And now for a world government
-
And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman
Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
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.
So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
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.
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.
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.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. 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”.
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.
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.
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.
-
Sounds like the Illuminati, lol!
But I thought most conspiracy is about how USA want to control the world with a global government? A conspiracy about UN secret plot to control the world is first time for me?
-
how do usa control the world?
they have their debts to settle first
-
US control over the world is a fantasy because of well, recent news. One could argue that US power must be eroded so that a world power can emerge. World government is different from unipolarity.
Are you really that closed-minded? For years, many, people like...have said that this world government concept is a conspiracy and those who believe in it are crackpots.
Well, now the Financial Times, one of the world's most read and respected news publications have published an editorial by its chief foreign affairs commentator on the likelihood of a world government.
Its in your faces people!
Is the FT a nest of crackpots?
-
Lol, that's why it is called a conspiracy
-
Well, conspiracies arent = a concept stemming from mental instability.
If you believe that... just shows how effective social engineering is.
A conspiracy is defined as two or more people planning in secret to commit an illegal act. Thats why we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Because of conspiracies.
So-called terrorist attacks are also conspiracies.
The common perception of conspiracies are that they are so esoteric and that they dont exist.
-
They have already started, hasn't they?
First, insert micro chips into people to track their movement...
-
And no one said that a world government = US dominion over the world.
How can you get the countries of the world to agree to band together when you have a unipolar order? Thats why so-called president-elect "Change" is looking towards a multipolar world.
If you just think about it, crisises like those of the present help to further prod the world towards the ultimate integration, making world government an even more plausible likelihood.
-
I wasn't talking about the USA who had started, rather those behind the curtains...
-
Originally posted by RoyFang:
They have already started, hasn't they?
First, insert micro chips into people to track their movement...
You may be scarcastic but its true, ordinary people have taken to micro-chipping themselves for safety's sake. Prisoners are microchipped to really keep track of them. People with Alzheimer's are also chipped to track them.Although its all under the guise of altruistic reasons..
That just shows how closed minded you are.
-
Originally posted by RoyFang:
Sounds like the Illuminati, lol!
But I thought most conspiracy is about how USA want to control the world with a global government? A conspiracy about UN secret plot to control the world is first time for me?
What was the first global organisation to have even stood a chance at success? The UN founded in 1945, whose Charter was written by Algier "communist spy" Hiss and Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov. -
Lol, actually I believe there is a plot to form a world government.
-
US can bomb all and dominate the world like what they did to Iraq
-
The only reason they're playing nice is because there still countries in the world who can actually bomb them back.
-
Thats why we have programs like this:
Global foreign policy leaders launch bid to eliminate nuclear arms - http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Global_foreign_policy_leaders_launc_12092008.html
-
wah lao..........
-
watashiwa Monkey. D. Luffy...
i said this "usopp! burst that flag with flames!", pointing at the world government flag.
i had declared a war with world government..
-
In a different league altogether.
-
Originally posted by ItchyArmpit:
watashiwa Monkey. D. Luffy...
i said this "usopp! burst that flag with flames!", pointing at the world government flag.
i had declared a war with world government..
wa ta shi yi chi ban
-
hi, people read the link below which I posted some weeks back. It talks about what will happen in future. If you want the full article to be posted here, let me know.
-
Watch out for this group: The Islamic Truth Group (ITG)
General Notice:
We would like to make clear that it is not the intention of the Islamic State to wage war upon foreign lands, the objective is to re-unify the Muslim lands as one world government for Muslims and non-muslims. Foriegn non-islamic states such as the United States of America will continue to govern their own people by their chosen political system. Since Islamic World Government (IWG) will have a geo-political prescence, it will supercede the works of the failed United Nations Organisation, its donor wing The World bank/WTO and the private financiers the Paris club, thus bring an end to world exploitation and the dawn of a better future for the whole of mankind.
-
The world is definitely moving into a phase of multi-polarity, but what happens after that, we will not live to witness. US will still be the big brother, but his authority will be challenged by some new brothers. Such a scenario makes the world quite dangerous, tensions will abound and I think a world government is a wise thing to have (although somehow I think this world government will benefit the West more)
-
Its true that the world is moving towards multipolarity, but that doesnt mean that a balance of power will develop like between 19th Century European states. In today's context, the prevalence of global crisises; the environmental, poverty, energy, food and financial crisises suggest that the international community is likely to develop a form of global governance in order to supposedly, cope with all these crisises.
I dont think that the East-West divide, just like the superficial divides of race, colour or sex really matters in the end. Today, its between the haves and have-nots. If it benefits a black billionaire to rape the resources of the Congo and fuel civil war killing millions of blacks, he'll probably do it.
-
0.o
-
Think about it, isn't world government just a euphemism for world domination? A single person, or group of people that controls the world?
The ambitions of the ancient conquerors have not died out, rather they're pursued via stealth by gradual integration. Also, through the economic warfare of the WB/IMF. Thats where you get the term "economic hitmen".
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018
Whereas in an age of sovereignty, there are many hierarchies of power, in an increasingly globalising world, the power hierarchies are reduced when countries band together as regional blocs like the EU.