Global Hegemony ~ Is It A Possibility? - Political Forum

Fox · 02-20-2007, 08:26 PM

I do not know how many of you are familiar with the essays of E.B. White, but for a time he was a very strong proponent of the concept of a global hegemony--or one-world government. This idea was the inspiration for the horribly gimped League of Nations as well as the modern United Nations. Essentially it is the theory that eventually all of mankind will be united under the role of a single, unified government.

I see three ways that this could happen:

-Economic Domination: A corporation gains enough power and influence to slowly break down national borders and deteriorate national identity over a period of time, eventually leading to world-government that administers control over the people of the world by controlling trade. I think this is perhaps the most likely, but also the most detrimental to personal rights and freedoms in the long run.

-Military Domination: A single nation attains sufficient military force to conquer or frighten other nations into submission. Arguably, this is the least likely, but it is possible that the rapid conquests of Napoleon and the NAZI invasion could be emulated--and retained--some time in the future. This is probably the least likely, given the current political state of the world and the modern practise of war.

-Voluntary Revolution: Peoples of the Earth voluntarily decide to abandon their nationalities and join together for their common interest. This is probably the least likely, as it is an "ideal" situation.

Is there any other method by which to fragmented nation-states of Earth could be reformed into a single mass? Is such a hegemony possible? Is it something to be desired, or feared? Please tell me what you think of the possiblity of global Hegemony.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 02-21-2007, 10:15 AM

I think that it is unlikely for the world to ever truly unite into one world government, with nations becoming like states ruled over by a federal government.

People just don't want to give up their sovereignty. From everyone's perspective, there is more to be lost than gained through such a transaction. What would the United States have to gain by agreeing to a union with China? We would probably lose money to them with any kind of social security programs. We would lose our ability to determine our own domestic and foreign policies, and what would we gain? Nothing.

People like to make their own decisions and set their own policies. Smaller states have to give that up when they join with larger ones. I guess a union is good for larger states and bad for smaller ones.

The states within the United States were an exception and apparently the EU is an exception as well. However, in the case of the United States, those were just colonies and not real nations coming together. In the case of Europe, well perhaps this shows us that some nations in a region will come together. They have some things in common. They had a lot in common before they joined (NATO, European Steel & Coal Community, common political values, etc).

However, the EU has problems even now, having its Constitution rejected and even before then in 1991, with the landmark Maastricht Treaty being narrowly approved. If the EU were to merge with yet another regional association, then that would probably make both regions ungovernable.

Nothing would get done, IMO, and nothing would be gained if it were possible to get things done.

We might see some more EU-style organizations in South America, South East Asia and maybe someday in Africa. However, to unite all countries into a world government would be too much of a mess. It would be a choked and unproductive mess that is too unwieldy to actually perform the day-to-day functions that nation-states currently perform. I don't think it will happen.

Slartibartfas · 02-21-2007, 03:44 PM

A possible and not totally unlikely scenario I think is the slow agglomeration as politics and most importantly technologies advance. This scenario will take its time however and I am pretty sure no one of us will be alive when it finally comes to an effective world government.

What do I mean by agglomeration? Well, if the process of the European unification is not to fail but in opposite succeeds to progress even further, and if similar tendencies in all areas in the world (South America, Africa, South East Asia, perhaps also Arabia) will start to go the same way, it might be possible that in one or two centuries we will face a world the regions will be mostly integrated into supranational entities. Entities that will in the end perhaps unify into a thing as integrated as the US.

An this is the point when we will face only a oligopolar world. A world where its possible that, lets say a housenumber, 10 heads of states from those different entities, pretty much represent the whole world. Given that enough time passes by, and perhaps global events will force humans to join forces (I can imagine quite a few things, for example regarding environmental challenges that left the area of speculations, or also the further economic integration that leads to over powerful companies and the states are forced to join up together globally to be able to get some control about them again...). Then those supranational entities (that perhaps might have formed a new nationality on its own like also Americans did in the meanwhile) might end up in a supra-supranational global union...

I think this is a feasible way, but it will take centuries at least, and I am pretty sure it will not be able with major setbacks. Of course, its not the sole way the world could develop, its just one scenario out of many.

Slartibartfas · 02-21-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neorealist234

I see regional unions emerging before a one world gov't....such as the North American Union....economic unions will occur before nation states start giving up polical and military sovereignty

Thats a possible scenario, yes. Important in this regard would however be that at least the elites of the affected countries support this, while the public at least does not oppose it.

This development can not base on forced unifications.

Public_Enemy · 02-21-2007, 04:14 PM

I think there would be a combination of all these views...
There would be regional unions which would unite with other unions at least in economic terms in long run... (economic unions always push politic unions since politics has important effects on economy) . There would be states out of unions, and they would be forced by economic instruments to give up their military and employ only police forces (For ex. some African and Asian states) ...

emptypepsi · 02-21-2007, 05:00 PM

A world where there is no refuge from the powers that be? A world in which I can't leave my state to go to another, as I'm always in the same state of being? A world without sovereignty? I don't think I'd like that world.

