Government
Reforming World Government
A world-government solution to terrorism.
By Amitai Etzioni
Ever since I was a student in the early 1950s, I have been told that a
world government is a dream of dewy-eyed idealists, a vision no serious person would
pursue. To a certain extent, one exists now in the form of a coalition of nations
organized by the United States in response to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe
this will evolve further into what I call a Global Safety Authority (GSA), an authority
run by the United States and its allies but encompassing most of the nations of the world.
Such an authority--born out of antiterrorism initiatives in the United States and fueled
by international agreements to facilitate world peace--would have as its core missions
antiterrorism, deproliferation of weapons, and humanitarian intervention.
The GSA's primary division, the Antiterrorism Department, would combine
the intelligence and police services of some 170 nations, who would work together in as
seamless a way as the FBI and the New York City Police Department cooperated in the
aftermath of the World Trade Center attack. Since then, 55 nations have changed their
domestic laws to accommodate the global pursuit of terrorists. Special Forces, CIA agents,
and U.S. military forces grid the world in attempts to reach this goal. There is hardly a
phone call or e-mail sent anyplace in the world that is not scanned by computers in the
United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia to share with like-minded governments
worldwide.
The GSA's Deproliferation Department would labor to remove weapons of
mass destruction from rogue nations and prevent their additional manufacture. Progress is
already being made in this direction: Such weapons have already been eliminated in Libya,
and Iran and North Korea are next in line. Seventeen nations recently agreed to share
information about the movement of suspected cargoes, and several naval forces are
cooperating to board and search ships suspected of carrying the material needed to make
nuclear weapons or the bombs themselves, especially around North Korea.
The goal of the Humanitarian Interventions Department is to prevent
genocide and ethnic cleansing. It would provide the hard power needed to back up UN
resolutions, and it works out which nations will send troops to places such as Liberia,
Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan. Moreover, as part of its
endeavors, initiatives would be undertaken to form standby regional forces in order to
avoid delays in preventive actions.
The fact that the new and growing global government was born out of
force and that the GSA would not be accountable to a global representative body or
electorate does not mean that force would be central to its being or that it need remain
unaccountable. Historically, many nations that were forged by force--including the United
Kingdom, Germany, and Italy--gradually developed democratic regimes.
But why would the major powers behind the GSA, especially the United
States, submit to a global parliament, say in the form of a restructured United Nations or
a new global council composed of representatives of democratic governments?
"Submit" is a strong term. However, seeking approval and taking into account the
views of such a body is far from a visionary notion.
In a world where more people follow the news and are politically active,
the perceived legitimacy of one's actions has become surprisingly important. As events in
2003 and 2004 have demonstrated, acting without UN approval cost the United States dearly
in realpolitik terms, including military support from allies, sharing of financial
burdens, and public support at home. In one year, the Bush administration was forced to
move from declaring that the United Nations was on "the verge of irrelevancy" to
repeatedly seeking a UN endorsement for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Moreover, the United
States needed the backing of the United Nations to legitimate elections and to work out
the transition for Iraq to become a self-governing nation.
One cannot expect in the near future for the world to be run like a
democratic state. However, as more governments of UN member states are democratized, the
voice of the General Assembly will be more compelling. And if the Security Council were to
become more representative of today's global power structure, its resolutions would hold
more weight. Thus, the United Nations may well become an even more important source of
legitimacy than it currently is.
The net result would be nothing more than an "antagonistic
partnership." The United Nations would continue to chastise various powers for not
following its lead closely enough, and the powers that be would complain that the United
Nations is still ignoring crucial facts on the ground. However, at the same time, both
would recognize that they complement one another. Without the powers invested in the GSA,
the United Nations would be toothless. And without UN prescriptions, the GSA's uses of
force would be considered illegitimate bites into democracy. That is, both sides may well
take each other more into account while still trying to follow their own paths, thus
jointly fashioning a better world government than if each were operating independently.
About the Author
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at George Washington University, 2130 H Street,
N.W., Suite 703, Washington, D.C. 20052. Telephone 1-202-994-8190; Web site
www.amitai-notes.com/blog. This essay draws from his book From Empire to Community: A
New Approach to International Relations (Palgrave, 2004). Order:
