This House believes in a world government

Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.

A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.  

Economic interaction among the nations of the world, in the form of trade, investment and migration, has reached such a point today that it is meaningful to think of “the world economy.”  Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization in the form of a world government. Following the seminal work of John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it has become widely accepted within the economics profession that a certain amount of interventionist national government policy is essential to maintaining a proper balance between the twin economic evils of unemployment and inflation. Just as judicious national anticyclical policy is beneficial to national economies, so too a judicious world anticyclical policy, as implemented by a functioning world government, would be beneficial to the world economy. A world government would also improve the overall functioning of the global economy by means of regularizing various circumstances of international economic interaction (for example, in the area of patents and copyrights), and by working to reduce various trade impediments (such as tariffs and quotas) imposed by national governments.

Just as a high degree of reliance upon free economic markets was instrumental to the growing prosperity in the modern era of the First World nations, so too a free economic market at the international level would tend to enhance the growth and development of a strong world economy. As for national government anti-cyclical policy, although it is clearly justified in crisis conditions of deep depression or hyperinfla­tion, too often in the past it has been applied injudiciously, so that it aggravates rather than ameliorates cyclical swings. Owing to the various lags in policy determination and implementation described by the famous economist Milton Friedman, often expansionary policy takes full effect in boom periods, while contractionary policy takes full effect in recession periods. This problem might well hold at the global level if there were a world government in existence attempting to apply world anticyclical policy. To the extent that the world government ventures beyond anticyclical policy into the realm of overall regulation and control of the business economy, it is likely to repeat and amplify the self-evident errors and excesses the national governments have made in this area. 

A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality. 

Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.

A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.

International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible. 

The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosperity and security enjoyed today by the people of the Western European nations is in no small measure the result of the gradual evolution from the original limited-purpose, six-member European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the general-purpose, 27-member EU of today. In the early 1940s, many of the EU nations of today were locked in devastating warfare. The fact that these same nations are today harmonious components of a quasi-state polity demonstrates the capability of people to change their customary modes of thought and behavior when there exists a sufficient incentive to do so. 

The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time.  Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.

A world government is not needed to prevent nuclear world war, because such a war would be so catastrophic that the common sense of humanity will prevent it from ever happening. From the earliest days of the nuclear arms race, and especially after intercontinental ballistic missiles were perfected in the 1960s as the principal means of delivery of nuclear bombs, a delivery system for which no plausible defense could be devised, it was recognized that all-out world war was no longer a viable option in the contemporary world, simply because such a war would almost inevitably entail Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Not only would the immediate death and destruction be overwhelming, but the long-term effects from radiation and possible nuclear winter could be even worse. In the MAD world, the populations of all nations, especially those of the major powers, are held hostage in a sort of perpetual “Mexican standoff.” As paradoxical as it may seem, the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems has created the most effective deterrent to unrestricted warfare ever seen in the history of the human race. The inescapable horrors of a nuclear war guarantee that such a war will never happen.  

Economic interaction among the nations of the world, in the form of trade, investment and migration, has reached such a point today that it is meaningful to think of “the world economy.”  Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization in the form of a world government. Following the seminal work of John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s, it has become widely accepted within the economics profession that a certain amount of interventionist national government policy is essential to maintaining a proper balance between the twin economic evils of unemployment and inflation. Just as judicious national anticyclical policy is beneficial to national economies, so too a judicious world anticyclical policy, as implemented by a functioning world government, would be beneficial to the world economy. A world government would also improve the overall functioning of the global economy by means of regularizing various circumstances of international economic interaction (for example, in the area of patents and copyrights), and by working to reduce various trade impediments (such as tariffs and quotas) imposed by national governments.

Just as a high degree of reliance upon free economic markets was instrumental to the growing prosperity in the modern era of the First World nations, so too a free economic market at the international level would tend to enhance the growth and development of a strong world economy. As for national government anti-cyclical policy, although it is clearly justified in crisis conditions of deep depression or hyperinfla­tion, too often in the past it has been applied injudiciously, so that it aggravates rather than ameliorates cyclical swings. Owing to the various lags in policy determination and implementation described by the famous economist Milton Friedman, often expansionary policy takes full effect in boom periods, while contractionary policy takes full effect in recession periods. This problem might well hold at the global level if there were a world government in existence attempting to apply world anticyclical policy. To the extent that the world government ventures beyond anticyclical policy into the realm of overall regulation and control of the business economy, it is likely to repeat and amplify the self-evident errors and excesses the national governments have made in this area. 

