As the world descends and travels into the catastrophic circles of economic chaos, globalisation seems vulnerable and suffering from nationalist rhetoric. With a growing centralised global economy, with major intuitions – such as the World Bank and IMF – is it time for the United Nations to overseas global economic and financial responsibility?
This is not a winsome notion, we are reaching the next geopolitical evolutionary steps for our civilisation and global federalism will eventually creep its way on to the international stage. Of course, the general public of the United States will be hostile to any bureaucratic institution that is Napoleonic or Europeanised “socialism.” But if the IMF and World Bank featured and were under the control of a United Nations Economic Council, then international regulation and cooperation would be easier to facilitate and implement. In fact, a World Bank – reconstructed and based upon the European Bank – could manage global interest rates and currencies. As the Chinese government have argued, maybe we do not need a global reserve currency but a global currency. But of course, I am digressing from the main substances here.
If we are to save capitalism and restart global economic growth, then an international forum needs to be created or reorganised. Personally, we do not need new organisations – we already have the IMF, World Bank and the United Nations. The UN already has an international mandate and the ability to manage the global economy, with the IMF acting as a treasury and World Bank as a central bank. A democratically elected UN assembly would benefit the population and give a mandate for officials to create financial and other regulation. Tragically though, not all UN members are democracies.
To play the role of the devil’s advocate and antagonist here, there is one problem. H.G.Wells, in The Shape of Things to Come (1933), proposed that a world government would be a benevolent dictatorship and did believe a World State is the solution to our problems. In order for the United Nations to operate in its new reform role, a connection with the population is needed to justify its control over the international economy. Before I am criticised by the right wing cabal, can I point out the G-20 and G-8 meet, without a mandate, and discuss the World economy – is that morally right? Surely the United Nations Headquarters is best placed and not some hotel in Sussex. I am perplexed by the paranoid and conspiratorial thinking of libertarians and conservatives, a new world order is needed.
If we are serious about reforming the international economic situation and creating a prosperous future, then economic centralisation on a global scale is needed. Global governance is a serous reality that we should not let slip, but if we do not take this opportunity, a dark and dissolute future awaits us.
* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Victory in the United Nations on Birmingham Green Waste Case
My tweets
A message's messenger matters: the story of cleaning plates
Good news for Tullideph/Ancrum area on bus services #dundeewestend
The lies and untruths of Boris Johnson
Conserving the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs
Police chiefs lash out at Bungling Boris
Wallington South Ward Councillors' Summer Update
Joe Bourke
Helen Dudden
Brad Barrows
John Marriott
27 Comments
“The UN already has an international mandate and the ability to manage the global economy”
Does it? All I can find on this area in the UN charter is:
“the United Nations shall promote:
1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems;”
Which is well short of the power to manage the global economy.
The assumption is that the UN will be a benevolent liberal actor on the world stage, as it is at present, at least to some extent.
A democratic UN – even if it were possible – would give far greater influence to China, India and Russia. Whilst India is a democracy, it has never shown any interest in human rights in places like Burma for example.
Of course in a democracy people are free not to be liberal, just as in the UK they are allowed to vote for the BNP.
However just to be clear, whether it is right or not for the UN to be democratic, if it were to be so it is likely the institution will become less liberal, less concerned about human rights.
And of course, nobody is actually capable of managing any economy.
The idea of any global government is scary. Just look at the way government behaves even in the ‘west’ – it certainly does not have the interests of ordinary people at heart. Almost all its actions are to pander to its allies in the ruling classes or to a voter groups which will help elect it.
Global government will end up as yet another method to keep people poor to provide a work force for the ruling classes, just as national governments have done for centuries.
The main problem of a global currency and global governance is a single point of failure for the entire human race.
There’s no evidence that it’s possible for regulators and politicians to predict disasters and no evidence that it’s ever politically possible – or desirable – to deliberately burst a bubble that’s been identified.
Crucially, there’s no such thing as a regulatory system that’s guaranteed to work. There are people who believe that even national central banks are a problem in themselves, and people who believe that central bank monopoly on currency is a problem.
The matter, on the species level (which is what you’re talking about when you want a Global government) is not settled.
On a global level with a single central bank with a single currency and a single interest yet? That’s setting up the potential for a disaster on a scale that could destroy the economy of every single country on the planet. No exceptions, no lucky escapes – if the Earth central bank falls over even the well run countries would be ruined.
Before we start putting all our eggs in one basket don’t you think it would be an idea to be absolutely 100% certain that you’re not condemning the planet?
