And Now For A World Government - December 8, 2008

[Quibus_Licet]

And Now For A World Government

By Gideon Rachman

December 10, 2008 "FT" -- -- 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.

gideon....@ft.com

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html