A global government

The global financial and economic crisis of the 21st century has exposed the weaknesses of sovereign nation-states and broader international political, economic, social and political structures within which we live, and the fragilities in the fabric of our society in confronting the diversity of challenges of the modern age.

Among a myriad of interconnected challenges, these weaknesses and fragilities have been clearly evidenced, leading up to the G20 London Summit, in the dislocated global response to the crisis, and a world endeavouring to grapple with the ticking time-bomb of climate change.

These, and other global upheavals in contemporary times, require a re-evaluation of the sovereign nation-state as a model of enduring relevancy in the 21st century and beyond, and whether the concept of the sovereign nation-state requires a transformation to better adapt to a more globalised and intertwined world as a means to more effectively confront humankind’s challenges.

This re-evaluation extends to debating the merits of establishing a “global government” or a more rigorous global governance framework to deal with the current and future factors of global disorder compared to that of the 19th century sovereign nation-state model.

The idea of a “global government” has existed since ancient times, when the renowned Classical Greek philosopher Socrates showed foresight when he exclaimed “I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the World”. Since that time, the idea of formulating a model for the establishment of a “global government” has perpetuated throughout the history of human civilisation.

Particularly over the past several decades, the advent and increased influence of globalisation has intensified tensions between nationalism and internationalism in a diverse range of policy fields, in which national interests are not always best served by committing or adhering to international law, treaties, conventions, or universal consensus policy positions.

Within Australia under the former Howard government, these tensions were reflected in such issues as the asylum laws, the environment, and the war on Iraq. For example, the Howard Government’s policy towards the detention of refugees and asylum seekers was based on the premise of protecting Australian borders and national sovereignty, but which arguably, for instance, conflicted with international human rights principles.

Similarly, the Howard government’s - and others’ (such as the former US Bush Administration) - refusal to sign up for the international Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions was based on a nationalistic premise that the benefits of international co-operation on the environment would be inadequate to nullify the economic and social costs, including jobs impacts, within their national borders.

Further, Australia’s participation in the war on Iraq with other “Coalition of the Willing” countries ignored international law, treaties and conventions by breaching the United Nations Charter by the use of military force against a sovereign state without United Nations Security Council consent.

More recently, the financial and economic upheaval experienced on an international scale has clearly demonstrated and reinforced the necessity in having a more coherent and rigorous global approach in confronting challenges that go beyond national borders.

Prior to the G20’s April London Summit, endeavours have been made by national governments individually, and via such forums as the G7, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the European Union, to confront and implement policy responses targeting the global financial and economic crisis. However, to date, these endeavours - by such means as fiscal stimulatory measures and monetary policy responses - have appeared an incoherent attempt to contain and effectively guide national economies through the crisis.

The G20 London Summit did offer some hope for a more synchronised and integrated global solution to this crisis, initiating more robust regulatory and governance reforms to the international financial system to ensure greater transparency, sustainability and accountability, and the foundation for a more prosperous, equitable and stable global economy in the future.

While a major step has been achieved by those countries at the G20 summit in overcoming the financial and economic crisis, it nonetheless excludes the remaining 15 per cent of countries which contribute to global trade. The world therefore needs a more practicable mechanism in ensuring all countries are engaged in the decision-making processes on policy and co-ordinated responses to global issues that infiltrate national boundaries.

This practicable mechanism could be achieved by means such as the establishment of a “global government” structure or alternatively by a greater solidification of the global governance structure presently in existence. Such a more globalised structure approach would need to embrace all nations, regardless of their social, political, and economic systems; embrace all citizens of the world regardless of religion and race; and have the mechanisms, power and authority to formulate and enforce legislation globally.

This framework would need to consist of agreed common goals and principles of engagement, including universality, rule of law, subsidiarity, democracy, solidarity, equity, and human rights. Many of these guiding principles of engagement, as also detailed in Christopher Hamer’s “A Global Parliament: Principles of a World Federation” are already recognised in varied degrees by nation-states forming the European Union, and the United Nations as part of its Charter and Conventions.

Arguably, the nearest the modern world has in terms of a world government and a governance structure is the United Nations and the various international institutions, including the International Criminal Court, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Health Organisation.

The United Nations is, however, currently viewed as purely a token forum for discussion and co-ordination between sovereign governments, and does not have the enforceable authority to be deemed a truly global government. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists to transform and strengthen the United Nations into a truly legitimate global government.

One of the many challenges in reconstructing a model of global government is in determining a balance between nation-states retaining a level of sovereignty over domestic affairs, ensuring some level of national sovereignty and cultural identity, however required in tandem to conform within a global governance framework when it comes to matters that go beyond national borders.

The reality is that the formation of a truly “global government” is currently an unlikely one. Before a genuine “global government” can come to fruition, in part, the attachment of citizens to their own sovereignty needs to be diminished, a greater community connectedness through common values is needed in creating a more unified global village, as well as an element of loosening of political power at the national level and transferred to the international level.

In the meantime, there must be a continued, united, global determination in strengthening international governance and mitigating threats to global stability. The G20 London Summit may have sown the first seeds of a paradigm shift in our still newly born second millennia, in forming the evolutionary building blocks of a new world order for a more global oriented unitary system of governance in dealing with modern international challenges.

The opportunity now avails itself in enabling international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and International Criminal Court to be further strengthened and given greater legitimacy in ensuring more effective monitoring, greater legislative authority, enforceability and accountability in imposing international law and regulations at a national level.

Greater synchronisation of nation-state based action via a multilateral framework will be required to ensure the greater likelihood of successful outcomes in combating other deepening global challenges such as climate change; entrenched global poverty; crimes against humanity; nuclear weapons proliferation; conflicts between and within nation-states including the war on terrorism; and stemming the ever-increasing international crime such as the war on drugs.

The global financial and economic crisis and the ever noticeable perils of climate change, have clearly demonstrated that a more co-ordinated and pressing international response is imperative in confronting these and prospective global oriented issues that are not, as yet, on our radar.

Until such time as this ideal world state paradigm shift is realised, the world will continue to deal with issues of a borderless and non-discriminatory nature in a fragmented and nationalistic fashion, and likely fulfil Albert Einstein’s prophecy - “There is no salvation for civilisation, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government”.