The concept of a world government, a single authority for organizing human society, has been around for a long time. Even the ancient world understood the advantages such a government would hold for humanity, and a few men tried to accomplish it. Unfortunately, the logistical problems were too much for them, what with the world being so huge, and them trying to actually conquor the world. Oddly, though many people think the Rome was attempting to conquor the world, this isn't so. At first, its expansion was a matter of winning victories against agressive neighbors. In the later stages of its expansion (from the end of the Republic into the first stages of the Empire), conquoring peoples on the borders was a way to gain political advantage in the Capital. Expansion ended when it became impractical in economic and military terms. The old concept of setting up a heirarchical government with one person at its head was doomed for many reasons, and it is still proving to be at the very best a short-term solution with many long-term problems, as we see so vividly illustrated in Yugoslavia, Russia, and (quite soon, now) in Cuba.
I want to explore the idea of a true world government - what advantages such a government would have over the present system, explore how such a government might work in the modern world, and look at some of the problems that might arise. In my thoughts on this subject, I would envision a federal system of government, much like that used in the United States. I recognize that my view is prejudiced, due to my being a U.S. citizen. I certainly hope that this essay will be the start of a learning process for me and those who care to comment, for if you wish to discuss differing views to those I give here, I will be most happy to talk with you about other possible ways to constitute such a government.
There are many problems with the present system of international relationships. The most obvious of these is the concept of sovereignty. This is understood to mean that each nation in the world is not answerable for its actions of an internal nature. Each government has a different set of rules it works by. Some are formally established, as in the cases of most democratic governments, and others are less well-organized, if they are organized at all (witness the disintegration of Somalia, or the chaos in Lebanon). However a nation is governed internally, the concept of soveriegnty states that they should be allowed to do as they please inside their borders.
This was an absolute rule for international relations until the start of this century, but the events in Germany put an end to that, in a selected set of circumstances. The concept of Human Rights gained popularity and acceptance in reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. The First World War also made popular the idea of rules for war, and the Geneva Convention set these rules out in a formal manner. The way these concepts are implemented in the current international system is instructive. The UN Commission on Human Rights has influence (not power, though, so far as I can tell) only in nations that are members of the UN, meaning that those nations belonging to the UN have signed treaties agreeing to abide by the UN charter. Unfortunately, the charter is non-binding legally - therefore nations like China, Russia, Cuba, the U.S. and so forth are able to ignore those parts of the UN charter that they don't care to follow without incurring any meaningful penalties.
The same is true of all international groups - they are formed by way of the associated nations signing treaties, and aherance to those treaties is, in effect, optional. In the end, nations ignore their obligations when convenient, and force is often the end result, whether in the form of sanctions, embargoes, or physical force. In the meantime, human rights are ignored, and human beings suffer. For this reason alone, it should be clear that a better method of ordering the affairs of humanity is needed. However, there are two other major points to cover.
First, there is the matter of using war and other means of force to settle disputes among nations. Being willing to go to war means many things. Primarily, it means the creation and maintenance of a standing military force for each nation. The economic ramifications of that "necessity" are profound enough. In the United States, the military takes up nearly a trillion dollars of the government's budget each year. It also creates a huge sector of the civilian economy that is dependant on military spending for its existence. Thus, even in time of peace, the expenditures for war continue - otherwise, a major part of the economy would be endangered. The amount of wealth that is dedicated to the maintenance and training of standing armies worldwide is staggering, and the harm of this situation doesn't stop at that bare fact.
Being in a national military force has its personal toll, also. For the soldiers, it means working, training, and being willing at any moment to go and participate in the killing of one's fellow human beings. In the case of some types of military operations, the killing is impersonal, being a simply matter of aiming a weapon and pressing a button, which launches a projectile or drops a bomb. In many instances, though, it becomes far more personal, and the soldiers are taught how to kill in personal combat. They are immersed in a social milieu in which killing is not only acceptable, but encouraged and glorified. The danger of this sort of life is easy to see - when many soldiers leave the ranks, they often have deep emotional problems in adjusting to a world where violence is illegal. Those who actually participated in combat have particularly hard times adjusting.
