World government: not yet but one day

0
265

It was interesting to listen to U.S. president Donald Trump during his recent address to the United Nations. He took the opportunity to brag about his accomplishments during his term so far which drew a bit of laughter from the crowd but he also raised eyebrows when he objected to UN programs which he says were contrary to American interests.
“We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” he said. He also referred to a long list of UN initiatives from the International Criminal Court to the Human Rights Council that his government sees as having no authority over the States.
“As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy and no authority.”
The U.S. is also boycotting the Human Rights Council arguing it overlooks abuses by some and serves as a venue for anti-American and anti-Israeli action.
Well, President Trump is certainly welcome to his beliefs even though they are contrary to the interests of the world as a whole.
After all, globalism, where interests of the entire world take precedence over those of individual nations will one day arrive. The idea of one world government has been advanced by several luminaries over the years as the only way to overcome war whereby we abandon the nation-state system and establish the political unification of the world.
Postmedia columnist Douglas Todd, in a recent column points to U.S. philosopher and political analyst David Ray Griffin who is a key advocate of globalization. He says in the current political state, national governments and transnational companies have few motivations to fully cooperate with others since they’re designed to concentrate on their own security and self-interest.
He supports the suggestion that we transform the United Nations General Assembly to a democratic world government that would make binding laws, abolish the security council that gives veto power to major countries, hand more authority to the Human Rights Council and expand jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It would have taxing authority and also a comprehensive police force to enforce the laws enacted by the global legislature.
Griffin adds a world government would also offer a shared aim of the NGOs and charities throughout the world to tackle social issues.
Of course such a suggestion today draws criticism from those with closed minds and protectionist leanings who have the inability to see into the future. They say it would never work.
And to be fair there would certainly be a necessity for fairness and impartiality on all fronts.
One world government is certainly not in the cards for many, many years to come. But there is no question that if certain computer models of mankind’s future are correct one will be required to deal with the starvation, pestilence, devastation and other very serious repercussions that arise as changes in climate become more intense.