Let me explain a little bit more about what I mean by "there's something wrong with this picture." When you have a decent GDP but a large percentage of the population under the poverty line, it means that there is a large gap between the rich and the poor, which usually means that there is corruption within the government.

Now let's take a look at Mexico, the government of which, as most people would recognize has some serious problems with corruption. Its numbers are $9,600 for GDP per capita and 40% under the poverty line. Starting to see the similarity yet? I am not saying that HIV is playing a role there in Botswana, but there are people who are HIV-positive and still leading a productive life. The high HIV infection rate would not necessarily cause widespread poverty.

And here is how a world government can help. First, in terms of health care and AIDS drugs, a world government will have more purchasing power to negotiate for cheaper drugs and provide better care to the poor in Botswana; and second, the world government can provide a truly independent body to investigate or prosecute any graft that might be going on in that country.

To Blackstone

Ah ha, and does the freedom and prosperity Americans enjoy come from their constitution or some divine intervention? And if the entire world is "subject" to a similiar constitution, would the freedom of Americans diminish?

[Edit to add replies to others]

How would it do that, precisely? Botswana is a bastion of liberty compared to much of the world. Does this world government take on every corrupt government? Again, how? Clone warriers? Mind control? They'd have to police nearly all of the middle east, Africa, and S America for starters.

I thought I made myself clear enough there...

Since Botswana is democratic, if there is corruption within the government and the investigation by the International Commission Against Corrpution exposes said corrupt officials, the people of Botswana can either remove these corrupt officials with direct votes or through their representatives. Again, the ICAC doesn't need to have prosecutorial power, merely finding the facts and exposing the problems would be enough.

I'd think the citizens of Botswana would be aware of the goings on of their own officials without some outside international commission against corruption to inform them. What if there is no honest politician to vote for? Will the world government provide one? Furthermore, how would the funds be provided for this endeavor of investigating the corruption within every political system of every country in the world? With what force of authority would such a world government generate that funding? Suppose the independent countries had more important things to spend their money on...like, for instance, the care of their own citizens?

This is only provided that this world government itself can be free of corruption. But how likely is that when the governments that make it up will themselves be corrupt?


It comes from the value that our culture places on freedom, and the habits that are required to maintain it (questioning of authority, independent-mindedness, etc.). It would be a very grave mistake to assume that constitutions provide freedom. The best-written constitution can be no more than a tool to help preserve freedom that the people are ready and willing to keep.

Not always the case. An ordinary citizen certainly don't have the power or resources to investigate government officials, and if these officials are at a high-enough position or if they have control over the country's media, then it would be hard for even the media in that specific country to expose them.



Come on, don't be such a cynic, Mrs. P. 1.6 million people in Botswana and not a single honest soul?


Does the District Attorney investigate EVERY SINGLE household in his jurisdiction for child abuse? Obviously, an investigation is only launched after a credible complaint is filed. And funds will obviously come from the world government.


Ah, the state vs. federal thing again. Come on, Mrs. P, you don't expect me to have every detail of how this world government should run, do you? And even if I do, my ideas probably won't be the best anyway. But anyway, how about the world government gets to tax the inter-state commerce and the states themselves cannot set tariffs, plus a membership due from the member states/countries.

edit to add reply to Blackstone

It's NOT very likely that all the media in the world would remain silent when something is wrong though.


Habits can be formed, don't forget, most Americans were willing subjects of the British Monarch before "All men were created equal."

Here i would like to contribute a bit, not trying tosound too "anti-american", but United States is a prefect example of this. The goverment manage to "protect" its citizins rather well from knowing things in and outside their country.

Or will i get bashed for this ?
I am a lier i guess.



Again, like in United States?
The Simile continues.



Tell me, i need to know this. What do you mean with Freedom ? Is Happiness Freedom? Or having the right to a gun? Blackstone?


And as j10pilot points out, habits can be formed. Remember when White people where equal, but not black? Men where Equal, but not Woman? Remember?

Oh, i guess that the contemporary opinions are the right one... right?


Perhaps our fellow peers in the good ´ol day said the same?

Of course we investigate every instance of reported child abuse, and that isn't much of an analogy for the problems associated with policing political national corruption which is nearly ubiquitous throughout the world to one extreme or another.

I don't believe I am nitpicking here. There are very fundamental questions to be answered when discussing the concept of world government. Just wishing away the problems with a "we'll make laws for that, the world government will fund that" doesn't answer them. The questions are: 1) How will any of these grand ideas be enforced to begin with, let alone consistently? 2) Who will pay for it and how will those funds be generated? (and again how will that be enforced). 3) Once such a government has the power to confiscate wealth and enforce its grand ideas, what are the checks and balances under such a system?

They already are mostly silent about this. And the people who are in the most position to do anything about it - the citizens of these countries themselves - are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Besides, it's not like this global government itself would necessarily have to wind up as corrupt as the existing governments (although that's certainly not unlikely, looking at the UN as it exists today). All that would have to happen is for the delegates from these countries to be loyal to the governments that sent them there, and make sure they do very little to actually stand up to them, other than purely pro forma actions.

