#5 International Government

For a very long time I have been intrigued by the nature, and the future, of international law. It has long seemed to me that our destiny (very long-term) is to be a united world, with united laws. But the actual forming of such a unified world must be very difficult, even dangerous. Yet I believe that it is necessary, even vital, to the long-term survival and salvation of our species. In today’s blog entry, I want to deal with the civic and geopolitical issues of creating such a government. In a future post, I want to deal with the purely economic factors behind such a move.

Why create a world government? What can it do that the present world order cannot? For an example, I give you Darfur. The U.N. cannot pass a Chapter VII resolution condemning the Sudanese government, because of China’s permanent veto on the Security Council. So nothing is done. Nothing. In a truly powerful world government, with sole control of the world’s organized armed forces, such a massacre would probably never have started, and would certainly not have been allowed to continue. The Security Council of this new government could mediate all disputes, and once it was resolved to do so, could intervene swiftly and effectively.

Another reason is the final, decisive action such a government could take on universally despised institutions like slavery, child labor, forced prostitution, and female mutilation. The implementation of the current U.N. Charter on Human Rights, backed by the force of law and the threat of force, could dramatically increase the value of human life around the globe. There are things that the vast majority of humanity finds reprehensible, things that are legal and being practiced in dozens of countries, things that could be stopped by an organized body with the means and the will to do so.

Such a government, with the accompanying reduction of borders and increase of travel, would also collapse the barriers we have erected as peoples. The adoption of a common language for the world is something that can singlehandedly reduce intolerance. Racism is bred from fear, and fear comes from ignorance. Knowing another people, actually understanding their words, these things can only lead to a reduction of ignorance and an increase in prosperity.

But how to implement such a government? I propose using as many establishes institutions as possible. Therefore, adopting the U.N. General Assembly as a basic template seems a good idea. Doubtless there are going to be some proponents (particularly in China and India) of weighted representation, so it is certainly possible that a bicameral legislature would be necessary (i.e. the Senate and the House). However, the main duties of the World Government would be to implement and enforce the initial laws and principles of the founding documents. Human rights, economic and trade agreements, defense protocols, all these would be established before anybody becomes a part of such an organization. The legislature would not be called on to pass many new laws; rather they would exist to pass legislation that would enforce or modify the existing charter. As far as an executive, I envision one similar to the U.N. Secretary General; someone not from one of the major countries, with few inherent powers, but who would gradually develop their position’s role over time.

The real backbone of the World Government would be the International Court System and the Security Council. Both of these organizations exist in some form today. I merely propose that their reach be extended, and in the Security Council’s case, revised somewhat. In the European Union, all member states still pass their own laws and govern their own countries. The Union only becomes involved when a member states passes a law that conflicts with the laws of the E.U. In all such cases the Union law supersedes the member nation’s law. So it would be with the world government.

As far as security goes, one of the greatest dangers with a world government is that it would make it easier for one member nation to pursue a jingoistic agenda. As such, I think a major principle of such a government would be the integration of all armed forces: every combat unit would draw from multiple ethnicities and global regions. The United States would have to give up its tanks, its aircraft, all its weapons, to the world body. Troops would be paid well, but would be trained on the opposite sides of the world, and deployed far from their native soil, along with men and women they had never met, but whose language they shared. They would be commanded by a civilian body: the Security Council. There can be no more permanent veto, but I think there should be permanent members, at least for the first forty years (more on that later), given that some nations have a far larger global footprint than others. I propose Japan, China, India, Russia, the US, Germany, the UK, France, Nigeria, Algeria, South Africa, Brasil, and Argentina. The other twelve or so members can be elected to two-year terms, just like the Security Council in real life. One other important modification is that, through some form of checks and balances, the Security Council must be made subordinate to the General Assembly.

Obviously such a plan would face immense opposition from almost every major government in the world. But trial balloons need to be floated. Some sovereignty needs to be ceded to global bodies, bit by bit. The time will be right for this idea one day, probably when people are scared enough by the state of the environment. And it will be implemented, and there will be problems. It is how we react to those problems that will determine the future of such an organization. The first forty years will be everything. After that the government will be increasingly staffed by people who have grown up with the idea, who are comfortable moving within it. Until that point everything must be done with a thought to precedent, for the idea is to create something that will live on long after humanity has ventured into the stars.

That’s the real reason behind all this: the stars. One day this world will not be enough for us, and we will move forward. Do we want to do so as a planet divided, squabbling and dissonant? Or do we want to step forward as one, proclaiming with one voice that this who we are, and this is what we stand for. Human history has been a continuous struggle of assimilation. It may be hard to believe, but there are fewer total governments than ever before. The world grows ever smaller, and past differences can be forgotten. As the artist Will Power used to say, “you don’t ever meet some guy on the street going ‘bitch, I’m Phoenician!’” We don’t all have to be the same, or look the same. But we can all play by the same rules, be protected by the same rights, and have the same opportunities to reach for the skies.