A Not Entirely Crazy Idea.
By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The World(Donkelphant has graciously invited me to share their space from time to time. I’m abusing their hospitality with this overly-long post. Cross-posted from www.MightyMiddle.com.)
Out there somewhere, the avian flu virus is stalking the human race. It’s not alone: other bacteria and viruses are busily mutating, not plotting our destruction, but blundering nevertheless toward the extermination of large numbers of homo sapiens. Out there somewhere, evil men are plotting to get their hands on nukes or bacteria or viruses capable of killing millions. Out there in space, hurtling past, are thousands of rocks that could intersect our orbit and smack us all into a Mad Max movie. And the byproducts of industrialization my be slowly bringing on global warming.
All around the world, at the Taiwan strait, in the Persian Gulf, along the Korean DMZ, in Kashmir and a dozen other places, the human race sits poised, ready for war — serious war.
All of these things reach us in America. A disease incubating in a Chinese village, an angry cleric raging in some Pakistani camp, an unpaid Russian scientist with a launch code, a murderer here, a madman there, a smart kid with a computer sitting in his bedroom in Singapore.
Distance is an illusion. Borders are an illusion. Our economy is inextricably linked to the world. Our health is bound up with the health of villagers in the Congo. Our ability to travel and communicate is held hostage by people in Malaysia and Columbia and Timbuktu.
Only governments can cause, and only government can stop, genocide. Only governments can cause, and only government can stop famine. Governments restrict free trade and plunge millions into unecessary poverty. Only government can reverse that fatal protectionism. Only government can stop global warming. Only government can respond when a new disease erupts. Only governments can cause, and only government can stop, war.
The modern American capitalist affectation, the pretense that government can accomplish nothing, and only free markets can be trusted, evaporates in the face of disaster. Wal-Mart will not stop the economic disaster that would come from a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. The Ford Motor Company will not plot the trajectories of every dangerous asteroid and respond if disaster looms. Verizon will not rush to the scene of a mutant Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. Microsoft cannot put a leash on Korea’s L’il Kim.
The time has come, in this interconnected, and vulnerable world, for the civilized nations to consider some form of world government.
The objections are obvious. Exhibit A: the UN. How in God’s name are we to include the Iranian Ayatollahs in a government with liberal Swedish socialists and Indian capitalists? How could we have a functional democracy in a world where China and India could out-vote the rest of the world? How would we keep the world’s poor from using a world government to confiscate the wealth of North America, Europe and Japan?
The European Union may be the experiment that points the way. The EU has its difficulties, but so far the direst scenarios have not come to pass. The EU admits only those countries which meet certain standards on human rights and economic responsibility. Today the Muslim nation of Turkey is straining to hit those marks and get onto the waiting list for EU membership.
True to their natures, the Europeans have made the Brussels government something of a laughingstock. It is absurdly bureacratic, for example. Nevertheless, you can drive from Berlin to Paris to Milan to Dublin to Warsaw to Madrid to Rotterdam to Lisbon and never stop at a border, never change currency, never be deprived of medical care, never be outside the shelter of law. People used to say this would never happen. And now it has happened.
The American experience in Iraq has demonstrated that we need the “international community.” We’ve tried to be the world’s policeman, and we’ve screwed it up pretty well. And yet, the world needs a policeman. The world needs someone to fight the viruses, and the terrorists, and the famines and genocides, the environmental threats, and to stop wars from starting. The world needs government, and that government cannot be the government of the United States. The world needs a cop, and it can’t just be us.
As it is now, we give the civilized world a free pass. We jump into the fray and leave the Europeans, Japanese, Canadians, Australians, South Africans, South Koreans, Indians, all sitting on the sidelines offering snide commentary on our performance. We call this leadership. But how is it wise for us to carry the only badge and gun? How does that help us?
A world government would be limited to established democracies. Just as Europe has done, we would carve out large areas of national independence — we wouldn’t stop being the United States. Just as Europe has done, we would set standards for those nations hoping to join that world government. Rogue nations would be ever more isolated. The power of the world government would grow as it gained members. The momentum would become almost irresistable.
This is not idealism run wild. Quite the opposite. The United States cannot and should not try to manage the world alone — that is idealism. When something awful happens in the world, every head should not turn to look at us for salvation. We should begin to form a government uniting North America, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, stable South American democracies, and Europe. If Russia can reverse its slide into autocracy, they can join. If China can throw off its Communist dead weight, they will be members, too. Every nation that sees three peaceful democratic political successions, controls corruption, and subscribes to standards of human rights and the rule of law, would be eligible.
