International Trade, as well as the general mind-set of people living in the 21st Century will all play a role in proving that countries will be willing to surrender sovereignty and enter into a new and exciting era that will benefit all of mankind.

We have already seen the creation of bodies such as the EU, AU, ASEAN, the Union of South American Nations, the Central American Parliament, and others of that ilk that have created the first stepping stone to global governance.

Bodies like those cited above have shown that a stronger and more powerful governing body is needed to enforce laws that will prevent the abuse of Human Rights as well as put an end to internal conflict around the globe. The creation of bodies like the EU are extremely encouraging in that they have already loosely affiliated many nations, but what is needed is the next logical step in creating a governing system that can enforce laws and mete out punishment for transgressions of abuses.

From these humble beginnings we will see the eventual abolishment of many of the worlds ills. From the end of genocidal acts to the raising of living and working conditions of those in Third World Countries to be compatible with those in the West.

Many of the greatest minds throughout history have dreamt of a Utopian society in which all of mankind live under the benevolent umbrella of a world-wide governing body.
People such as; Dante, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Immanuel Kant, Ulysses S. Grant, Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, Karl Krause have all dared to dream. These dreams have played a major role in influencing the ideals of many in positions of power today.

Movements like that of the Bahá'í Faith, have dedicated themselves to the creation of a global governing body (a faith that sits at over 5 million at last count and is still growing).

Many diverse areas will be delved into to provide evidence that not only is a One World Government desired by many, but that the notion is an inevitable course that humanity is set to sail into.

We may even delve into the theory of an extraterrestrial threat to unite us as a race. It may seem far-fetched, but the possibiltiy remains.

Thank you.

In this debate I will be arguing against the proposition that "Humans will eventually achieve a unified world government by fair and peaceful means".

The term “world government” needs to be defined. As a useful and concise starting point, I note that the relevant Wikipedia article defines a world government as “a political body that would make, interpret and enforce international law”. The same Wikipedia article refers to the attributes of a federal government as including “open internal borders, a directly elected parliament, a court system and a centralized economic policy”

I will be providing evidence for considering that a world government with such attributes is unlikely to be achieved by fair and peaceful means. The citizens of the many nations of the world are simply too diverse to make agreement upon the format of a world government a realistic prospect.

No-one should underestimate the fear and distrust which humans display for the unknown or those that are simply different. Cultural, economic and political differences should not be underestimated. Indeed, a mere difference in skin colour is still a major source of conflict in many countries. Even in the “enlightened” Western democracies, racism is still rampant. The prospect of “open internal borders” would horrify many in the West, where concern about immigration is a frequent source of heated political debate.

The problems with a “world government” are more than skin deep, however. Even within ethnic groups there can be divisions based on religion or culture which have been the source of hatred for centuries. Anyone that expects those differences to simply cease to exist is living in a dream (albeit a pleasant one which has appealed to a considerable number of naïve individuals).

In his provacative opening statement, my opponent has indicated that he will be be providing evidence that the concept of a world government “will enter the realm of reality”. He has indicated that he will rely upon the creation of various bodies, including the European Union and the International Criminal Court. I will, of course, respond to my opponent’s arguments in relation to those bodies but I would like to make a couple of preliminary points.

Firstly, bodies such as the European Union and the African Union are far from being regional governments. The careful imposition of strict limits on their powers has been necessary because of the importance placed on governments upon their own sovereignty and due to the fears of their citizens. More importantly, these “Unions” involve co-operation and co-ordination between nations of similar economic status and cultural values. At least part of the motivation behind their formation was to create larger power entities to negotiate and compete with other global powers, particularly the USA. They re not a sign that individuals or nations are ready for a world government – instead, they are a sign that old competitions and disputes are becoming

Secondly, bodies such as the International Criminal Court have in practice been very limited in their effects. While few people would argue in favour of genocide, the lack of an effective international criminal court to sanction those guilty of crimes against humanity is symptomatic of the unwillingness to surrender sovereignty to an international body. For example, the USA (the most powerful country in the world) has refused to join the International Criminal Court, as have several of the countries with the largest populations on the planet (including China and India).