It’s not paranoid to ask why all humanity should be subject to one system when we’re yet to agree what that ‘one system’ should be.
that should say, “interest rate?” in the 5th paragraph.
The “spam checker” has forced me to split this comment…so here goes…part 1:
First, no, No, and thrice NO! There, does that sound “paranoid” or “conspiratorial” enough for you?
I agree, and earnestly hope, that the nation state is nearing the end of its usefulness and that this presents very significant geo-political issues – the outcome of which could be essentially the most liberating period of human history so far or the most oppressive.
I think you do your argument no favours at all by suggesting that nay-sayers to your grand idea will be “cabalistic”, “paranoid” or “conspiratorial” (though I suspect you mean “conspiracy theorists”). What could be more cabalistic than an ever more remote government by a small global elite of politicians? Nor is your highlighting of G8 and G20 as examples of some of this going on at the moment appropriate. Most, if not all as a matter of innate conscience, libertarians rail against the G8 and G20 – personally I find it vomit inducing to see this small “Cabal” of boondoggling politicians, most not even representing the majority of their own nations pretending that they can strut some global stage and make all our problems better. It’s hubris of the highest order.
The current economic crisis can be traced back directly to political interference in markets for political ends – whether in the US it was the regulations that insisted it was racist not to lend to poorer neighbourhoods because they were predominantly BME as we call it here, or in the UK as Gordon Brown loosened monetary policy and signalled to the banks to lend more so that the feel good factor kept us spending to avoid the 2000 recession and save his and Labour’s skin.
No, I am not a particularly brave or courageous man, but I can think of nothing more likely to turn me into a suicide bomber than the idea of “global government”.
It is precisely the opposite that needs to happen, that this crisis of nation states presents an opportunity for – more human scaled, neighbourhood and small community governance. The structures of government, and their pals that went alongside its development, the transnational corporations and media, were desinged for an age in whicih real person to person interaction was difficult at more than a few miles distance. When there was a great need for intermediation between necessarily disconnected markets, disconnected by distance, different cultures and difficulty of communication.
Part 2:
Now we are entering (yes, entering, the revolution is not complete yet) a new era where interpersonal communication around the planet has never been easier. And when I say a new era, I really mean epoch, in which we will soon be left incredulous that things could function before the advent of global communication. As significant as the invention of the printing press or of the steam engine.
Only a quarter of a century ago it was a fantastic technical achievement when the Live-Aid concerts in London and Philadelphia were beamed live into Ellis Park in Jo’burg. Some in South Africa say it was the first time they realised that other people out there in the world knew or cared about them. Nowadays we can get personal experiences of almost anything going on on the planet direct to our front rooms in an instant – the Bagdhad Blogger, the surreptitious filming of the Burma protests. We can form non-geographic communities of shared interests and mass movements world-wide. The next big step in this is going to be the rapid globalization of ideas and innovations with it becoming natural to form research groups and swap experimental information and so on between as many people as have a good idea or an interest to get involved. This market in ideas is going to see an order of magnitude increase in the speed and technological advance of innovation for human benefit.
The only possible exception I would make, and even then I am not personally convinced it is necessary, might be to have a global reserve currency, the purpose of which is not a “single currency” but a “common carrier currency” such as gold once was whilst people really trade amongst themselves in all sorts of other “currencies” which could be compared to each other when necessary by reference to this common reserve currency. And the governance of this would not be centralized so much as collectivized. But as I say – I don’t even believe that is necessary.
No, the highest level of governance we need is the city region at the most, and preferably not even that. This is the dawning of the age of humanity over government. And if anyone seriously thinks that a “benign dictator” is something that would remain “benign” for more than a short time they are deluded about the nature of politicians I feel. Competition in governance just as in so many other areas of life, is what keeps those who would wield power over us in some kind of check (for it is ever more apparent at least in the UK that the electorate cannot really do that) – as we can see that others have more or less freedom and fight for more for ourselves or fight to get others we see as oppressed liberated.
When Cobden said that “Peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less” somehow I don’t think he meant that governments should amalgamate into one so they didn’t need to have anything to do with “each other” but that we as individuals dealing more directly with each other.
No – liberty lies the way of individuals dealing with each other. Global government would be quite the opposite.
