World Union – How Part 2

In the previous post I argued for a maturing of international relations by providing and empowering a global forum in which relative safety might be found for conducting the business of international relations.
As it was argued this process of internationalization might be likened to the process of nationalization just a few hundred years ago – which were preceded by smaller warring groups within what we now see as nations.
These groups would have had generations of killing behind them and for any individual it must have been very difficult to envisage a period of prolonged unbroken peace.
For all the flaws in many modern nations the combinations of, and balancing oppositions provided by, the political, judiciary, police, media and military as well as other interests groups have provided an arena where children can at least live outside of a war zone.
So how then can this relative safety be enlarged from nation to globe. Of course, many of the bodies required already exist, and much of the work needed is already ongoing. The United Nations, the International Courts and the United Nations Peacekeeping Force are all, in theory at least, sitting in place of the political, judicial and police of the global body.

However, as of now, they have a back seat in key events. Events which fluctuate towards and away from the dystopic mutual annihilation that another global war would bring; events that also include particular nations in states of failure where many die every day.
The move towards a formal global union would facilitate cooperation in areas such as science, management of financial markets, international crime – and most importantly create an intelligent dispute resolution system that can reduce the appalling deaths resulting from the inherited and conjured conflicts.

Considering for many now we can have a say on our roads and healthcare and more minor administrative services but not on whether we approve of war and wish to kill and die; there does seem to a democratic deficit that exists because we currently really only elect local and national politicians. Yet, as has been argued here with global catastrophic risks in fact what occurs on the international stage should be our preeminent concern.
How then do we bridge this gap, force this issue, take it that in 1945, 2015 as it is, was not inevitable, or even likely – and so we should all act all the time on facilitating a sophisticated transition to a method of bettering the chances of getting to 2085 in international peace, and so not to have a rerun of the horrors of twentieth century in the twenty-first.

For this strengthening of international relations a movement similar to the climate change events where representatives of all nations meet and agree targets and actions is required, perhaps to re frame some of what the United Nations is currently constituted as, to have a parliament with limited powers perhaps (bridging that democratic deficit), perhaps not, but what would seem vital is for the current powerful nations to support the global peacekeeping force and its legitimization through the enforcement of international law. To be clear this would make these nations answerable to law also. This may be the biggest stumbling block, but as the nation with most powerful military currently approaches an election cycle with the possibility of an extreme voice gaining power and heightening tensions around the world,perhaps the case is even stronger that in that nation there should be a major movement to pressure the more likely moderate winner to empower the global bodies, allowing it to reduce its massive military costs as well as making the world safer

This is mind blowingly complex and difficult, of course, but there are a lot of people (civil servants, politicians,diplomats) paid a lot of money during long careers whom the online global community should country by country be petitioning and coercing into setting their sights on applying their intelligence to the task.

The balance of interference by the international bodies and the transition to a global power that would be trusted by enough main players would take decades of careful tightrope walking. But the end game wouldn’t be just trying to keep a United States conflict with Russia, China, or whomever else at bay, but lets look at the current tragedy in Syria. This example of bitter internal strife and external influence and ultimately (what may seem incredibly important and impenetrable to those involved) but really incredibly childish behaviour by humankind that is killing children in their thousands and sending many more across the continent of Europe in scenes reminiscent of the worst of our pasts or in Alyan’s case to die on its shore and shine a light on the tragedy……all this just simply would not be allowed to happen.
There would be a procedure for international intervention of various types at various stages but one that certainly would have the global peace keeping force installed in Syria a long time before now. An army made up of over 200 different nations with a vast amount of money and power would sit on situations like this as the international adjudication took place slowly and carefully through the courts/parliaments of the global body.
An evolution of the U.N. to a World Union perhaps with a statue of Aylan at its front door and offices around the globe may seem a distant goal, but the last hundred years through normal coexistence and unimaginable horrors have shown us, surely, that it is up to us.

Martin O'Dea

About Martin O'Dea

Martin O’Dea lives in Dublin, Ireland. His interests and writings are varied and include areas relating to human development through technological and biological advances, as well as the economics and politics of rapid technological advance. His first novel is 'Beyond the Subjectivity Trap'.