Standing back from the detail, the most telling argument against the proposition that
humans will eventually achieve a unified world government by fair and peaceful means is to look at how maps have changed during the last few centuries. Two millennia ago, large parts of maps of Earth would have had the same colour to indicate the Roman empire. A few hundred years ago, large parts of maps of Earth would have had the same colour (to indicate, say, the British empire). In both cases, the relevant empires were created and ruled by force. More recently, the growing reluctance (or inability) to use force against the population of foreign countries has resulted in the collapse of one empire after another. Most recently, we have seen the collapse of the former USSR and the Balkanization of Eastern Europe.

We no longer have large parts of the globe showing the same colour.

Many individuals around the world have been prepared to take up arms to fight for an independent government for their region/nation. (How many would be prepared to take up arms to fight for a world government?)

Indeed, within the United Kingdom there has been a strong movement towards greater devolution to regional assemblies and Parliaments (e.g. for Wales and Scotland).

In short, while there may be some arguments in favour of a unified world government, it is only likely to be achieved by force.

Previous attempts to create a world government have one thing in common. They all failed.

There is no reason to consider that any future attempt is more likely to succeed.

Thank you.

My apologies for the delay. It was unavoidable. My thanks to The Vagabond and IsaacKoi for their patience.
____

The notion of a One World Government will of course raise the spectre of that International Boogey-Man: The NWO. The bane of many a conspiracist (my work is definately cut out for me). But, let us push that prejudiced image aside and ponder the reasons why humanity would want to unite under one Global Government. Reasons that would sway the inhabitants of Earth to willingly go this route without being corralled into it.

Fair and peaceful methods.

For a start we must look at the younger generation, people in their teens, and twenties, even people in their thirties It is these people who will be making the decisions in the future. More than any other generation before them, this demographic have grown up with the ideals of Internationalism instilled in them.

If you were at school in the 1980's, you may remember "Band-Aid." They had a little ditty called "Do They Know It's Christmas." This amalgamation of popular British and Irish artists of the day spawned a whole slew of Humanitarian movements that high-lighted the plight of people in many far-flung Nations.
Band Aid, USA For Africa, United Artists Against Apartheid, Live Aid, and the list goes on...

This was the first wake-up call for millions of people around the World. For the first time many looked outside their own back-yards and realised that people in other countries needed their help. Millions of people offered monetary relief to those in need. It was truly something to behold.

More and more, people are waking up and seeing that what goes on in other parts of the World, affect us all, either directly or indirectly.
Burning Rainforests in Papua New Guinea or Brazil cause our Polar Ice-caps to melt. Chinese Power Plants, burning coal, create clouds of filth that waft across California. Companies selling pesticides, long bannned in First World Nations, to struggling countries that end up exporting their tainted goods back to the First World.

Environmental concerns will be one of the major factors in uniting this Planet. Of that there can be no doubt. If you believe that we can repair the damage done to the Planet and effectively control emissions around the World with the situation as it is currently, you are gravely mis-guided. The concern over the state of the Planet is not a fad that will die out. As long as the Planet continues to degenerate, Humanity will have no choice but to band together to seek out solutions.

The 1990's saw the advent of the Internet, most of the younger generation have grown up with access to what John Perry Barlow referred to as

"a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth."

People now have access to the unvarnished truth, untainted by the alll too discerning media. One can go online and see massacres in Darfur, or Tsunami's in Thailand.

Far from my opponents assertions that people are, by and large, selfish and xenophobic, I find that people continue to amaze me with their warmth and generosity.

Is it the general populace that hates and fears people of other nationalities? Or is it the Leaders of those people that instill such beliefs?

A perfect example of people overcoming their induced prejudices and seeing their foe as members of the Human Race is the Christmas Truce of World War I. On December 24, 1914 in Ypres, Belgium, German and British troops, sworn enemies at the time, ceased hostilities and sang Christmas carols together. These foes even went so far as to enter No-Man's Land and exchange gifts. Troops from both sides were permitted to gather and bury their dead. The truce spread farther afield along the trenches. At one point a football match between these foes was played. The score was 3-2 in favour of the Germans.

