OPPOSITION TO WORLD UNITY

IMPRACTICALITY

Speaking about this fourth basis for opposition, it readily comes to mind that there have been occasions in the past, and during present days as well, when the concept of unification has been dismissed or rejected upon a presumption of impracticality.

As an example of this from the somewhat distant past I can cite the reaction French Prime Minister Aristede Briand received when he voiced a proposal at Geneva one day in 1929, suggesting the creation of a "United States of Eurpoe."  The response was described as "cool" by some; and as being the recipient of a "first class burial" by others.  Judging by today's events in Europe, however, it appears that Monsieur Briand's concept may have "risen from the dead." 

In his History of the World, the noted historian J. M. Roberts appears to agree concerning the impracticality of a unified world entity, when he refers to "frequent enough reminders...of persistent divisions within mankind...."; concluding with a declaration that "Nationality, ideology, and economic interest still fragment [our world]."  And he is likely correct, regarding the world of the late twentieth century.  But change can come about only if attempts are undertaken to effect change.  And perhaps today's impractical dream may inspire one, or a group, or a legion, of persons, who might devise ways to heal these divisions; find ways to transcend nationality, ideology, and economic interest; and join in a movement to produce the modifications that are so obviously necessary in our troubled society.

In his One World, the eminent philosopher Peter Singer expresses belief that a world government would be "at best, an unchecked bureaucratic behemoth....At worst,...a global tyranny...."  Again, I must agree that, without more, the words quoted above are probably correct--if the government for the world happens to be formed, constructed, and operated in the same manner as our national governments are today.  However, it is hoped and proposed that an undertaking so monumental would be a departure as well from the usual faults of everyday politics; and that the wise and capable founders might employ their knowledgeable application of some of the concepts that I intend to humbly suggest herein--or perhaps, still better, improvements of their own expert formulation upon these as well.

It is of course possible that the concept which is the subject of these urgings may fail to materialize in the near future (although I would nevertheless expect that something like it will eventually come to pass--should the human race survive for so long as it should take).  I predict this possibility of early nonoccurrence because a few obviously learned and seemingly capable people have put forth some observations that may indicate the present possible unlikelihood of a movement toward world unification succeeding at the present time.

For example, one argument against success rests upon the fact that the world has been said to have never as yet witnessed drastic political as well as economic change taking place simultaneously within a nation or region.  And the process herein encouraged is both political (in that a modification to the way government is constituteed and operated is suggested) and economic (to the extent that a single world economy and currency are proposed).  But yet, perhaps the fact that the envisioned end result would not be a form of rule by a particular person, group, or entity--but rather, something above and beyond this: i.e., a form of logical, meaningful, direction by a worldwide guiding body, on behalf of the entire world--might exempt it from a possible pitfall dsuch as this.

Criticism concerning the likelihood of global unity is sometimes voiced in the form of criticism of the unity presently exemplified by the United States.  The U.S. does in fact constitute, in some respects, an example of the type of unity that is herein sought: that is, a confederation of a group of formerly independent states, and a great quantity of pride in the resultant union.  However, some say that the fact that our nation happens to be but a little over two centuries old, coupled with the circumstance that it is populated by such a myriad of national and ethnic groups, may be what has precipitated strong national feeling--and is therefore perhaps something unique, and consequently unlikely to be duplicated on a worldwide basis.  But if such a situation were able to be accomplished and supported by a myriad of people, from numerous places, residing within a group of American states, couldn't it occur as well among a myriad of people, from a group of nation-states, who reside within our world?

An objection that has been leveled against the United States as regards global matters is the accusation that, while we seek to see our form of democracy adopted by all nations of the world, we nevertheless apparently do not wish to become part of a "true world democracy," in which our political and economic programs could be determined by a majority of persons or countries outside of our domain and our control.  But in a form of organization that is truly worldwide in scope, "our" nation, and "our" people would not be dictated to by a majority from "other" nations.  For the world would consist of but a single nation, composed of all the world's people.  And in the form of organization that is herein suggested and will be outlined later, it would be more than simple dictation by the largest or loudest number of voices that would be the determining factor in dealing with critical events and circumstances.  It would instead be determination and application of the most logical and beneficial steps to be taken in each instance regarding the particular matter at hand. 

Perhaps failure at this time may be anticipated due to the fact that people are still attracted to "their culture, their language, and a place called home;" and that "few things are more enraging to people than to have their identity or their sense of honor stripped away." (Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree)  However, as subsequent postings will attest, culture is an element that will never be subject to suggested change; language will progress from its current multitudinous array to a single world tongue via a rather long and painless process, which would probably not reach completion for several generations; and one's place called "home" will remain one's place called home, if one wishes his residence to remain so.  It will simply be situated within the resident's world (as it actually is)--in contrast to being within a separate nation-state.

                                                                    * * * * *