It wouldn’t be utopia. Even if everything went perfectly, it wouldn’t be utopia. But avian flu or errant comet, nuclear war or localized genocide, there would be someone to call. Someone that was not just us.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 4th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I cannot believe I misspelled Donklephant again. It’s like a mental block.
March 4th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
I almost agree, from a purely political perspective. And almost entirely because of the example of Turkey trying to join the EU. I believe that it is one of the most striking examples of a country reforming itself in order to avoid economic obsolescence. If a country, a largely Muslim country, no less, can do that as the result of the EU, then it can’t hurt to want to try to put that kind of pressure on the rest of the world.
However I think you’ll find a lot of interesting debate on the subject from the Evangelical Christians if the issue ever comes up in earnest. It would sort of be the elephant in the closet. You see, many of them believe that the Bible prophesies that such a world government would herald the arrival of the Anti-Christ. So… I think you can count on an unusually large amount of resistance to the concept from the far right. Plus the part where they object on principle to anything they perceive might diminish the sovereignty of the country.
I do have my own misgivings though. For starters, it would reinforce the “Us vs. Them” mindset. Or more accurately, “Them vs. Us.” I’m inclined to think that that’s a bad thing. More importantly, it would inevitably reduce border security if passports were not required of citizens of this hypothetical federation travelling between member states. The economic ramifications would be huge and incredibly complicated, of course, and can’t realistically be 100% positive, but that’s hardly a reason to avoid the development. The nuclear issue could be interesting, as it may neatly summarize who we officially accept having nuclear power, but it could also hasten nuclear proliferation within member states. There are, of course, easily hundreds of other issues that I’ll never think of, some good, some bad. It’s a concept that bears thought, but I’m certain that the world isn’t ready for it just yet.
March 5th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Lots of advantages and disadvantages. You do a good job stating the case though. It sounds like it would be way better than the UN.
March 5th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Heh, I thought it was on purpose given your history with the title. No worries. Just glad you’re here and posting.
Concerning the post, I agree with Bob that we aren’t ready for it. Unfortunately, only until the US loses superpower status will the world go looking for another policeman and realize that no one country can take on that responsibility. It’s like anything else. Make things easier for people and they’ll take advantage and not pull their weight. The US is that one member of the group project in college that actually does 90% of the work. It might not be the best work, and it may ultimately fail, but we get it done no matter what.
Like it or leave it, that’s just how I think it’ll shake out. And honestly, would it be bad if the US lost superpower status at some point in the next 50 years? I mean, just look at how much the world has changed over the past 200 years alone, and you’ll know that this superpower status is in a constant state of flux. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. Of course, if China replaces us…maybe it would.
March 5th, 2006 at 5:49 am
Nice job! My thoughts on your thoughts are too long for a comment, so I put them here.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Michael Reynolds writes:
Ahem. . . do we have an argument here for world government– or one for the comparative benefit of anarchy ? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. Pandora’s box has been opened. But, being an unwashed heathen (relative to the argument), I still can’t follow the reasoning. It seems that here government is reckoned merely an amoral instrument for ‘evil’ or for ‘good.’ Meanwhile, apparently the opposing notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are a moral fiction as well– politically useful nonfacts. How else can we understand that the monopoly of power (One government) is ‘good,’ while the ‘checks and balances’ of divided power (many governments) have (in the domestic American context) proved worth their cost (at least while the opposition is in power)? Aha ! I know. . . bring on the Apocalypse. . . the eschatological justification of all things.
It seems to me that contempt for trans-cultural expressions of “Fundamentalism” tends to blind those who have a log in their own eye. For modern secular man, it is also his own concerns which are increasing (and understandably) framed in Apocalyptic fashion. His proposed ‘Savior’ is, of course, the true/factual one– unlike all those other faiths! Unfortunately world government will require a secular Jihad, or Armageddon, to usher in a common ‘worship.’ Whether Christian, Islamic, or Secular, those who notions of good governance come from their apocalyptics will not reach a mutually peaceable accommodation if the stakes are. . . a monopoly of power. But maybe ‘peace’ and security are only useful fictions.
