I’m gonna show you a document that’s...wild- and was really hard to find.
You’re only going to see it because a library research assistant dove into some congressional
archives and pulled it out for us.
You’ll notice the year was 1949; the United Nations Charter, signed in the wake of World
War II, was a mere 4 years old.
And in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Affairs was holding hearings on
H. Con.
Res. 64, for humans out there that’s House Concurrent Resolution 64.
And the reason H Con Res 64 was so significant, and the reason I’m showing the hearing you
is- if it were reintroduced today in our political environment, it would most definitely end
political careers, of both the author and the sponsors.
The hearing was titled, “To Seek Development of the United Nations into a World Federation”
and if that doesn’t make it obvious to you what this is about, hear for yourself the
words of the Resolution discussed, “...it is the sense of the Congress that it should
be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and
strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation open
to all nations with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression
through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement
of world law.”
This was a serious discussion of reforming the United Nations into a type of World Government,
a sovereign power with enforceable law, the aim of which would be to create a permanent
peace.
No, this wasn’t just some obscure niche issue- the Chair noted that “About 100 Congressmen”
were sponsoring the various resolutions dealing with a world federation, including future
Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and future President of the United States, a Mr. Kennedy
from Massachusetts.
Just imagine if something like this were introduced today.
The idea of world government is a conversation relegated to online conspiracy theory websites,
and even there it’s only addressed as something to desperately avoid.
It would be too simple to dismiss House Concurrent Resolution 64 as an after effect of World
War II- politicians so shocked by the tremendous loss from the conflict that their capacity
for political calculus slipped away.
World Government had been a strain of thought for a very long time.
In De Monarchia, Dante calls for a Universal Emperor, one to push human kind towards a
shared potential.
In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant argued for perpetual peace through a federation of
republican states.
Even Albert Einstein, who in 1929 referred to nationalism as the “measles of mankind”,
called for a world government which would control “offensive weaponry” after the
nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually has a great article on this if you’d like
to read further.
Einstein wasn’t alone.
There were many in the US and Europe who saw the United Nations and the NATO alliance as
potential stepping stones towards world peace enforced by well...force.
At the same time, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a global governing arrangement
wasn’t a foreign concept either.
Though Joseph Stalin employed a doctrine of ‘communism in one country’, the Communist
International he funded clearly desired world communist governance or an association of
sovereign communist states.
The point being that dismissing world government as quixotic is a modern phenomenon.
What if we wanted world government?
The potential economic consequences of more fluid trade, movement of people, and resource
distribution are massive, but how would it be structured?
...I usually hate caveats, but I feel like I need to make one just to be clear with you.
I’m not an proponent of world government and neither is my collaborator for this video,
Soliloquy.
We made this exploration in order to research an idea with you.
So, let’s go deeper with this topic.
Thomas Hobbes argued in the 17th century that you are capable of killing any other human.
Sure, he says, the other person might be ‘manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind’ than
you, but with either tools or the help of others, even the weakest can defeat the strongest.
In a time of scarcity, when there isn’t enough water, food, shelter, mates to go around,
before civilization- if you and I want the same thing, Thomas Hobbes thought we would
endeavour ‘to destroy, or subdue one another’.
As he wrote in chapter 13 of his book ‘Leviathan’: “There Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against
Every One.
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them
all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre”
In this “natural condition of mankind”, life is ‘solitary’, and you and I are
in ‘nasty’ and endless competition.
This ‘short’, ‘brutish’ life is what Hobbes called ‘the state of nature’
This is a pessimistic vision of human-kind, but also, you might have noticed, a vision
of total freedom.
Surviving is your natural right and therefore you may take any action that helps you obtain
the things you need.
Because this life is miserable, ephemeral, and full of violence, Hobbes presented a solution.
We could emerge from the state of nature by coming together, giving up some of our natural
rights, and entrusting them to a sovereign through a social contract.
Whether one person or many, the sovereign government ends the ‘state of warre’ among
the many by force.