This at a time when racism and bigotry was at an all-time high. A time when Germans were viewed with extreme suspicion and bitter hatred. Look at how far Humanity has come since then.

My opponent states that the International Criminal Court has had limited effects. I beg to differ. With 105 Nations as members of the Court, with 41 more signed on and yet to ratify. There appears to be a growing acceptance of International Law in many countries. Certain countries that continue to hold-out on signing the Rome Statute will find that as long as genocidal acts are committed in their countries, assistance will be less forth-coming from other Nations. As for the USA, the Cold Warrior mentality that has run rough-shod over the Globe will soon be a ghost (We're waiting, Mr. Kissinger) that will be remembered with shame. From Vietnam to Iraq, there has been a discontented voice growing within the United States. A voice that will one day have its speakers in powerful positions.

We must look at the formation of Bodies like the ICC, the EU etc... as baby-steps. Would people 100 years ago have believed that outcomes like that now in Europe were possible, as inter-necine strife tore European countries apart. Remember, much of Europe was in many ways similar to the situations we see in countries like Africa, and the Middle East.

Thank you.

In his opening statement my opponents presented a list of topics that, he said, would be used to support his case. It is notable that my opponent’s latest submissions do not, in fact, develop most of those topics. Only one has been retained – the International Criminal Court. I will therefore make further comments on that topic below, in addition to discussing the various new topics which my opponent now seeks to rely upon.

However, there is a preliminary point I would like to stress.

When considering what is likely to happen in the future, we need to concentrate on realities rather than dreams.

We need to discuss about probable outcomes rather than mere hopes.

We need to think about deeds rather than words.

My opponent asks whether we remember “Band Aid”. “Band-Aid” produced “Do They Know Its Christmas?” in 1984. Despite the hopes and dreams expressed by many individuals, how much has really changed? Are people really prepared to make significant sacrifices and changes to their life-style to benefit individuals in far away places? The lack of any real change in the Third World suggests that most people in the richer countries of the world are, at most, prepared to give a small donation to make themselves feel better rather than treat problems in foreign countries as being as significant as problems in their own countries. Think about the current level of AIDS, starvation, and lack of education in the Third World. In reality, problems affecting “us” are treated as far more important than life-threatening problems affecting “them”.

The occasional small donation in response to some particularly emotional appeal, or involvement in some mass event such as Live-Aid, has failed to translate into a willingness to treat “others” as being equal to “us”. And there is no reason to think this will change.

While a significant number of people may be prepared to make voluntary charitable donations to benefit individuals in foreign countries, only a small percentage of tax gathered in democratic countries goes on foreign aid. People simply do not want to be surrender their free choice over who to help outside the borders of their own country (in contrast to the wide-spread acceptance of compulsory taxation to provide a safety-net for individuals within their own country).

My opponent’s latest arguments suggest that “environmental concerns will be one of the major factors in uniting this Planet”. However, many countries have been slow to impose limits on their own economic growth by signing up to even the most flexible and limited international treaties. There certainly has not been any sign of many nations wanting to have a single World Government that would impose rules on each nation. Take

My opponent suggests that “Humanity will have no choice but to band together to seek out solutions”. Let us hope that he is wrong, because nations have a habit of being remarkably willing to stand up for their own rights and privileges, even if this leads to warfare or economic sanctions. We have evolved with strong instincts to protect our territory and this may be counter-productive to our long-term survival as a species. Humans do not always act in their own long-term best interests.

For better or for worse, we are an emotional animal, not an entirely rational one.

My opponent suggests that we must look at the younger generation. However, younger generations have always been more idealistic and hopeful than their elders. But as they grow older and gain more power, they tend to become less idealistic and more conservative. They tend to want to maintain their advantages (for their own benefit and the benefit of their children). Ariste Briand commented "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head”. The same could be said about supporters of greater international co-ordination and equality.