March 5th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Bob:
I don’t see that an “us vs. them” dichotomy is a bad thing. Right now it’s us vs. them with a large peanut gallery offering critcism from the sidelines and profiteering. The US has, give or take, 5% of the world’s population, with disproportionate military and economic muscle. Add the Brits to our side (no longer a sure thing) and you have 6% vs. the rest of the planet, which is divided between real enemies, bystanders and feckless allies. The dichotomy now appears as the US and a handful of Anglo-Saxons, vs. Everyone Else. Wouldn’t it be better if it was the Civilized World vs. Everyone Else?
March 5th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Justin:
Exactly, we’re the hard charger in the group project. And because we step up so eagerly we give Europeans and others a free pass. Why would they work, if we’ll do it for them?
When I was shooting Conversatioins With thee Enemy I would argue with Europeans that the only reason they are able to have an EU is that the US has made the world safe for them. They didn’t usually disagree. They get that they live in a security world of our making, they have no trouble taking the freebies we hand out, then work the situation to their narrow advantage and say to hell with the Americans. It’s a parent-child dynamic.
I agree no one is ready for this yet, but the conversation should start. At very least it might focus the minds of Europeans and Japanese.
March 5th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Ivan:
I’m working with a 102 fever here, so maybe I missed something, but I don’t get the reference to bringing on the Apocalypse. Not only am I not a fundamentalist, I’m an atheist. So, no, there is no secret agenda here to bring on the End Times.
Of course I see government as an amoral instrument for evil or good. Individuals can be good or evil, but a government is no more inherently good or evil than is a hammer or a pen. A government is an institution, a tool, used by people for good or ill. Of course the same would apply to a world government.
As for checks and balances, using the EU model as a starting point I think it’s wrong to pretend that Paris or Berlin or even Lisbon has no ability to check or balance Brussels. All the European military powers — France, Britain, Poland, etc. . . maintain control of their forces. But they do strive to reach a common foreign policy stand, as well as common economic positions. And, to go back to the Avian flu example, they’ve done a better job of preparing than we have. Part of the reason we can’t build stockpiles of Tamiflu is that the Europeans got their first.
March 5th, 2006 at 11:02 am
[...] The most recent voice in the discussion is from The Mighty Middle’s Michael Reynolds. In his post, “A Not Entirely Crazy Ideaâ€Â?, Michael notes the many possible catastrophes that we face: pandemic, world war, nuclear disaster, global climate change, meteorite strike and conjectures that only world government would have the power to deal with these enormously deadly (but highly unlikely) occurrences. He calls for a union of the world’s proven democracies. [...]
March 5th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I’ve left my thoughts, also too long for a comment, here.
Get well, Michael. And the next time you’re in Chicago drop me a line, will you?
March 5th, 2006 at 11:25 am
While I can appreciate Mr. Reynolds’ sincerity, I can’t help but wonder if he is confusing interconnectedness (economics, technology, rule of law, etc.) with need for global governance. Global governance will not prevent a single one of the threats he lists. His plea for global governance reminds me of certain academics who think, in general, communism is a good idea it’s just been poorly implemented. Likewise, supranational global governance is the right path it’s just that the U.N. has botched implementation. I believe Thomas Barnett’s concept put forth in “PNM� of “shrinking the gap� between developed and underdeveloped nations through a web of trade and technology is more reasonable path as it trusts to enlightened self interest rather the global altruism.
March 5th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Okay, we’re both marketing wonks. Let’s figure out how to position this so it doesn’t sound like a “world government.”
I think first you may actually want to put the word “genocide” into the title of whatever you’re going to call it, because we want to talk specifically about this ONE thing. This has the effect of guilting nations into joining.
Once everybody is at the table and cooperating, you can bring up things like saving the entire human race from a meteor strike, but eliminating genocide would have to be that first thing which brings everybody together. Let’s simply call it something bland and easy like “Nations Against Genocide.”
The first task of the NAG would be put together a very simple list of countries that have these problems in them. We’re not talking about fundamentalist nations, simply ones where genocide is currently happening and is easily demonstrated. NAG would ask that participating countries commit up to 5% of their military resources (in money and military power) to the genocide elimination effort. This money would not only go towards building coalition forces, but also giving aid to and financing the new lives of the survivors once the tyrants are forced out and tired before the NAG council. NAG would also establish multinational bases in these countries so something like this never happens again.