And it's also not an answer to say that the delegates should be elected by the people of these countries, rather than by the governments. These governments are going to rig these elections just like they rig their own elections, using various gambits like intimidation and harassment of disapproved candidates and their supporters, bureaucratic hurdles, lack of access to media, and outright fraud.


That doesn't tell the story of what happened. The American Revolution was mostly a counterrevolution against attempts by the British government in London to assume more and more direct control over the colonies, starting with the Stamp Act in 1765. Prior to then, the colonies were mostly self-governed. The King had veto power over laws, and had other prerogatives in certain minor areas (just as he did in the motherland), but other than that, the people of the colonies ran their own business, decided what laws they wanted to live under, and lived their lives with virtually the same amount of freedom they had after the U.S. became independent.

Freedom isn't a value that sprung into existence in 1776 out of a vacuum, fully formed. It has very old roots, going back to the first Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain and earlier. It suffered a bit of an interruption when England was taken over by the Normans in 1066, but it reasserted itself with a vengeance a number of times since then, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215, and continuing on into the 17th century, when the people rose up and executed Charles II for attempting to assert absolute royal power. It is definitely something that needs to be cultivated, and not taken for granted.

Incidentally, it can also be lost, if the people start to lose vigilance.

In the most basic sense, it's the ability to live your life without a master pushing you around all the time, especially one whom you live in abject fear of. No country has perfect freedom, of course, so it's just a question of how close a country can get to that.


The unfortunate fact that in the past there were some classes of American who were denied freedom, does not mean that freedom was not a value that our culture prized. There are many cultures throughout the world that don't always live up to their own ideals, but those ideals can still be a powerful force that governs their motivations and actions. That certainly has been the case with Americans for centuries, even before independence from Britain, and even when there were glaring deficiencies in the practice of those ideals.

Ah, then i point to the topic of this debate. You see, Civilizations (regarding humans) need someone to control them. That is how we became "civilized" (in historical sense).

This Freedom you are talking about, it does not really compute with this. Should not the only thing important be the Civilization? The State? (Which constitute the people?). Is not everyone more important then one certain?


You seem to say that its more important for one person to do whatever he or she whishes, which would of course destroy the concept of society, we would have anarchy. Is not the Whole more important?



I meant in general, not the U.S in particular. But you didnt ask my question, do you think the contemporary opinion about "freedom" is a right, is the correct one?

Remember, once, Blacks where inferiors. This was the correct opinion. So, what do you think about our current one? IS all men, woman, blacks, jews or pink equal? Once they where not considered this, was this old opinion wrong? and the current one right? It has great importance to the topic at hand, as you well know.

How much control do people need to "become civilized"? Ask any parent with a teenager if they are able to control their children into civilized behavior. The reality is that civilized behavior is learned and followed via choice at the individual level. A group of civilized individuals makes up a civilized society. In other words, civilization works from the bottom up, not the top down.

Could you please elaborate on how people become civilized through control?

I think you need to read what I've said a little more closely than that. I made it clear that total freedom is not possible. Certainly, the total opposite would be hellish. But a large degree of freedom is certainly consistent with, and even necessary for, a civilized society.

I should add also, that there's a difference between rule of law and rule of man. Are you familiar with the difference?


They all have the same inherent worth, as human beings. Any older view which held otherwise was wrong. It was based on ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

My point was that not all national governmnets need to constantly monitored for corruption just like not all households need to be constantly monitored for child abuse. Only when an allegation is filed / an abuse is reported, does the investigative / prosecutorial body launch an investigation. And the ICAC would only step in if the a national government is unwilling to investigate one of its own.



1) Unlike the US Federal government, the world government would not collect tax directly from individual citizens, rather, it deals only with state/national governments. Therefore, "enforcement" actions will be directed toward state/national governments. I will discuss the enforcement mechanism in detail in a later post, and with three scenarios to illustrate -- the "Whiskey Rebellion", the American Civil War, and a hypothetical scenario of a government that refuses to remove its corrupt chief executive.

2) For the funding thing, I did provide the inter-state commerce idea, right?
Basically, what I have in mind is that the membership due would depend on the kind of service each member wants to receive. Also to be explained in more detail later.

3) First of all, in addition to the media, there will be people like you, Mrs. P, who will keep the officials of the world government on their toes.
Then, there's the internal check-and-balance mechanism, either two heads of government as someone stated before or a council / parliament to oversee the executives.
And finally, there is the option to quit the world governmnet.

Number one and number three seem contradictory to me. A whiskey rebellion scenario would require the use of some sort of mass army to procur funding from countries (call them governments if you like) which refuse to pay (or cannot), the civil war scenario would require a mass army to keep any country (aka government) from leaving, and the hypothetical removal of corrupt executive would likely require the use of an invasion force as well. Furthermore, isn’t the last one basically what the Iraq war was about (if it was for oil it is certainly the least cost effective means of obtaining resources in history)? Is this truly a concept we wish to expand on?

Then, there's number three which offers the option to quit the world government. Under the above conditions, I can't imagine why anyone would join in the first place (if remaining isn't obligatory I don't imagine joining is obligatory) and wouldn't they choose to leave before the threat of invasion anyway? On that note, wouldn't such "independent" governments form alliances amongst themselves to counter the influence of the "world government"?

