Originally published on the CGS blog on June 27, 2014.
At the Citizens for Global Solutions Conference last week, there was no shortage of arguments that made the case for strong international norms and institutions. Clearly the planet benefits when we have a framework through which to peacefully resolve disputes, establish equitable access to resources, and prosecute crimes.
I spent the weekend thinking a bit about the approach we take toward achieving an “Earthling Peace” – pax terrana, perhaps? (I confess that I have never known Latin).
From the individuals present at the Conference last week, I consistently heard the argument for global government as a means to achieve world peace. When pressed on what constituted “world peace,” most articulated the removal of various obstacles to strife or calamity on earth. Examples might be the eradication of nuclear weapons or the adoption of sustainable lifestyles around the world.
These ideas, like this organization, were birthed at a particular historical moment. That moment, the aftermath of WWII, capitalized on the citizens’ disgust with the consequences of world war and their belief in the power of democracy to provide the most equitable conditions for the greatest number of people on the planet. Regrettably, the Cold War quickly tore into these optimistic perspectives, though many individuals – some of whom led the push for World Federalism and eventually established GlobalSolutions.org – held on to the ideal of global governance as humankind’s salvation.
I wondered if perhaps the route toward global governance would be the inverse of what these trailblazers initially advocated. Perhaps instead of global government facilitating denuclearization, the end of poverty, expansion of trade and so forth — perhaps countries will denuclearize, work against poverty, and expand trade before a “United Government of Earth” is formally established.
As wrong as it may seem, multilateralism is still very sexy, very “in,” around the world.
Mercosur is one example. The South American trade bloc, while certainly not without its problems, is the fifth-largest economy in the world and the fourth-largest trade bloc. Combined with the other South American trading bloc, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), the prospect of full South American integration seems like a tangible goal. Cooperation within Mercosur and between Mercosur and the CAN countries has enhanced trade, movement of people, and coordination on education policy. And, if anything, countries seem to be committed to working through their problems in Mercosur and CAN as opposed to withdrawing their membership from either.
Another example is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The PSI’s purpose is to interdict and seize nuclear contraband as it travels the high seas. The PSI currently boasts the endorsement of 103 nations around the world – including the US, UK, Russia, and South Korea. The PSI, as a cooperative effort, has been successful at keeping nuclear materials from reaching Myanmar, Yemen, and Libya, among others. While in no way perfect, the PSI is providing added teeth to the disarmament norms that have continued among the nuclear powers.
As much as observers, myself included, thought we were witnessing the end of the European Union, the EU has held strong. Spending and austerity continue to frustrate the leadership of respective EU member states. However, the European community seems committed to further tying their fortunes together. The UK and France are sharing aircraft carriers and the Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, and Greeks still spend the Euro. International banking certainly deserves some credit (or “blame” depending on whom you ask) for keeping the EU tied together, but the role of banks doesn’t negate the fact that European continental identity is strengthened by the existence of the European Union.
So the landscape from my vantage point seems to be moving toward global governance without the need for global government as a pre-requisite. Regional blocs exist on every continent, and they are only increasing the pace of integration; states see opportunities abound as barriers to trade and movement are reduced. Flexible and innovative military accords are providing order to the global commons – most notably the seaways – as governments seek to monitor the activities of rogue actors. And perhaps we could even be so bold as to assert that if not for the irresponsible do-nothingness of this Congress, that US climate legislation would be far more progressive than it has been at Kyoto or Durban.
I’m not arguing against the utility of international law or global governance, only considering the possibility that we are on our way. There seem to be more trade blocs, regional cooperative agreements, and interest in regulating shared resources. Maybe the internal mechanisms of global governance will be birthed well before any decision is made about the name, title, and electoral processes of a global government.
I’m no expert — just someone fortunate enough to have the opportunity to muse on different ideas.