The social contract is binding; the sovereign has absolute authority.
For the sake of our discussion, expand this concept to the international stage.
Instead of individuals existing in a constant state of competition for resources, we have
nations, fighting for dominance of the globe.
Though they may enter treaties between one another, history has shown that without a
higher power, paper holds no sway when one nation becomes aggressive against another.
As Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the sword, are but words”
Perhaps then, in the same way individuals could come together and give up natural rights
to achieve peace through a sovereign, so too could nations end their state of war, give
away some of their sovereignty to one greater, and achieve a perpetual peace.
In this frame, whether speaking softly or not, without a global leviathan, diplomacy
between nations will default to the one with the biggest stick.
Now, if you’ve been listening so far, you might be wondering: the United Nations is
already an institution with 193 member states, a peacekeeping force, the ability to sanction,
and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Why doesn’t it qualify as world government?
Though the 1945 UN Charter has the goal of saving “succeeding generations from the
scourge of war”, it is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members”
(Article 2).
As Mary Ann Glendon puts it in “A World Made New”: “The Great Powers [the USA
& Soviet Union] had gone along with the human rights language, but they made sure that the
Charter protected their national sovereignty” (Glendon, 19).
She then goes on to quote Article 2 Section 7 of the UN Charter, “Nothing contained
in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” (UN Charter, Art2 Sec7).
There’s nothing within the UN Charter to allow for offensive enforcement to keep the
peace.
It’s no global leviathan.
So what would real world government look like?
Though the mind naturally drifts to dystopian tyranny forcing chains upon the globe, serious
proposals don’t go in this direction.
An ambitious vision of world government comes from the 1945 book by Emery Reeves , “The
Anatomy of Peace”.
Known as the ‘bible of world federalism’, it called for something more direct than the
UN Charter: “Just as peace, freedom and equality of the citizens of a nation require
within their state specific institutions...so peace, freedom and equality of men on this
earth, between nation-states require specific institutions, authorities separate from and
standing above national authorities,” (Reves, 214).
Specifically, Reves called for a world constitution, either independent or emanating from an amended
UN Charter, for an international police force to maintain order, one more powerful than
the armed forces of the nations it would rule over (Reves, 228).
To prevent a nuclear holocaust, a “common sovereign order of law” would be necessary.
“Outside of that, any security is but an illusion,” (Reves, 280).
Elected delegates of each nation would receive mandate from the people to draft this constitution
and debate world law.
“There is no ‘first step’ toward world government.”
he wrote.
“World government is the first step.”
(Reves, 283).
Another prominent plan can be found in the 1958 textbook, “World Peace Through World
Law” which called for a proportional World assembly based on member state populations
and an exclusive military, meaning all other militaries would be banned.
“The World Development Authority” in Article IV of their proposed revised UN Charter would
be given the power to redistribute wealth across the globe, to forcibly solve “economic
disparities between different regions of the world” (1).
Though serious, both these proposals were written without the expectation of implementation.
Reves mentioned the chances of world government were “not much”.
More realistic activists see the need for incremental change.
A campaign for a UN parliamentary assembly seeks to form a parallel body to the UN General
Assembly which at first would be a “consultative body” but over time would grow to be able
to “adopt universally binding regulations”.
In his book, “The Idea of World Government”, James A. Yunker gives us a pretty fleshed
out structure for a Federal Union of Democratic Nations.
Based on two unique rights of member nations 1) “the permanent and inalienable right...to
withdraw peacefully.”
and 2) “right to maintain under its direct control whatever military forces and armaments
it deems necessary, including nuclear weapons” (Yunker, 107).
This means nations could join and depart at their discretion, keeping substantial sovereignty
while inside the organization.
Additionally, the Federal Union would include separate branches of government (executive,
legislative, and judicial) while pushing members to uphold ideals of open and free elections
in comportment with the name, “Union of Democratic Nations” for their citizens.
To illustrate the structure of the proposed system, let me bring in my friend Jonathan,
you may know him better as the YouTuber Soliloquy:
Any such union will need to establish its own governing bodies; legislative, executive,
and judicial; and a system is proposed for each of these.