There are plenty of historical examples of millions of people suppressed under the threat of government, and they stayed silent for years (or died or were confined in prison). Historically that is actually more the rule than the exception. I think offering that much power to any one entity is an invitation for disaster.

People are not brought to civilisation through 'control'. If that were the case then all human society would be classed as civilised, and clearly this is not so.

Civilisation has a very definitve meaning and any talk of 'control' ignores that meaning.

Civilisation comes from cooperation, regardless of the contemporary power structure. Kings, tyrants and dictators do not bring civilisation, regardless of what they might have thought about themselves. Civilisation was created by those who cooperated, despite the tyranny of politics to create civilisation.

The notion that princes can shape society is a joke. Princes are themselves the products of society and are bound to it just as any other man (or woman as the case may be).

A global government, or in this latter example, a global civilisation, could only come into being if a majority of the people on the planet so wished it to happen and worked towards that end.

If they did this however, the majority would have to suppress the minority and this would quickly lead to conflict. In order to suppress this conflict the majority would have to use military force.

In my opinion, there is no way for one government to govern the entire planet unless the population of the planet was no longer the sum of all humanity, or some exterior menace was threatening the human race and humanity rallied overwhelmingly, to a single cause.

Does Kofi Annan bother you? Even a boat at sea has a ships captain.

I'm curious. If this world government had the expenditure level of Costa Rica and a similar number of civil servants would the anxiety level about it drop considerably? Just wondered.

Want less government? Here's a thought. Get yourself a world government. A world government made up of member nations would seem to encourage rule by law instead of rule by the most powerful. What is the consequence of not having an internationally enforced standard of conduct? Governments to protect their perceived security interests engage in aggressive preemptive actions against others. Case in point, our invasion and occupation of Iraq. One way to look at it is this kind of action occurs due to the absence of an enforced international standard. The invasion is in effect filling a vacuum left by the nonexistence of that world standard.

So in the absense of internationally enforced standards governments will behave in ugly and destructive ways. Once again how does that work? The unilateralist approach generates an escalation of arming and mistrust. Governments expand their power to keep from being the target of either the terrorists or the invaders. With a world government the central agenda is the enforcement of international standards. A Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden would be brought to heal by the various governments acting in a coordinated way through the agency of a world government. The actions generated would not be those of simply a national agenda but guided by a set of preworked out international laws. The challenge of taking action against the law breakers would encourage greater cooperation and send a chilling message to other similar potential law breakers everywhere.

So to make my point short and sweet, to argue against a relatively small world government is to argue for a massive and deadly increase in nation state governments.

Honestly, Dingo. I don't know how you can say this while knowing the same facts that I do about recent events. To me the example of Iraq is PERFECT for illustrating the ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and corruption that would be associated with such a government. The UN issued scores of resolutions promising strong action and terrible consequences. Saddam still did not comply. He was sanctioned and eventually the boarders of Iraq were fluid with all kinds of santioned items going in and out. It was a profitable business, and the was no consensus on enforcement. The only thing everyone agreed on was that Saddam remained in violation and there must be "strong consequences" for it. Some agreed on those "strong consequences" while simultaneously profiting from the sanctions.

Nations will not entrust their security to an outside world governing body. It places the burden of security on a government which is in the position of having much less to lose by inaction, made up of other nations which also have less to lose, and might even (indirectly or directly) have something to gain if that one is attacked. The greatest danger is now from small radical factions, often sponsored (surreptitiously) by governments. It is probably more likely that a radical group will obtain a nuclear weapon, for example, and blow up a city than that N Korea will nuke Japan. However, the weapon that such terrorists would acquire would likely be sold to them by a corrupt and/or chaotic government such as N Korea. I am watching the UN conduct for N Korea and don't see how a world government would be very helpful there. N Korea isn't sanctioned, nor is Iran...nor was India or Pakistan after their nuclear testing match, nor China after Tianenamen (sp?) Square. Individual countries elected to sanction some things, but the UN did not mandate it. There is a basic "world standard" for conduct, it is enforcement that is a problem.

Not trying to be insulting here, but the point of a World Goverment is to REMOVE NATIONALITY which is the basis for all our problems. If "Americans" did not exist, but "Human beings" instead, they would not be in war with people from the middle east because they are "different".


The main thing of it is to make it clear to everyone that we are HUMANS. "American" or "British" is not of relevance, but that we are Human is. I know most "americans" are proud to "be" american, and they would never accept being a "human being", as this would force them to accept everyone else (including children) to be treated equal. Gosh, thats scarry eh?

Then you don't know Americans very well at all. I've lived here all my life, and while I've run into quite a variety of opinions and attitudes, I've met no one who doesn't consider himself a human being, and next to no one who thinks that Americans are inherently superior to other humans. Probably living in this country more than most makes people acknowledge the equality of mankind, because people here have ancestries from all around the world.

You don't need global government to make people see the inherent worth of everyone else. What really does the job, much as you don't seem to like this word, is freedom. When governments get too powerful, that's when you have wars - either wars against other governments, or wars against their own people.