My opponent refers to the Christmas Truce of World War I. While this is often trotted out as showing the underlying similarities between members of different nations, it must be remembered that the truce was temporary. After the football match, those involved went back to killing one. Killing and dying “for King and Country” remain a popular pastime all over the world.

Returning to the specific issue of the International Criminal Court, my opponent does not accept my suggestion that it has had limited effects. However, he is only able to point to the number of countries that have signed up to the relevant treaty. In fact, the International Criminal Court has done very little. Few cases have actually been determined by the Court. In fact, the Court has rejected 80% of communications of alleged crimes as being “manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Court” and the Court’s Prosecutor has so far opened investigations into just four situations. Furthermore, the Court is unlikely to achieve much in the future given the number of powerful countries that are unlikely to surrender any of their power to the Court.

Reality does not favour the proposition supported by my opponent.

The realities of the current global situation should not play a major part in realising the dreams of the future. If the people of 19th Century Europe were to persist with the realities of their time, they would still be assassinating Czars and plunging their continent into bloody warfare.

Consider this:

Going by the realities of our age, then 150 years from now the UN Security Council will still be governed by the five winners of WWII.
Arms-races will continue unabated. In 150 years, will we see New Zealand packing it's own nuclear arsenal? Another 150 years of pre-emptive strikes and balances of power? It seems a little ridiculous to believe that we can go on like this.

Dreams and hopes have played a more signficant role in changing societies than have the cold, bloodless, realistic facts of the day.

Thomas Paine had a dream for the 13 States of America.
Actually the creation of the USA is a great model of how we may come about uniting the Planet.

But let's look at some facts.

Those meagre donations that filtered into Live-Aid in 1985 alone added up to the sum of roughly £150 million. Not exactly small change. When people could have just turned off their television sets and ignored the entire thing, they instead watched and gave.

At one point midway through the concert, Billy Connolly announced he had just been informed that 95% of the television sets in the world were tuned to the event.

Link

The problems in Africa are of major proportions and it would be foolish to think that they would dissipate after a benefit concert. In fact, the problems in many Third-World Countries have become so monstrous that they are too much for those lone Nations to handle. War, infectious disease, collapsed economies, the degredation of the environment, terrorism... International co-operation is the most sensible solution to these problems.

It is true that the ICC is extremely limited in its range. But we have seen that in the few cases it has handled, it is extremely effective. The fear of this International Court robbing Sovereign Courts of their effectiveness is unfounded. The ICC's dismissal of claims against the UK and US military in Iraq and Afghanistan proves that the ICC will only step in if a Nations Court system has been destroyed, is unable to handle the case, or if Nations are deliberately assisting guilty parties in hiding from justice. The UK and US have shown that they are quite capable of handling their problems internally.

Two of the three cases currently on the ICC's books have been referred to them by The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Ugandan Governments themselves, the third (Darfur) has been referred by the UN Security Council. Clearly these are cases where the situation is too much for the Courts of those Countries to handle effectively or fairly.

Even though countries like the USA have held off on signing the Rome Statute, that does not mean the US Government can't access the Court in referring cases it believes should be investigated and prosecuted. Public opinion polls in the United States last year showed that 74% of the population believe that the US should become active participants within the ICC.AMICC. That the United States will sign is inescapable, with 68% of Administration Officials supporting the move.
The choice of referring cases to the ICC compared to the idea of military intervention is hitting home with more and more Americans. After America signs, many more will follow.

In the case of infectious disease, can we really expect National Borders to be a safeguard against such a threat? In fact, just the opposite. Infectious disease is the World's biggest taker of Human lives. In the last 100 years war has killed over 100 million people. Genocides have taken the lives of approximately 180 million. But infectious disease has culled around four times those two put together.
By 1992, pathogens had become the third largest killler of American people, up from fifth place. That is a doubling of disease related deaths. National Sovereignty makes the risk of the spread of various plagues much higher. If just one Nation has lax disease control, the effects are devestating to the rest. To make local disease control effective, International disease control and prevention efforts are necessary. This is common sense, and eventually people will warm to the idea.