The legislative branch, the Union Chamber of Representatives would consist of approximately
200 representatives, directly elected by the populations of their respective districts
for five year terms.
Given the number of members currently sitting in national assemblies, this number seems
ambitiously low and results in about one representative for each of today’s nations.
It therefore seems natural that the districts would be equivalent to the nations that join
with a sole representative.
This of course is a disaster for minorities within the districts who would be unlikely
to be represented; and so I would expect this number to greatly increase.
This also raises a question of disproportionate population, however here we are presented
with an answer.
Any measure would need to be approved by two methods.
First with votes from each district weighted based off district population and second weighted
by financial revenue of each district.
This simulates a bicameral legislature with unicameral one; although as a New Zealander
I have little problem with a unicameral parliament.
However the primary motivation for this is to ensure that any measures passed are approved
by both populous and prosperous regions, thereby preventing a drastic redistribution of current
world income, which would be opposed by the wealth districts or any measures that poorer
nations view as re-establishing colonial style exploitation.
The head of the executive branch, the Union Chief Executive would be elected by popular
vote across the union for a term of 10 years; and the judicial branch, the Union High Court,
would be composed of 25 judges, five of whom are elected each quinquennial legislative
election for a 25 year term.
Yunker’s presumption of separated powers, and that every nation reserve the right to
leave at any time sets his structure apart, but for the other plans, the permanence and
eternity really, leaves you and me with a terrestrial conundrum.
On one hand, there’s a growing proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe.
While less than 10 states have nuclear weapons, according to the Council on Foreign Relations,
“more than thirty others (including Japan, Germany, and South Korea) have the technological
ability to quickly acquire them.”
With each successive sovereign controlling such weapons, the chance that one might violate
international treaties and use them increases.
Again, ‘covenants without swords are just words’.
Each day carries the risk for the breakdown of international order.
Emery Reves called on this in 1945, writing: “How long will the United Nations Charter
endure?
With luck, a generation?
A century?
There is no one who does not hope for at least that much luck- for the Charter, for himself,
for his work, and for his children’s children.
But is it enough to have Peace by Luck?”
But if we, the community of world nations, can’t hope to restrain ourselves from using
weapons of mass destruction in perpetuity, the option to avoid that is equally terrifying.
Under a global leviathan, one would ensure that no armed conflict could break out, that
no nation use nuclear weapons--but, how could we object to a government so powerful?
In the Hobbesian model discussed earlier, we couldn’t, but thinkers like Locke upon
which the American constitutional system is based, reserved the right of citizenry to
depose oppressive regimes if they fail to protect our inalienable rights.
It is the right of people to be governed by consent or change their government.
Or in the case of world government, the right of humanity to demand a new regime.
How could something like this be achieved with a global leviathan enforcing peace?
What if it, like many authoritarian systems do, declared non-violent dissent a disruption?
Furthermore, how presumptuous would we be to see our time as the end of history, our
revolutions as the last to ever be necessary?
Our blood the last to be spilled?
We had the American, French,the Haitian revolutions.
We had decolonization, a new international order after two world wars, a great leap forward,
a wall’s collapse-.
Let’s just have one more revolution, one more to bring about a world government, and
we can have peace between nations forever.
An enticing, arrogant option.
Having said that, we are primordial in the nuclear age, apes with eyes pinned on a lightning-induced
eruption of fire.
Less than a hundred years have passed since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
the vast proliferation of globe destroying weapons, controlled by imperfect, often delusional
and craven human beings leaves us but a minute from midnight.
Will our grandchildren hold us in disdain, that we sacrificed their world in order to
starve the leviathan, our bestial savior from armageddon?
This video was a collaboration with Soliloquy.
On his channel he animate your curiosity- and he does a good job of it.
You deserve each other.
Watch some of his best content here, or in a linked comment below.
Go binge-watch- go subscribe to Soliloquy.
Later guys.