Will it happen? I sincerely doubt it. Even if it does, it won't last. Human nature will ensure that.

Slartibartfas · 02-21-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

A world where there is no refuge from the powers that be? A world in which I can't leave my state to go to another, as I'm always in the same state of being? A world without sovereignty? I don't think I'd like that world.

There will be still borders in some way. You need this ability already for being able to contain deceases. For example in the EU the national borders are "on retreat", but they can be reimposed in case of epidemics or significant security issues on large scale.

If there would be a world government it would be just the highest level of all. There would still remain the others as well. A world government cant and won't micromanage every region. It will handle the global issues.

Furthermore I do not think that such a global government will be governing the complete world, there will be always some neutral havens outside perhaps.

WRT sovereignty, I disagree with you. There will be different levels of sovereignty, many aspects will remain on national level. But be aware, a world in which such a global union could emerge would significantly differ from our world.

Quote:

Will it happen? I sincerely doubt it. Even if it does, it won't last. Human nature will ensure that.

It all depends on how technological progress develops. I mean if you would have told a Roman emperor that it is possible to handle a country of his own empire reaching thousands of kilometers in a democratic way, he might have not been able to stop laughing again.

I would not take that for granted that it will not happen and if it could not last. The driving force behind it might be economic powers and necessities. Thats a good argument you know.

Santa_Claus · 02-23-2007, 12:34 AM

Technology and economic factors would play a huge part in how a world government would come about and I agree with emptypepsi that having one is too dangerous and I would bet that at some point in the future the world government would probably attack and conquer the few possible neutral little countries that might remain for some reason or another.

Fox · 02-24-2007, 03:17 AM

But in the end wouldn't a world supervised by a single political entity be a far more stable place? I'm not suggesting an end to the sovereignty of nations so much as the utter anihilation of national borders (let ethnic regions dictate political geography, rather than misguided British conceptions of Empire) the solidification of a single, world currency, along with the globalization of the military. Concentrate all miltary power in the hands of a single superpolitical state--and forbid any other organization access to ANY signifcant military force.

Most international conflict could thus be avoided (or at the very least severely lessened). Looking at the history of the world, the single greatest causal factor for war is the societal and economic rifts that grow between nations. Granted, with such a strong concentration of power certain measures would have to be taken to insure that it could not be misused. As a citizen of the U.S., my first impulse would be to model such a Hegemony on our own political system. Have various electoral colleges--acting the way the were orginally meant to--culminating in a set number of Senate seats, direct elections for a House, and independent judiciary, and most importantly of all... get rid of the executive branch. Make the position of military commander something that must be appointed--and approved--by the senate. In practicality, with a little foresight, I think it could be done.

And also hope that no one like Pericles ever shows up. o__O

critthinkr76 · 02-25-2007, 10:21 PM

No. I'll say it bluntly: It's impossible. They're all nice hypothesis's and theories as to how the world could turn out to be, but it won't happen, not anytime in this millennium. Why? Well, there's a few reasons:

1.) Most world conflicts would have to be resolved before this world government took its place. Europe is just being able to do it, and their fights are nothing compared to regions such as Africa and the Middle East. Would the Japanses come under the same banner as the Chinese? How about the Russians? Or will insurgents in Iraq conveniently forget that they'll have no power? And the whole Israel issue would destroy even the negotiations. Europe isn't even a good example, on the fact that the EU isn't really a government. They couldn't even agree on a constitution.

2.) Differences in national laws would be a huge problem. The Saudis wouldn't like the idea of women having rights. And there are certain countries (US) that wouldn't agree with that. It would also require similar economic systems all around the world. South America wouldn't go along, considering that with socialism creeping in their economies are booming (Venezuela's GDP annual growth rate is 9.3%). How about freedom of the press? Countries like China and Ethiopia wouldn't join if that were a requirement.

3.) Nuclear weapons are such a huge problem they have their own category. No nation would give these up, and a world hegemony couldn't exist with them. North Korea is already threatening the nuclearization of South Korea and Japan. Iran is the tipping domino of every nation in the Middle East getting them. And any country with them isn't going to surrender to the world. Not with that kind of negotiating power. Even the US wouldn't do it. Or the UK or France for that matter.

4.) History of world domination is kind of slim. Militaristicly? Impossible. Too many rebellions would occur, even if power was grabbed for a little while. Economically? Much more possible. But if South America continues on the trend of socialism, after Chavez is nationalizing the power companies, no company could get the power to be able to do that. And a whole continent would be needed for a world hegemony. Democratically? That's a laugh. First, all world nations would have to become democratic. Won't work. Even then, elections in the US are complicated enough. Worldwide elections? Accusations would be flying across the multiple parties of corruption and fraud every day. It would be a nightmare.