The example of Iraq is perfect for demonstrating the poverty of the unilateralist approach, as was Vietnam before it. The UN approach was to stick with inspections which the unilateralists abandoned, leaving us with the sorry state of affairs we have now. Whatever the limitations of sanctions against Iraq, no neighboring countries were threatened. A strong world government would have gone beyond sanctions and forced regime change.

Nations and people do trust the UN peace keeping efforts as they have for the nearly 60 years they have been in operation. How many horror stories have you heard of as a result of UN military operations? Properly constituted I see no reason why, likewise, they wouldn't support security operations handled by a full fledged world government. It means you have the world behind you, not simply a national leader facing off against another nation with more than half the world disapproving. I think I would sleep more soundly with the former.

You're right, we have a lot of international standards but lack enforcement. That's why we need to beef up and modify the UN and its associated agencies to the point where it can act as a representative world government and supply real enforcement.

Much of the resistance to international enforcement will melt away once the participants realize that a true world government will not enforce on the basis of a double standard between nations. The present UN is not strong enough now to maintain equal international standards between nations, which arouses suspician of it, but equality certainly is the wish of its most conscientious members.

Even with all its limitations the UN, because of its internationalist charter, bestows a kind of legitimacy in its resolutions and policies that is unattainable by any single country. Can you think of one country that has called for the UN to be disbanded? Do you think maybe that has to do with the fact that there are some international matters that can only be affectively addressed by a world body?

While I agree with the sentiment here I have to disagree with the conclusions. It would be great if we could all just get along but it ain't gonna happen.

Removing Nationality is not going to suddenly make all the problems go away. It isn't even going to work in the long run. Everyone identifies themselves with a specific group whether that be a nation, region, religion, Elks Club, what ever. Just by removing a persons nationality doesn't stop the problems. This can be proven on a much smaller scale. Look at the old Yugoslavia. It's people were not a great example of brotherly love. They were the same nationality but the Serbs and the Slavs and the Croats hated each other. Now granted that is a simplification and a lot of the tension can be put down to a desire for nations of their own but the reasons behind it was they saw themselves as different from each other.

One of the advantages that the United States has had is that there have not been any indigenous people who could stand up to it. However you feel about the treatment of the Native Americans from a nationalistic point of view their loss of prestige, power, and even life, was very good for the United States.

History shows that any group with a historic claim to an area had better be a very small minority or else there is going to be trouble. A good example is the Israel/Palestine fiasco that has been going on since Israel was created. Most of Eastern Europe are examples as well. China/Taiwan. Russia/Chechnya. UK/Ireland.

To be cold blooded about it, if you are going to start a country you had better wipe out anyone with a claim to the land because otherwise they or their children or their g,g,g,g,g,g,g,great-grandchildren are going to want it back bad enough to cause problems.

Now you may say that that would be done away with if there was only one country, one world government. Sorry. Not going to happen. Any government is going to have to have some sort of political boundaries. Then you get the same thing all over again except this time its California vrs Texas or The South vrs The North or even Serbs vrs Slavs.

Iraq is another example. It has been an independent country since 1932. Granted it hasn't been the epitome of liberty the whole time but there is a National identity there. Everyone living there can at least agree that they are Iraqis in a geographic sense. However the Shiites hate the Sunnis and the both hate the Kurds and the Kurds hate everybody. They know they need to work together but again. It ain't gonna happen. They are too attached to their social, racial and historical identities to make a national one work.

If they can't get a national identity to work how are we supposed to get a world identity to work?

The most successful nation in the history of the world at creating a national identity is arguably the United States. The only problem is that we did it by imposing a specific cultural identity upon everyone and segregating, discriminating against, or just plain running roughshod over anyone who didn't accept that identity.

Now that is breaking down just like it has in every other country with a diverse cultural background. You can't have diversity and stability at the same time. The best you can hope for is chaotic good.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, eliminating national identities isn't the panacea for ending nationalist conflict.

Switzerland has four different language groups and they are very stable.


I take it you've heard of the United Nations. It works because that is where the various nations discuss their differences and find common solutions. People don't want to spend their entire lives obsessing on their tribal distinctiveness and growling at the neighboring tribes. Sometimes they like to sit down and have a chat and work cooperatively with each other. Some of the brighter ones even get behind building an infrastructure to facilitate that cooperation. There are folks who get scare off by expressions like "world government." Perhaps "international facilitating agency" wouldn't be quite so fear producing or something cozy like "friends united."

Switzerland is also just a little bigger than Maryland and has had over 500 years to work out the kinks. While they may have several different language groups I wouldn't place language near the top of the "things to fight about list" although it would be on there.




I have heard of the UN. However I haven't heard that it works.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think that it works in any significant way. I see small things get accomplished, but anytime you have a big issue come up it falls apart.

Look at the United States. It works in that it has 50 separate political entities around one table (legislative branch) and things get accomplished. However it always seems to come down to our own enlightened self interest. Remember the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska? It got passed when it was us (Republicans) against them (Democrats) but as soon as the people heard about it the uproar it caused it has split the nation into them (Alaskans) against us (everyone else). Last I heard there was a special bill being proposed which would strip the money from the bridge and use it to help rebuild Louisiana.

I don't disagree that Switzerland seems to be very stable and has some diversity but I think it is the exception rather than the rule.