Ever since people saw the first photograph of the Earth from space have they begun to see themselves as citizens of the Planet. At the rate technology is advancing presently, the Earth is becoming a smaller and smaller place.
My opponent has not seen the relevance of the Internet upon the minds of todays youth. The "Net" has put people from many diverse parts of the planet in touch with each-other. Racial stereotypes, religious differences, and all manner of prejudices are being combatted via direct interaction online. All working to "Deny Ignorance." This makes the youth of this age much less susceptible to the prejudices that have plagued generations before them.

My opponent should not concern himself with my debate tactics. More avenues will be explored.

Thank you.

In my last submissions, I concluded “Reality does not favour the proposition supported by my opponent”.

My opponent now appears to agree with my conclusion. My opponent has been reduced to arguing that “The realities of the current global situation should not play a major part in realising the dreams of the future”.

I suggest that my opponent has thereby effectively conceded the debate.

It can hardly be contentious that current (and past) realities are extremely important in any serious attempt to predict the future. We have nothing else to base our respective arguments upon, other than mere wishful thinking and prejudices.

In any event, I rely not merely upon present realities, but the trend evident in the last few centuries. As I mentioned in my opening submissions, the old empires (Greek, Roman, English, Nazi etc) all grew by the use of force and have all collapsed. More and more ethnic and cultural groups want to be self-governed. Here in the United Kingdom, there are strong movements in Wales and (particularly) Scotland for independence – and in recent decades both have gained an increasing level of self-government.

Instead of ethnic and cultural groups coming together and seeking a single government, in country after country we see precisely the opposite.

Take Iraq as an example. Without a ruthless dictator to maintain a government over the various ethnic groups, there is every sign of that country heading towards civil war and/or disintegrating into several autonomous areas.

Take the former Yugoslavia as another example. Until recently a single country, we now have SIX countries in its place : Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.

Instead of looking at “cold, bloodless, realistic facts“ such as these, my opponent now wants to talk about “dreams and hopes”. While an entertaining way to pass the time, this will hardly give any real indication of the likely shape of the world map in years to come.

In any event, my opponent’s discussion of “hopes and dreams” is flawed. For example, he takes the USA as an example of how a country came to be united as a result of dreams. However, the USA is hardly an example of a government formed and maintained by fair and peaceful means. Not to put too fine a point on it, the USA was originally formed as a result of wrongfully depriving the native Indian Americans of their land. Furthermore, the formation and maintenance of the Union involved considerable bloodshed. Even though they were united by a common language and culture, the Union was only maintained by warfare during the en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">American Civil War.

My opponent relies, yet again, upon the success of Live Aid. However, he does not address the fundamental points I have already made in relation to that event. Live Aid encouraged voluntary donations. While it succeeded in raising a sum that is commendable for a charity, it does not evidence a willingess of citizens around the world to submit to a single government. Indeed, the amount of tax money spent on foreign aid remains fairly negligible within most Western countries. Furthermore, it is enlightening to think about the sums raised by Live Aid in relatiop to, say, the amounts raised by taxation for expenditure on warfare or “defence”. The sum of £150 million cited by my opponent seems far less impressive when compared to the billions spent on the war in Iraq. The money indicates the real priorities of most citizens. Far more is spent on fighting (or defending us from) fellow “citizens of Earth” than is spent on helping them.

It is suggested by my opponent that I have “not seen the relevance of the Internet upon the minds of todays youth”. On the contrary, I have the development of the Internet firmly in mind when considering the proposition that "Humans will eventually achieve a unified world government by fair and peaceful means". I submit that one of the most impressive features of the Internet and modern technology is the promise of scope for individuality. We now have far greater choice of what we want to read, watch or learn. Going hand in hand with that greater freedom appears to be an increased distrust of government. The emergence of more and more conspiracy theories (and the dramatic growth in participation in websites such as AboveTopSecret) is merely one factor indicating the growing distrust of governments by citizens in the modern world. This is hardly indicative of a desire for larger or more centralized government. Instead, it is part of a pattern involving a desire for smaller and more localized decision making.

In short, rose-tinted glasses are needed for anyone to see the modern world as getting closer towards a unified world government.

Thank you.