posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
Here are some more Pros and Con's to World Government:
I. Many of the most serious problems in today’s world are international, whether they are of an environmental or a political nature. To attempt the
solution of these problems through the negotiation of nearly 200 individual sovereign states is futile. Even if any agreement is possible (and
agreement is by no means guaranteed) it will be characterised by insufficiency because of compromise between the many different power interests of the
separate sovereign states. Consequently, nation-states should cede sovereignty over very important international issues so that effective action can
I. The issue of human rights is indeed universal. To that end, intergovernmental cooperation has secured the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and numerous subsequent conventions. There are many intergovernmental conferences on human rights and other global issues such as the environment. And
where agreements are not reached, or are not satisfactory, this reflects the genuine difference of interest and opinion amongst the different
nation-states; it would be wrong for a global government to impose a single policy in these circumstances.
II. Nationalism is an outdated and discredited ideology. National differences are unimportant when compared to the similarity of every nation’s
position with respect to the environment and basic human rights and dignities. We should be prepared to address these issues from a cosmopolitan
perspective; there is no peculiarly Welsh, Spanish, Swiss or Zambian perspective on the melting of the polar ice caps, human rights or the elimination
of world hunger. These are universal issues that demand universal solutions.
II. Aggressive nationalism is not a necessary component of the nation-state. Many states, most notably the Scandinavian states, pursue dedicated
internationalist and humanitarian policies. Using the nation-state model as the method of political organisation does not commit people to
ultra-nationalism. New political models such as the European Union, NAFTA and ASEAN show the possibilities of voluntary cooperation and pooled
sovereignty in particular areas without requiring a global body.
III. World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal problems of human rights and the environment
obviously cry out for universal solutions. But gradually, we can foresee other issues such as taxation-policy, education and law and order being
decided at international level. The principle behind this is that humans are fundamentally similar. Ethnicity, religion or other cultural
considerations can add variety and spice to daily life but they should not be obstacles to the recognition of globally shared interests and,
consequently, to the introduction of global decision making.
III. World Government should not be our ideal because it is blatantly less democratic than government on the nation-state model. The smaller the
political unit, the more powerful is the individual vote. Individual citizens will always have more influence over local authorities and nation-state
governments than they will over putative supranational entities. We value democracy and therefore oppose World Government because it dilutes the
strength of an individual’s influence over policy. Voting rights would also be impossible to arrange fairly in a global parliament. If the current
one-state, one vote system was retained then a coalition of small nations would be able to impose policies upon those states with a large majority of
the world’s population. If representation was on the basis of population, then China and India would often be able to act together to impose
policies upon the rest of the world.
IV. We live in a market world. Financial transactions and trade are conducted trans-nationally. Every state is in competition with every other state.
This reality has necessitated trade-partnerships, such as NAFTA, and even movements towards social and political union, such as the European Union.
The next step is to enfranchise people on a global scale. If many of the trends, transactions and phenomena that affect their lives are global, then
people should have a direct say in global decision-making. There would be no better way to ensure this than by creating a Global Parliament.
IV. National or regional identity is a real phenomenon; people identify themselves with their neighbours. This doesn’t have to be in a cultural or
shared-historical way, it can be as simple (and as telling) as shared a socio-economic position. Conflicting, vested interests will remain and will be
defended. To presume otherwise is utopian dreaming. It is entirely pointless to dream about such entities as World Parliaments because powerful,
prosperous nation-states simply will refuse to cede their sovereignty to such entities lest they lose any control over the maintenance of their own
V. The creation of a global parliament would end all wars. The interplay of political life would engender and reinforce an attitude of community and
shared goals. Armed conflict is anathema to such a mindset. Just as the history of consensual, shared decision-making via the parliamentary process
has virtually removed violence from the menu of political action in Western liberal democracies, so would a practice of parliamentary debate and
decision effect such changes on a global scale.
V. It is utopianism at its absolute worst to dream of perpetual peace being brought about by a World Parliament. It is difficult to see how the power
balance of international relations will be altered. States that are big enough and powerful enough will continue to pursue aggressive and oppressive
policies in defiance of resolutions demanding them to cease. They will do so because they have the material and military capacity to ignore attempted
restraints on their actions. To give two examples, Tibet would not enter this Parliament as a full member but as part of China, Chechnya would still
be part of Russia. What dictates whether wars are prevented is realpolitik; action is taken when it is in the interests of those states which are
powerful enough to act. When war can be prevented and it is strategically useful to prevent it then action is taken (the Gulf War). But where action
would involve incalculable losses and serves no immediate self-interest (Chechnya and Tibet) it will not be taken.
VI. Currently there are several important international institutions not under the control of the United Nations, for example the World Trade
Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These organisations have a huge influence upon global development but are
unaccountable to those they are supposed to serve and often appear to be serving the interests of a few rich nations, especially the USA. Such
economic power should not remain without democratic checks and the global policy framework that the United Nations can provide.
VI. The current system of multilateral institutions works quite well and we should not put the strengths of these organisations at risk by ideological
meddling. Not every state chooses to join the World Trade Organisation so it would not be correct to place it under UN authority. Nor would doing so
make it more democratic; decisions are now taken by representatives of (generally elected) member governments on a basis of unanimity and consensus,
not imposed by a distant world government by majority vote. As for the IMF and World Bank, they rely upon funding from rich nations so it is entirely
appropriate that these stakeholders retain their influence upon policy-making.
In lieu of the advantages and disadvantages of a World Govt., I believe the pro outweighs the cons. What's your view?
[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]