A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality. 

Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.

A world government would give people a higher focus for their political loyalties than their respective nation-states, and thus facilitate the development of a higher degree of cosmopolitanism than is possible under the sovereign nation-state system. This would benefit the practical operations and effectiveness of the world government. The greater the sense of community among the citizens of a polity, the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, and the higher the effectiveness of the polity’s government, the greater the sense of community among its citizens. This suggests an interactive, snowballing relationship over time between the sense of community of the citizens of the world federation, and the efficiency and effectiveness of its practical operations. From relatively low sense of community and low effectiveness in its early stages, over many years of gradual evolution, the world federation would eventually achieve a very high level of community spirit and practical effectiveness.

International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible. 

The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosperity and security enjoyed today by the people of the Western European nations is in no small measure the result of the gradual evolution from the original limited-purpose, six-member European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the general-purpose, 27-member EU of today. In the early 1940s, many of the EU nations of today were locked in devastating warfare. The fact that these same nations are today harmonious components of a quasi-state polity demonstrates the capability of people to change their customary modes of thought and behavior when there exists a sufficient incentive to do so. 

The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time.  Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.

There is too much economic, political and cultural heterogeneity in the contemporary world to permit the establishment of a democratically organized, authoritative and effective—yet benign—world govern­ment. This was especially the case during the Cold War era with its virulent opposition between communist and non-communist economic, political and social ideologies. But it is still the case. For example, if a democratic world government were established, it would likely want to create a global welfare state, but this would be unacceptable to citizens of the rich countries because of the excessive taxation necessary to provide welfare benefits to the citizens of the poor nations. Another possibility is that the world government would be effectively controlled by the rich nations (despite appearances of democracy), and thus it would implement policies of uncontrolled trade and investment. These would be unacceptable to the poor nations because they would be regarded as a return to the exploitative con­ditions of the colonial era. Thus a serious effort to establish a world government in the real world would almost certainly lead to widespread armed resistance, and this might well escalate into the very nuclear world war that the world government was supposed to prevent. That would be the ultimate irony.

Although post-World War II world government proposals were mostly for an unlimited world government descriptively designated the “omnipotent world state,” there has been considerable evolution in world federalist thought since the immediate post-war period. More recent proposals envision a limited federal world government subject to significant restraints that would effectively eliminate the danger of global tyranny. Among these are proposals that discontented member nations may withdraw peacefully, at their unilateral discretion, from the federation, and that member nations are allowed to retain independent control over armed forces. In addition to these provisions, a sensible voting scheme in the world legislature would preclude the poor countries enforcing their preferences on the rich countries, and vice versa. In any case, excessive emphasis on the heterogeneity of  nations tends to obscure the fact that in reality—despite the obvious differences in language, race, religion and culture—a considerable amount of consensus has already been achieved among the global human population on some critical elements of ethical behavior and social organization. The existence of a federal world government would facilitate further development of the friendly, cooperative and mutually supportive impulses within people. 

From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existing institutions of global governance, comprising the United Nations and several others, are achieving as much as can reasonably be expected given the extreme diversity of the contemporary global human population, its widely differing perceptions, viewpoints, and policy preferences. If this diversity is hampering efforts to improve the global human prospect, this is unfortunate, but there is no reason to expect that a formal world government would not be similarly hampered. Furthermore, significant improvements can be made, such as the proposed Global Parliamen­tary Assembly (GPA) that would convert or replace the UN General Assembly with a directly elected assembly—without going to the premature extreme of full-fledged world government. Many other ideas short of world government were offered by the Commission on Global Governance of the early 1990s. Many of these are viable and attractive options for making progress without an excessively risky departure from the status quo. Thus there is no need to make a reckless giant step into world government, when there are more cautious baby steps that could be taken toward improving international harmony and cooperation.