I also think that Switzerland is not as diverse as it would appear at a glance. Sure there are 4 language groups but they are all European and like I said they have had over 500 years to adapt to each other. Also there are only 7.5 million people in Switzerland.

An example of a country that is very homogenous is Japan. However I don't think you could say that their government could be considered a very calm institution.

My whole point was that it doesn't matter if you take away national identity. Everyone has an identity for themselves, a group they identify with and Human isn't it. Humanity is not a group you can build lasting ties on because it is too broad. There isn't an Us and Them in humanity. While it would be a perfect world if everyone thought of themselves as Humanity, that is a utopian dream which won't happen in the real world without outside influence, be it God, Aliens, or advancing beyond what today is considered humanity. In other words, religion or Science Fiction or Fantasy. Take your pick.

Just a final thought. The US, France, Germany, etc. worked together when they had a common enemy in the Soviet Union. Now that that threat is gone what will get them to work together again? Threat of nuclear holocaust? Nope. Not a "real" threat. The grouping worked "best" when France and Germany needed the US's help to defend them. Now that they don't they certainly aren't going to do it out of gratitude. Gratitude only works until the next disagreement then it's every country, state, county, city, etc for themselves. Sure there are exceptions, but exceptions are all they will be.

I would say that instead of the UN the better example would be the Roman Empire. It was the most successful "world" government in history. It wasn't the outside pressures that killed it, although they help contribute to it. It was the internal conflicts that killed it ultimately. The most successful in history and it "officially" lasted just over 500 years. Wow.

Switzerland also emphasises my point in that it was formed as a direct consequence of out side pressures.



By my understanding the Roman's lasted 1,230 years, but I understand you're making a distinction between Rome as a state and Rome as a 'World Government'?

Its a good comparison as well. I agree that it illustrates prefectly the point that a World Government would be quickly eaten up from within like a rotten apple.

I think it's a mistake to take one or two unpopular conflicts and conclude that world government would have made it better. What did the UN do in Vietnam? Whichever side you choose, both were brutal. None of the nations involved were threatened with sanctions, nor would a massive force of blue helmets dumped in the middle of the jungle to establish safe havens have made it any better. What did the UN do for Rwanda? The peacekeepers they sent into the situation in Bosnia/Kosovo were overrun. What did they do for Somalia? I don't wish to go far into the Iraq situation, but suffice it to say that "severe consequences" shouldn't mean "we'll send in more people with white coats" if it does it doesn't take clairvoyance to see the impotence of that tactic for future enforcement issues (or current ones for that matter).


Honestly, I have heard of much systemic abuse from UN peacekeeping forces. Disturbingly many considering there are so few of them, and their mandated mission so relatively undemanding. Euromutt commented on this on a different thread a while ago. Forces are donated by member states (as they would be, I assume, under your world government or world-of-friends idea). The force level is only as strong as what the world governments are willing to provide to do the task, and what the UN (or world government) is willing to accept after political considerations. Iran, for example, was willing to donate 10,000 very well trained troops to secure Srebrenica, but this seemed imprudent at the time as it likely would have escalated the conflict.

On the other hand, the more corrupt governments are willing to donate many troops, not because of commitment to global peace and security, but because it provides a steady supply of currency into those state coffers. With those types of troops, placed in harm’s way so that the governments can make money off of their backs, misbehavior happens. There is nothing magical about the UN blue helmet that prevents it, and again, their mandates are usually relatively bloodless. That is why I mentioned clone warriers in my initial post on this thread. Such a government would have to come up with the manpower necessary to enforce its ideas, and although I’m sure Iceland (just judging by the poster here) might be more than willing to donate a mass of well-armed troops to promote "human" world peace under the large world government, other nations might not be so willing…..and even if the governments themselves are, if recruitment is low now with the Iraq occupation I can’t imagine it would improve over the prospect of serving the world government in third world countries around the globe.


True...but I'm not suggesting we disband the UN either, it is good for some things (although I think it needs an overhaul), I just don't believe we should expand its power. Honestly, this thread is so interesting to me because it perfectly illustrates how perspectives influence perceptions. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can come to the conclusions you have (that the UN needs more, greater-encompassing power), as i'm sure you feel the same way about mine. This is true even though I generally agree with you about the problems and facts themselves. We are simply reaching entirely different conclusions.

It didn't invade it, a very positive negative. An organization with an internationalist perspective seeks to avoid conflict. Expand the UN into a true representative of governments around the world and I think they would have had the clout to head off this unfortunate tragedy or anything like it.


What a real world government with real clout would not have done. Abandon the region to genocide. The fact that we declare this a failure of the UN is because we instinctively recognize that the natural inclination of a world government that was adequately empowered would have been to step in.


So we needed more. The present peace keeping efforts in the region I understand are under the authority or at least authorized by the UN. Whatever the problems presently I don't see any ethnic cleansing going on.


Well the folks that went in kept 100s of thousands from starving to death. Because the operation seemed largely dominated by the US without a lot of peace keeping experience or without that political orientation it degenerated. If a genuine international force had been there with strong credibility as not having ulterior motives and a strong expertise in peace keeping I have little doubt there would have been a better outcome.