…and on a lighter note – as I really suspect that such ideas of beneficial global governance come straight from the pages of Gene Roddenberry or George Lucas: even if there were an interplanetary enemy waiting to attack us, the command and control structures required by a global government would be bigger, more obvious targets – better a network of co-operating small groups which can close in around a hole if we are hit by their trillium powered planet-blaster plasma torpedoes, regroup and fight back….:)
Someone asked Nick Clegg about the notion of a world government during a fringe, way back when he was still an MEP.
His answer was a swift “we can barely get the EU right, what makes you think we’ll get it to work on a global level?”
I think there are obviously serious concerns about the nature and accountability of international institutions such as the WB, IMF and UN. But I’m unconvinced that a ‘world government’ would be workable or desirable.
I remember one suggestion was that allocations of representatives to the word parliament would be decided by population size of countries. Sounds like a perfect motivation for invasion and war to me.
By the way – I offer as an alternative, “Cellular Democracy”.
OK, so the posters all think world government is a dysutopian non-solution. Well, I agree. However, every-nation-for-itself, and growing international strife as resources crises become more acute, is also a non-solution.
A stronger UN with greater powers – but not governing powers – could surely be a force for good.
Proper global free trade would be a force for good if you ask me, but then I’m an economic liberal and believe that sort of thing 😉
Of course, free trade is ‘opt in’ only, although if you’re a country that’s blocked from tariff and quota free trading there’s bugger all you can do – African states and EU states, for example.
The state exists to check the power of individuals and economic entities, so as to guarantee the rights of the weakest in society. If we accept this, and we accept that there are now individuals and economic entities (corporations, for instance) whose power extends to the global sphere, where fifty years ago there weren’t really, then it’s hard to say why there isn’t a case for some level of governance to follow that power into the global sphere.
Of course, dreading the way such a framework might actually be put together by the national governments we have at the moment is another matter entirely.
Charlotte – world interest rates – Bernard Lietaer’s suggested global reserve currency doesn’t need interest rates, because it’s not the primary medium of exchange anywhere, just a sort of “reference” point. Individual competing currencies can charge or pay interest if they choose to. Mine wouldn’t…:) But there are other ways of rewarding and paying for investment.
Also – as Henry George and most Liberals knew a century ago, a. it is states that impose tariffs and so on to protect their own and the protectioinist state is the one who will generally lose by driving up their own prices when they could be buying more cheaply on international markets and using the money saved for creating genuine wealth.
Andy – as I hinted at in my first response – trans-national corporate power has generally been created *by* states. Whilst there are good reasons to believe that in an anarchist model such powerful corporations would start to crumble without the protection of states and a new type of more mutual corporate organization emerge (cf Kevin Carson’s recent “Organizational Theory: a Libertarian Perspective”), in the absesne of those state interventions even the largest corporations would survive on their own merit and only by actually answering peoples’ needs.
Given the choice between a “state” capable and willing to try to manipulate the economy for political ends that has given rise to the current devastating destruction of wealth and no state and corporations unable to rely on powerful political backers to promote them and protect them I think I’d be happier to live in the latter.
Jock,
“more human scaled, neighbourhood and small community governance” does sound like an attempt to provide a universal solution. But when also combined with ‘competition in governance’ it also sounds like you’re advocating war as the means of progress towards this outcome.
Really the only kind of government we need is good government, and that requires participation in the processes which comprise it.
This argument shouldn’t be about structures, it should be about people.
Oramjepan, you wrote:
This argument shouldn’t be about structures, it should be about people.
How does that differ from my assertion that “This is the dawning of the age of humanity over government”?
I don’t see how “competition” suggests war. At the most basic level it suggests choice and a mechanism by which “best practice” is spread by example. I very much doubt that the People’s Republic of Oxfordshire is going to go to war against the various Berkshire Communes.
It is big governments that go to war by and large – people with big power ambitions to dominate others (even in democracies like ours of course). When individuals from ostensibly hostile nations interact with each other rather than governments, as Cobden said, compromise, co-operation and even mutually hostile accommodation with each other is more likely. Oiled by mutually beneficial trade of course with the protectionist, corporate “cabals” facilitated by governments.
Jock, appreciate the response, but since you don’t really accept the role of the state that I suggested, the argument was never really going to work on you! You’re being consistent in your views, what I was questioning was anyone who’s quite happy with the arguments for what we have now (broadly), but thinks that a world government would be a terrible idea.
If we (liberals) are concerned with the power that monopolies (be they state providers of services or mega-corps) exercise over individuals and look to competition to keep them in check, would we not be insane to hand the world over to one monopoly government?