The other major problem with the current system that should concern every person is the problems of extradition. At present, there are innumerable criminals living in freedom, out of the reach of authorities who could bring about a small measure of justice by imprisoning such people. I'm referring to such human beasts as Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosovic, and the like. Amin, in particular, is a troublesome subject, as he is reported to have indulged during the time of raping his country, in the practice of cannibalism, keeping a larder of young boys for certain meals. Now, after being driven from Uganda by revolution, he lives in the lap of luxury in Saudi Arabia, a special guest of the Royal Family, under their protection. Why are they protecting this human horror? Because he's Muslim. Why are they not concerned over his cannibalism? Because he made sure his human meals weren't provided by Muslim children! (As an aside, the Muslims are very fastidious about observing the Mosaic deitary laws - and as a point of interest, those laws do not forbid the consumption of human flesh).
Under the current system of international relations, criminals with sufficient means and smarts can vanish from the scene of their crimes and travel to places where they will be welcomed, and live far beyond the reach of justice. We're not only looking at the super-criminals on this heading. There are a fair number of more common criminals doing this. For instance, there's the case of Samuel Scheinbein - the teenager who brutally murdered a young man in New Jersey, then traveled to Israel, claiming citizenship rights through his father, knowing full well that Israeli citizens can't be extradicted, and that Israel has no capital punishment. Despite the obvious manipulation of the system, in order only to escape any punishment for decapitating his victim, he was allowed to remain in Israel. His trial in Israel resulted in a plea bargain, and while he is going to prison, my understanding is that he could be set free after being in prison for only 14 years.
Is this any way to run a world? I think not!
As I stated earlier, I would envision a system of government similar to that used in the United States. For those unfamiliar with the Federation system, it is a multi-tiered government with the federal government being at the top tier, each state having its own government on the next level, and within each state are more localized governments, whether those of city, county, parish or whatever. An important feature of this arrangement is differing spheres or authority and responsibility. In the American constitution, the federal government is responsible for items of national interest, such as interstate commerce, national health and safety concerns, and the national defense. It has little or no influence on matters of concern to the individual states, such as utility regulation, industrial infrastructure maintenance, and so on.
In a similar manner, a world government should act only in matters that concern the world as a whole. This means that each nation would be able to retain its identity and a large portion of its laws. Such a system would have to guarentee human rights as defined today by the U.N. It would also be used to prosecute criminals on charges concerning abuse of those rights. Crimes of a lower level would be handled by universal extradition procedures, just as state-level crimes are handled in the United States today. On an economic level, international comerce and the disputes that arise as a result would be handled by a world court and legislature, as they are now, with the exception that the results would be legally binding.
Another major advantage of such a system would be the removal of the harm caused by a military culture. While the need for force might never be completely removed from humanity, the use of actual war as a threat would be removed, taking with it the necessity to spend trillions of dollars for readiness and keeping millions of people out of truly productive roles in their societies. Naturally, the economic chaos that would result for such a deep, systemic change in the world would be impossible to predict. Witness the problems experienced by Poland and Russia after their economic restructuring, not to mention the problems seen in America during Reconstruction after the Civil War. However, I believe that the whole world would experience long-term benefits from such a conversion, both economically and socially.
What would be the down-side of such a change? Obvoiusly, many people would object to such a change. Nationalism, and the insistence on sovereignty would cause great resistence to the idea of a world government. In the long term, the only problems would be that of taxation to pay for a new tier in the schemes of governments, and the adjustments of the individual nations to the requirements of working within the framework of a world-wide authority. Also, there would necessarily be a need to ensure that such a government would remain benign (the lessons of the past being very troublesome in this regard).
I don't think that these problems are insurmountable - they are only anticipated problems that humanity should be intelligent enough to deal with. As I said at the beginning, I don't pretend to have all the answers or the perfect solution for the problems of humanity. I only recognize the most troublesome problems and one of the possible solutions that could help solve them. Any comments you may have on this essay would be most appreciated!