There is no doubt that the processes of global governance have improved since the decline of the Cold War in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. But it is unduly naïve to suggest, as do some global governance enthusiasts, that the United Nations and other international institutions amount to a virtual global government that is as effective as an actual world government would be. Close examination of actual events at the international level shows that national interests tend to trump global interests again and again. As for “baby step” proposals such as the Global Parliamentary Assembly, these are uninspired and uninspiring. So long as the UN General Assembly (or its equivalent) remains a purely consultative body confined to issuing resolutions with no power of enforcement, then it makes very little difference whether its members are elected by the national populations, or appointed by the national governments. A full-fledged world government, as an institutional reality with legislative, executive and judicial branches, the high officials of which would be directly elected by the global constituency, would constitute a quantum leap forward that would excite the human imagination. So long as it is properly limited according to the more recent, post-Cold War world federalist proposals, it would not constitute a meaningful threat to the legitimate national interests of the member nations.

A world government would add another layer of bureaucracy to a world which is already laboring under a heavy burden of bureaucracy. Were a world government bureaucracy to be added to what already exists at the national, regional and local levels, it would be accurate to describe the situation as “bureaucratic suffocation” or “bureaucratic strangulation.” Of their nature, bureaucracies stifle creative thought and innovation. A world government would be subject to so many conflicting viewpoints and attitudes that its bureaucracy would necessarily have to impose an overwhelming deluge of requirements, restrictions, forms and reports on the citizens. The citizens would be effectively hamstrung, and be (figuratively speaking) more or less trussed up in straitjackets. So even if—by some remote chance—the world state did not immediately degenerate into a brutal police state, its massive bureaucracy would in some ways constitute a virtual police state. The problem of bureaucracy alone argues against a world state.

Although it is a popular form of entertainment to malign generic bureaucracies, professional sociologists define a bureaucracy in neutral terms as any large-scale, hierarchical organization that practices specialization and division of labor in its operations. According to this definition, such organizations as armies, navies, business corporations, the International Red Cross, and numerous others, are classified as bureaucracies no less than national tax collection agencies—the archetypical target of “bureaucracy haters.” It is important to understand that bureaucracies do not arise from nowhere, but are a tangible consequence of perceived needs and shared purposes. With that in mind, it can further be argued that a world government would not necessarily increase the total bureaucratic burden on the human population of the world. Some functions currently handled by separate national government bureaucracies might more cost effectively be handled by an analogous world government bureaucracy.

The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too much apprehension among the great majority of people around the world that a world government would promulgate and enforce policies that would disadvantage their specific national interests. Most opinion leaders and national government officials believe that they have a vested interest in the status quo. One evidence that interest in world government has declined to a vestigial level is that the World Federalist Association (WFA), which was quite active throughout the Cold War, was recently absorbed by Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), an organization principally devoted to preserving and supporting the United Nations, and which studiously avoids any mention of world government in its literature. 

While it cannot be denied that interest in world government is currently at a low ebb, among both the general public and international relations professionals, it is arguable that a principal reason for this is relatively low familiarity with alternatives to the “omnipotent world state” concept developed in the immediate aftermath of World War II. In time, as greater familiarity develops with the more recent proposals for a limited federal world government being developed by the younger generation of world federalists, the situation might change. The more recent proposals envision a world government that would exercise far less power and authority relative to the member nations than would the omnipotent world government of earlier, “old-fashioned” world federalist thought. There would be far less likelihood of these newer blueprints leading to unmanageable conflicts between national interests and global interests. 

Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war might so shock and horrify the global human population that it will turn to world govern­ment in desperation. This outcome is possible, of course, but it is equally possible that after a nuclear Armageddon had occurred, the scattered and demoralized survivors would be neither capable of nor interested in world government. Quite likely the surface of the world would become sub-divided into a host of autonomous principalities presided over by dictatorial war lords. It would seem that in a post-nuclear war world, there would be just as much chance of severe political fragmentation taking place as there is of further political consolidation.

The fact that some international relations authorities do not have the imagination required to perceive a feasible transition path to world government is not necessarily strong evidence that such a path does not exist. The principal reason why the idea of world government is not being pursued vigorously at the present time is that it is assumed by the large majority that world government could only be realized in the form of the omnipotent world state. But if a sufficient amount (a “critical mass,” so to speak) of awareness of the limited world govern­ment option is achieved, the situation could change dramatically within a short period of time. If there was sufficiently widespread and strong support for world government, it could be established by the same sort of international conference that established the United Nations. As for world government coming about through nuclear world war, no sane and sensible world federalist gives this any credence.