As far as the Iraqi situation goes, a world government would probably have placed Saddam Hussein under the jurisdiction of the ICC and put out a warrant for his arrest that was to be honored by the participating countries. Along with qualified sanctions and less corrupt administrators (I don't think the food for oil payoffs, participated in by American companies by the way, are an inevitable expected model for world government behavior) I think the isolation of Hussein would have been overwhelming and likely would have induced internal change. Under the conditions that existed sanction enforcement was left largely to the Americans and British. As a result, to many particularly in the Arab world, Saddam Hussein managed to appear to be a noble Arab David standing up to the western imperial Goliath. Context means something and world government policies and actions confer a legitimacy that a nation state can't match.


Well the abuse doesn't reach mass murder proportions. It's mainly individuals and units that are poorly disciplined, not bad policy. That is immanently correctable. Would that all military forces could have their problems reduced to that level. Their missions place them between extremely hostile forces. Their missions are very demanding. The reason there is so little bloodshed is all sides realize they are there on a mission of peace and have no territorial stake in the region. Great argument for a UN type force intervening in international conflicts where possible.


A world government would always ultimately be limited by what the signatory governments would accept. However they would sign on to set of rules about the world government's mandate beforehand that would appropriately make it more difficult for them to back out and thereby lose international credibility. As of right now I guess governments volunteer the troops. I personally think a world government should have some kind of limited land base where it can build up a permanent professional troop force of its own that specializes in peace keeping. Although a world government is derivative of the other nations it needs some freedom of action and independence to give it the kind of credibility and clout and influence to exert a positive effect on international events and not be considered simply a puppet of a powerful clique within the family of nations.


That is one reason why I think we need to professionalize the peace keepers and make them more independent of the nations they come from. The upside of all these various countries contributing forces is it makes the enforcement truly international. That would seem to me a real credibility builder if the folks who were interfacing with the peace keepers saw faces included that looked like them.


If you will notice most of the criticisms of the UN are ones of omission, not commission. What does that tell you? A good thing needs to be beefed up and improved. Putting in civil service exams for employees might be a place to start. There seems to be a lot of cronyism presently that undermines the spirit of what international cooperation is all about.

No, there's plenty of "commission" to go around. Whenever the UN forces set up a "safe haven", as in Rwanda and Bosnia, they make sure no one's allowed to be armed. And then when the bad guys come to attack, they put up no resistance. This actually makes the problem worse than if they hadn't been there.

With regard to Rwanda particularly, the UN didn't just stand by and do nothing. When the commander of the peacekeeping mission, General Dallaire, found that the Hutu militias were amassing an illegal cache of weapons, he notified his then-supervisor, future Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan not only refused to authorize Dallaire to seize the cache, he actually ordered him to share his information with the Hutu warlord who was in violation, thereby imperiling the life of his Tutsi informant. Annan was simply going by the book, which says that when the UN finds a violation, it must "confront" the violator with the evidence before moving on to the next step (even if it has no plan whatsoever for the next step).

This happened not because of lack of "clout", but because the UN, by its nature, can not function as anything other than a blundering, inefficient organization. "Diversity" often gets hailed in some circles as a strength, and it may very well be in certain situations. But not when it comes to mangaging a military force or a military policy. Miscommunications, and vast, often irreconcilable differences in approach will abound, leading to attempts to smooth them out with arbitrary bureaucratic rulemaking, such as the type that Annan followed. And trying to make up for that by giving more power to fewer people will only create other kinds of dangers.

In the two instances you mention, Rwanda and Bosnia, a stronger force presence could reasonably have been expected to prevent the disasters that subsequently happened. Thanks for making my argument for a stronger world government.

I don't accept your analysis that a world government is inherently "blundering" or "inefficient", at least any more than any other nation state government agency. The UN with its hands practically tied behind its back and in the midst of bitter partisan politicking has managed a record of peace keeping that goes back nearly 60 years. You came up with two failures, both which can be chocked up primarily to an inadequate peace keeping presence. And a true world government with some degree of a free hand in its operations and better funding would be able to really professionalize things and run a much less compromised operation.

The greatest problem with the UN right now is its "corrupt 'ideal' of moral neutrality".

link

Once again Kofi Annan makes himself look like an imbecile. What countries have "aligned their behavior with their commitments?" The Palestinians? All that changed there was that Yasser Arafat became known as a "statesman." He was still as murderous and tyrannical as before. How about the chair nations of the human rights committee, for example Sudan, Cuba, and Libya. They are made to seem like good governments, just as valid as those of the United States or Britain.

Did UN membership help the Soviet Union or China "align its behavior with its commitments?". How about Iran or Saudi Arabia?
The hypocricy in the UN is sickening.

link
Dingo, you seem to only be able to see what the UN should ideally be, but I'm afraid your arguments are way off base with how things really are. I cannot see how the UN could possibly be any more corrupt, ineffective, or tolerant of evil than it already is. I can only see it becoming more powerful. Creating a world government is not going to work, unless our goal is to live in a hateful failure of a monarchy.

