We know, we know. Mention anything about politicians scheming for a “world government” and you will instantly be slammed as a troglodyte, conspiracy theorist, wing nut, and so forth, followed immediately by snickering references to tinfoil hats and black helicopters.
Still… we find it most interesting to ponder a remarkable commentary entitled, “And now for a world government,” published December 8 in the highly respected and influential international newspaper The Financial Times, which boasts 1.4 million readers. The piece was written by Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the publication. Rachman was formerly employed by the equally respected Establishment outlets the BBC and The Economist.
“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman. He cites the financial crisis, global warming and the war on terror as creating unprecedented new opportunities for the concept.
“A ‘world government’ would involve much more than cooperation between nations,” Rachman says. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union [EU] has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”
A world government, Rachman stresses, could not be created democratically, because we ignorant unwashed masses, lacking the wisdom and foresight of those who rule us, mostly hate the idea.
“Even in the EU — the heartland of law-based international government — the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters.
“In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians — and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters.
“International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.”
Hmmmmm. Pardon us if we hear the echo of jackboots in that last sentence.
Another reason Rachman is bullish about world government is the election of Barack Obama. He notes Obama has key advisors who are very enthusiastic about steps in the direction of world government. High among them is John Podesta, who heads Obama’s transition team.
Podesta is also the head of the highly influential Center for American Progress think tank, and an advisor to the Managing Global Insecurity (MGI) project.
MGI, Rachman notes, favors among other things “the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force.”
MGI, says Rachman, is “aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas,” and thus carefully avoids scary terms like “shared sovereignty” and “world government,” preferring more soothing phrases like “responsible sovereignty” and “global governance” so as not to alarm the slumbering masses.
“So, it seems, everything is in place,” Rachman concludes. “For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.”
However, he notes that, because of us darn stubborn ignorant rabble and our irritating lack of enthusiasm for world government, “any push for ‘global governance’ in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.”
But of course, clever minds are working on that, too.
(Source: Financial Times, “And now for a world government”
Thanks to Roy Lieberman )