Ultimately what I’m thinking is that if you get all these nations together, and focus them on one common goal, the rest of your plan will work itself out. Seriously, if the human race is threatened with something truly horrific, NAG would already have the worldwide network to address it in place. And it would make sense that a multi-nation coalition would be the organization to look towards to carry out anything that needs to be done. In any emergency, it’s always about the first responders…
March 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Another “elephant in the closet” (to borrow from Bob Aman’s comment above) is Islamic supremacism. The ultimate long-range goal of this movement is a one-world Islamic state. Any attempt at a secular one-world government would basically be doing half the Islamists’ job for them. It’s a foregone conclusion that they would then do everything in their power to attempt to manipulate, intimidate, or otherwise co-opt the 1WG to favor Islam. If they succeed, the old cliché “the terrorists will have won” would suddenly have all too much truth to it.
March 5th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I’ve just published some additional thoughts on this subject on my own new blog.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:34 am
My question is short and sweet:
How do you propose that every individually corrupt nation on earth will somehow combine into one super-conglomeration that is somehow not as corrupt as it’s most corrupt piece?
March 6th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Brian:
The EU did not become jointly as corrupt as its most corrupt member. Instead, the more corrupt, less efficient governments elevated their game a bit. Likewise the USA is not as corrupt as its most corrupt state — Louisiana? New Jersey? The UN for all its faults (many, many) is certainly not as corrupt as its most corrupt nation-states. The examples are readily at hand.
March 6th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Justin:
I think that’s exactly right. NATO is a good example. They started with the simple goal of keeping the Soviets out. But from that grew the Common Market and the EU.
Start with a seed, and grow it. No way we can suddenly announce a world government tomorrow and expect anyone to sign up. But a coalition against genocide, or in favor of some environmental thing?
March 6th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Michael,
Simply put – I love your idea. And, I think that our own government and the attitudes of people in this country, republicans and democrats alike, are the main bar to your proposal. Yes, we are the member of the group project that always does 90% of the work, but isn’t that partly because we are also that member who wants to have the control? It seems like this proposal is one of the possible alternatives to the UN, since that doesn’t seem to be working out that well (but again, is that not partially the fault of the US as well?) Damn it, our country sure is a pain in the ass!!!
As for Bob’s point about Evangelical Christians fearing the apocalypse, maybe one benefit of your proposal would be that it would be easier to disregard that type of silliness. (As an aside, I would think they would be excited about the Rapture because then they will all get sucked up into heaven, leaving the rest of us to live out eternity in a hellish world – or is that a different group?) I’m not even sure why we talk about those people and their nutball ideas in the first place. Can’t we just start to ignore?
As for Joshua’s point about Islam, see the above paragraph. Rule #9 of the 1WG – No crazy religious groups who are trying to oppress people, kill people, or impose their religions on to other people, will be allowed. Therefore, in order for a country to join, it must have its religious groups under control.
March 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
ugh…
This just makes me want to horde even more ammo and move to a compound in northern Michigan.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Ain’t it the truth, Ford? I’ve always respected Michael’s provocative nature- he’s unafraid throw out and argue for challenging ideas. Usually, he’s a tough-minded Democrat, an oxymoron these days. But this is an infeasible idea that could be coined “U.N. Lite”.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Ford and cakreiz,
You should definitely carry out your proposal, but maybe you could create your own militia country instead of taking up space in Michigan. (By the way, why is Michigan the choice state for that sort of thing?) Of course, your little militia country would not be allowed in the 1WG, pursuant to Rule #4 – No countries made up of crazy, gun-toting, ammo hording people will be allowed.
March 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Michael:
“Wouldn’t it be better if it was the Civilized World vs. Everyone Else?”
You make a fairly convincing argument here. Granted, it may be an improvement over the status quo.
Joshua:
Couldn’t disagree more. Turkey is the only Islamic country around with even half a chance of getting into an organization like what was suggested, as they’re already really quite secular, thanks to the efforts of Ataturk in the early 1900s. The other Islamic countries would be far more likely to respond by suggesting the formation of the formalized Ummah. If that happens, Turkey might very well join them instead. Which effectively means that the Islamic states wouldn’t join, simply on principle, and Turkey might follow suite, likely out of some misplaced sense of solidarity or the like.
Meredith:
In a democratic country, no, you cannot ignore the crazy nutball crowd, especially when they make up a disproportionately large section of the people who actually show up to vote. If you want to ignore them, then you need to figure out how to get the rational people out to the polls.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Great one !! Keep it up
January 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I aggre