I know that's what you'd wish to be the case, but you've provided nothing to indicate that that's anything other than a purely subjective conclusion based on wishful thinking. The fact is, General Dallaire was quite confident of his ability to seize the cache that I mentioned above. He was very distraught that Annan refused to allow it. And after the genocide happened, he nearly lost his mind and went into a deep state of depression, thinking that it was his fault. It's the type of craziness you get when you see an unspeakable evil, knowing that you had the physical ability to stop it, and blaming yourself for not doing it. But fortunately, he eventually came to terms with the fact that he wasn't to blame, and has since participated in public seminars speaking of his experience in Rwanda (one of which I attended).

The problem there was not lack of forces; it was lack of will, based on by-the-book, bureaucratic thinking. Much as you'd prefer to think that this isn't because of the inherent nature of an organization like the UN, the fact remains that its forces had all the clout they needed to carry out the mission assinged to them. The member nations that approved of these missions could hardly have objected to their doing whatever was reasonably necessary to save lives. When an organization is more worried about procedural niceties than dealing with immediate threats to life and limb, giving it more power isn't going to cure it of that attitude. But it can make it more dangerous.

Overall, there's no reason to think that a regional peacekeeping force in a place like Rwanda, answerable only to the countries in the region, would have done any worse than the UN force. Even a multinational presence from around the world, operating outside of the UN's control, would have done better than the UN forces, for the reasons I mentioned in the previous post. And we have empirical confirmation of that. Just compare how things were going in Somalia before the UN took control, to after.

Blackstone, my point stands. Certainly in the case of Bosnia it's obvious. In the case of Rwanda and not seizing the cache, an adequate force still could have headed off genocide. And, by the way, why should such an obvious point be a problem for you? You don't hold off a force of thousands with ten. It's almost basic physics to say there is a certain critical mass that allows you to work your will. Was there a policy in place that said an adequate force couldn't intervene once the blood started flowing?

You also seem to think it is impossible for the UN to change its rules of engagement from hard won experience. I don't. Your argument for this impossible barrier created by the bureaucracy of a world government has no more logic than saying its pointless for a nation-state to field an army because of the bureaucracy intertwined in that.

This word "bureaucracy" gets wielded around as a moveable argument, imagining some terminally schlerotic condition, for just about anything to do with the public sector that the critic doesn't like. When it involves some service or gov. agency that is vital to the complainer then the chap becomes strangely mute. Have you noticed?


And it is a great virtue. Better to have all the parties, no matter how corrupt, engaging in talk talk rather than fight fight. It seems strange to me that folks would set up a sniff test, as a way of not bringing certain nations to the table. It smacks of extreme hypocrisy to talk about a United Nations and then to turn it into some version of an exclusive country club. Also you have a forum for saying nasty things about how others go about their business to their face. You then have an opportunity to get a humbling education as they start pulling out your dirty laundry.


Frankly that strikes me as such an absurd comment I don't know what to say. It wasn't the UN that marched into Vietnam and Iraq. Maybe us Americans need to look in the mirror and stop being so ready to throw stones at others. Practically 60 years of peace keeping, providing an open forum for the nations and doing a lot of humanitarian work is a good foundation for building a future world government. Nobody wants to kill off that "evil" UN as far as I know and a lot of them would like to kill off their neighbors.

You're still not getting my point. There was an adequate force there. General Dallaire was not some inexperienced fool. He's one of Canada's best-respected military officers, and I'd trust his word over Annan's any day as to what a force under his command is capable of. Annan simply went by the book, because that was the path of least resistance in the bureaucratic culture he was operating in. I know that's a word you're not comfortable with, but I've explained exactly what I mean by it, and backed it up with the reasons that I gave. You, on the other hand, have responded with nothing but blanket denials, and made no attempt to address the reasons I gave. As I said above, this could really only be because of wishful thinking. You want the UN to be what you imagine it to be, so you start off with the assumptions that justify that view, and have so far shown no sign of seeing any need to back up those assumptions.


Then you didn't read my argument very closely. It wasn't simply the fact that bureaucracy happened to screw this up. My explanation went deeper than that, and you haven't addressed the substance of it.


If that's all the UN was - a forum for airing disputes and debating them - you'd have a perfectly respectable point. But it makes absolutely no sense to give these countries control over international military forces, or any other branch of international policy making and execution, for that matter. If they're not capable of running their own countries responsibly, they should not be part of any international governing apparatus.

Well, not now, but possibly in the future. With the differences in income across the world it would be difficult. The largest hurdle, of course, would be the differences in political and religious ideologies. As it is now everyone seems to have an "us vs. them" mentality, where I believe that it would need to, and should be, more of an "all of us vs. the problem" mentality. "The problem" of course being the many issues that face the human race as a whole, such as global warming, AIDS, or cancer.



Hypothetically, if it is run correctly, absolutely. I have no dought that it could be accomplished. The obstacles, revolving around the people running it. They should be intelligent, logically thinking individuals. They should be as objective as possible until they have heard every major opinion involved, then be able to deduce the best over all option. It is essential that they be able to take counsel without bias before making a decision.



The best government, I believe, would not be one controlled be the people. The people cannot always be trusted to make the right decision, and are at current far to ignorant of the matters at hand. I believe that the most efficient form of government would be a counsel of the intellectual elite, taking counsel in each separate scenario from experts in that particular field. Obviously some form of checks and balances should be included to make sure that factions don't gain too much power. I'm not sure exactly how these people should be elected, but as someone has previously stated, experts in this area should be in charge of this, as they are better able to do such.