History is awash with people who have exercised their freedom of choice and transferred their custom to a new provider. We call them refugees, or occasionally asylum seekers.
To where would the disaffected and terrified flee once the government they feared dominated every corner of the planet?
This idea would be the death of liberty.
Um – this article is proof if ever that standards in HE have fallen and ending the ‘binary divide’ may not have been the panacea we were told at the time…
Jock, you’re right that we agree.
I didn’t want to suggest otherwise, only that there is slightly more to it than ‘competition at a basic level’, so your follow-up is perfect.
It’s true that ‘competition’ doesn’t *necessarily* lead to war, but this entirely depends on ensuring the line you quote from Cobden is upheld.
Rivalry (such as that between Oxfordshire and Berkshire) is a good thing as it creates a creative dynamic which can be very productive – just so long as it doesn’t spill over into open conflict!
A great example of “magical reasoning” – sleights of hand that disguise gaping holes in the logic of an argument.
The second paragraph contains the first of these sleights: “This is not a winsome notion, we are reaching the next geopolitical evolutionary steps for our civilisation and global federalism will eventually creep its way on to the international stage.” Blink, and you miss it. A gloriously impressive statement, designed to impress, but that uses vague overblown terms to avoid inspection and analysis. Are we reaching such a stage? How do we define such steps and where is the evidence for them? What does “geopolitical evolutionary steps for our civilisation” even mean????
Personally, I wouldn’t trust senior UN management to cut my grass, let alone run the world economy. And lastly, the bigger the power structure, the bigger the corruption. So, I guess that’s a no.
And what prevents this world government from racing to the bottom in terms of human rights?
Referencing the discussion above, there is a good sort of competition among governments, as it encourages them to respect individual liberty. After all, if one government clamps down, people may simply start moving to a freer jurisdiction. As Tom Papworth points out, a monopoly is not simply a Bad Idea, it is an Absolutely Awful Idea.
Personally, I wouldn’t trust senior UN management to cut my grass, let alone run the world economy.
…nor the British government to collect and dispose of the cuttings!
Philip – indeed, when I read this I raced off and did some research into democracies. The Economist Intelligence Unit reckons that 48% of the planet’s population lives in authoritarian non-democratic states or what they call “hybrid” states combining some form of theoretical democracy with an authoritarian leader – like Iraq before Saddam was removed.
A further 20%+ live is what they called “flawed democracies”. So that’s a big majority of people who do not enjoy the sprt of democratic rights that even we do (and we are second from bottom of their league of full democracies – 24 states in all I think it was).
So, just whose model would a world government take – the majority, or Sweden’s at the top of the league?
The state’s monopoly on final arbitration is the worst thing it has – market anarchists suggest this is the very definition of a state and is why it is impossible for a state ever to remain a “small state” because its monopoly on arbitration leads to its ability to tax and the combination of the two leads it to inefficienies and towards ever more laws for their monopolistic law enforcers to enforce.
It would also mean presumably that Patri Friedman’s “seasteading” project would not achieve what he aims for – independent jurisdictions in “internaitonal waters” that people can pick and choose the administrative regime they want to live under.
“As Tom Papworth points out, a monopoly is not simply a Bad Idea, it is an Absolutely Awful Idea.”
Quite agree, but, national monopoly power by Bush, Mugabe, Ahmedinejad, etc is also an awful idea. What we need is the countervailing power of a stronger UN, so that nobody has the monopoly on power.
Except the “stronger UN” of course. A mega-monopoly of arbitration. This monopoly of arbitration is what makes states too powerful. How will handing it to a supra-national body be any better? It’s got to move the other way. Protectionism and the use of that national monopoly to dominate others will tend, in the longer run, to harm the protected and the monopoly which becomes inefficient to the point of collapse if it has no competition.
youve all given me a lot to think about, ill have to get back on this .ive always backed the idea of world government but its got to be democratic & either federal or confederal & there must always be space for the countries who refuse to join. in fact there would be dozens of small countries who would keep their independence & some larger ones-the USA i would have thought.
the EU is actually a good model, in parts & particularly the way it has developed, peicemeal & very, very slowly. the roots of the EU actually go back to the London conference in 1944. any world govt will be built equally slowly, perhaps as a loose alliance of such regional unions as the EU. i cant see it happening much before the last quarter of the century.
appreciate all your analyses, but world government is right up there with santa claus. it aint gonna happen, no matter how much sense it does or does not make. world war 3. THEN world government, is much more plausible, IF there’s anyone left.