World Government
Financial Times columnist examines the prospects, suggests EU model could go global. Concludes it won’t be happening soon. Good thing, because all his arguments for it demonstrate why it is such an incredibly bad idea. Starting with the EU model, moving through the ideas of “global governance” to address global warming, global financial woes and the “global war on terror” (quote marks his).
We may be 200 years out from world government, as this guy ruefully suggests. Which makes this a great time to start a global states’ rights movement. Here’s Gideon Rachman:
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.
And an utter unwillingness to do so in any meaningful way, a point not mentioned by Rachman. Deploy its military force, that is. They’re more than happy to deploy the thousands of pages of laws, though.
So why do we need to be worried that the dithering, ineffective EU model might become a dominant force? Seems a little contradictory that losers should win, that the meek should inherit the Earth, so to speak.
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.
Everyone’s been so relieved … or dismayed … that President-elect Obama doesn’t appear to be bent on surrender, that they’ve forgotten he is in fact bent on surrender. The big obstacle to world government, the fact that a superpower exists. OK, that and the fact not referenced by Rachman that a bunch of upstart wannabe superpowers would like nothing better than a world government to ignore.
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.
The UN, unlike the EU, has been willing to deploy troops. Mainly as observers of war crimes, targets, and child-rapists. Anyway, that kind of talk will get a lot of people in the heartland reaching for their rifles. Sorry, I’m getting ahead.
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.
Not even Euros are falling for that.
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”.
…
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.
That’s an interesting line. He’s talking about the EU, but it almost sounds like a double-reverse backhanded compliment to George Bush. You know, the guy who went it alone to battle state support for terrorism and bring democracy to millions.
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.
Turns out that ultimately, the governed may be smarter than the governors.
All Rachman’s examples and arguments, if momentarily examined, would tend to illustrate what a bad idea world government is. But it’s hard to tell from this subtle handling where the scribbler actually stands on the issue. In favor of a development for which human beings regretably have not yet politically evolved enough, I guess. Reading it a couple of times, despite the rueful statements that appear to be in favor of world government and the EU, and the disparagement of upstanding American throwback conspiracy theorists, it almost sounds like Rachman is playing Jonathan Swift here.
On the other hand, quickly scanning Rachman’s blog, I found this wish list in a discussion of Obama’s pro-Iraq neo-neoconism:
But let’s not get too carried way. I still think that an Obama administration will bring some significant changes in foreign policy. Most important, the Obama people are much less likely to start a war with Iran than McCain would have been. But I think they will also put more effort into the Middle East peace process, they will stick to the plan to withdraw from Iraq and they will be less confrontational with Russia. They will also be keener to work through the UN and they will put more effort into climate change.
Well, what do you expect from an Andrew Sullivan admirer?
Topics: America, Europe, Obama, UN
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:52 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008
3 Responses to “World Government”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Most important, the Obama people are much less likely to start a war with Iran than McCain would have been.
Yeah, but what about the ongoing war they started with us, oh, thirty years ago?
But I think they will also put more effort into the Middle East peace process,
Sorry, but what is this “peace process”? I don’t think it exists, unless rebuilding Iraq into a strong, democratic nation is it.
they will stick to the plan to withdraw from Iraq and they will be less confrontational with Russia.
And so, bad elements in Iraq and Russia won’t be encouraged by this to continue and expand their depredations? What a wishful thinker is Mr. Rachman.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Bah on world government. As Mark Steyn has said, “if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog feces and mix them together, the result will taste considerably more like the latter than the former.”
December 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
So…we’re going to get together with Iran, the commies in China, et al and form one big happy world state, eh?
Over my dead body.