Here's an interview with Dallaire
General Dallaire on the Rwanda massacre and related matters.

I haven't disagreed that Annan's decision and others were vital but woven in and out is the problem of insufficient resources due in part to commitments in places like Kosovo and of course simply the general level of resources available. Other governments reluctance to help was also an important factor. Incidently, the reference to the discovered arms caches in no way assures that Dallaire could have headed off the genocide, only that "we were going to take a certain level of control" at that time. He certainly gives no indication that he had sufficient troops and/or resources to be successful.

All of this goes to confirm my point. A bigger more independent more professionalized World Government would be less likely to have these problems. Not only would they have more resources, but they would be more responsible and have commanders in the field who would have more freedom of action. Patton didn't wait for some state dept. official to sign off on each military action. That would be more the model. A world government wouldn't have to wait around for this or that government to sign off on the matter. It would be dependent for its existence on the family of nations but once it received its guidelines then it would pretty much be calling the shots.


The only additional thing you mentioned that I can detect is some problem with "diversity." I see no reason why a well trained diverse force can't operate just as efficiently as a homogenous one. It's the training.


In a world government they wouldn't. The world government officials would call the shots. The member nations would be there to fund and sign off on the general guidelines. Day to day policy would be handled independently by the world government.


I want a world government that works and I am offering my views on the matter of how I think an expanded UN could be made to work, drawing on its past history and defining its future structure and mission. You contribute nothing on how the UN can be made to effectively work and offer no alternatives, but spend a lot of time bitching about how I don't pay enough attention to your little pearls and dishing Annan, as if that's sufficient to the subject.

An interesting idea, Revelation, but I wonder how you reconcile it with your signature:
Perhaps I don't understand your idea completely, but it seems that if you follow the logical course through, you end up with Feudalism. When you take power away from the people, and vest it solely in an elite class, the "peasants" have no recourse but to align themselves with whichever of their "masters" can provide the best protection. Is that what you want?

I think you have too little faith in the decision-making capabilities of the people. That's you and me, you know. By no means am I part of the intellectual elite, but I think that, given all the facts, I am capable at least of thinking things through and making rational decisions. Are they right all the time? No, but then again are the decisions of our existing intellectual elite always right? Not a chance.

A country club discriminates on the basis of wealth or prestige. If that's what we were even talking about, then I could accept your point. What we are talking about is the failure of the UN to discriminate on the basis of behavior.

I agree with Blackstone here. The UN isn't just about pointing fingers and airing grievances. I would in fact love to see every nation and people at the table. However, it and the world government you propose, make laws and resolutions, deploy military forces, and sit in judgment on its member (and nonmember) nations. Blatantly corrupt nations like Cuba, Sudan, and Libya are given this power. A more powerful world government will not cure them of their behavior. All that has happened with the UN's expanding powers is that their form of government has been forced to be tolerated.

Oil-for-food scandal comes to mind (corrupt). The failed peace-keeping missions we've been discussing (ineffective). The current human-rights committee, as well as other questionable member nations (tolerant of evil). Perhaps you disagree with my assessment, but that hardly makes my statement absurd. General, yes, but it was a summarization of my other points.

And whether or not the U.S. has made some poor decisions is an issue, but it is not this issue.

The UN may have been at its peace-keeping efforts for 60 years, but lengthy duration does not compensate for complete failure. You seem to have a ready excuse for every single one of the UN's failures, including questionable ones like not being able to rely on their forces, but it does not excuse the fact that the UN failed every time.

I believe we have made our desired alternative clear, but if not, let me spell it out again: Don't give the UN more power. Take away some that it has. Reform its policies to be less tolerant of oppressive governments. You assume that because we don't offer our own plan for a world government, that we don't have alternatives.

Dallaire's point was about the capability of his forces to stop the genocide, once it got underway. But taking action against the illegal arms caches before it got underway would most likely have either prevented it from happening, or at least have saved many lives. And the interview you linked to showed that he was quite confident that he had the manpower to do that.


Excuse me, but, what are you talking about? What you describe is exactly the UN as it is today and was in 1994. Both Dallaire and Annan were acting as part of an autonomous structure, subject only to the dependency that you mention. They were not seeking the permission of member governments for the decisions they made.

As for Patton, although he wasn't responsible to "some state dept. official", he was answerable to a civilian politician: President Roosevelt. True FDR didn't have to sign off on every one of Patton's decisions, but he could have made it that way if he wanted to. Likewise, Annan could have deferred to Dallaire's judgment. He didn't, not because he didn't have the power to, but because the culture he was operating in had a very herd-like mentality. That mentality is a result of working in an organization like the UN, where communication hurdles abound (not just of a linguistic nature, but of a cultural nature as well), and where nobody feels enough of a patriotic attachment to the "government" they're serving in to want to overcome those barriers to the point where they have a well-oiled, properly functioning system. Instead, they're liable to focus more on advancing their own personal careers. Giving the UN more power won't change that fundamental handicap.