One Nation, under Globalization

The shirt on my back was assembled in China from cotton imported from India, then flown in and trucked to my mailbox within two days of my order for the price of two hours’ labor. The words I’m writing with is a modern conglomeration of the Old German, French and Roman languages. The freedom I have to write this article is thanks to the American-born Englishmen (and various immigrants), who stood up to the British Crown and fought for the protection of my natural right and expression of speech. The knowledge of words and the ability to use them was taught to me by my parents who were born in the North and Southern states, whose ancestry is from Ireland and Northern Europe. This is globalism.

Since the start of the silk road, the world has slowly become more and more globalized. Open trade has blended the world on an economic and cultural level. Politically, Yuval Harari believes, we’re still behind. Since 1945, the United Nations have been working together towards global causes like peace, democracy and trade. However, this union is an organization, not a form of government. Yuval Harari believes we should go further than this. He believes government as we know it may need to be restructured to face the global threats that shadow over us. Examples of these are pollution, changes in technology and climate change (though there are other dangers known and unknown). He elaborates his point with a the story about a river. Anciently, only small tribes controlled a portion of the river, and they were unable to prevent the river’s flooding or shallowing separately. When banded together, they were able to control the river’s levels for everyone’s benefit and use. Everyone benefited from better crops, less flood damage and a water supply. So too must we work together against our threats if we are to survive in the future. Our national politics had its place in the past, he argues, but national politics create too many obstacles in this fast-paced, post-modern world. He calls for a global government.

Economically, the world has already seen benefits to globalism; we’ve grown wealthier, transportation and communication are more efficient and our cultures are more diverse. But is the world ready for global government? From my understanding, there hasn’t been a proposed form of global government yet, and if it has, it hasn’t been held in consideration for very long. I suppose, that when the time comes for its proposition, it would begin at the United Nations, where 193 countries now hold membership. I would like to take a stab at how this proposition might play out.

The UN organizes its decisions by consensus or vote. Reaching consensus would prove difficult. There will be, just like there has been and presently are, as many opinions on this topic as there are on any political topic. Current practices show that a natural transition will not be easy. For example, Xi Jinping is presently the dictator of China. Would he be willing to give up his seat of power in order to form a worldwide democracy (if it will even be a democracy at all)? China, Russia, Africa and India currently hold same-sex marriage illegal in their countries. Will they give equal marriage rights to those of same-sex attraction, or will their culture and religion backlash, which could cause even more of an uproar for those here in the States? America is one of few countries who protect (or acknowledge) the unrestricted right to bear arms. Coming from the South, I don’t see many southerners giving that up so easily.

If a consensus is not attempted (perhaps because of the improbability of one), and a vote is substituted, a separation of powers and dual alliances could be expected after split votes. It is possible that, like the formation of the UN, not every country will be politically or economically ready to be a part of a global government. The united majority will band together without the minority. The independent minority will not survive long separated. Any country, separate from the global whole, acting in its own accord, could be seen as a threat to the global government. Why? Because a global government seeking global peace sees any outside movement as a global threat. What happens if the rest of the world is independent of fossil fuels and plastics, if Qatar is still producing pollution? What happens if the rest of the world turns over their nuclear weapons excluding North Korea? What is done with threats? They’re eradicated.

Physical force (war or other independent attacks) is one way to deflate in-compliance. Other ways could be trade regulations, which would prove to be devastating to any country. Consider America. What could happen if America, for whatever reason, was cut off from China, and every other country where we outsource labor and import textiles and other goods (like oil)? We would need to build new factories and plants. We would probably try to go as green as possible in order to protect us from the health dangers of pollution. We would probably try to work as efficient as possible too, with little to no production hands, so that the majority of our laborers could be focused on more specialized skills and tasks. This would take a lot of time to build and develop, which could prove beneficial to our economy at first with the increase of construction. But we would still need to import raw goods and materials that are scarce for America like certain metals or minerals. America would be vulnerable during this early period of independence. It would be easy for the rest of the world to either tax us or commercially starve us into cooperation. But let’s say after a few, rough years, our economy operates independently, or even in cooperation with the rest of the world. The rest of the world will eventually outpace, outproduce and outsmart us. And pray we are never at war with the rest of the world either. We would never win. Even today, with the biggest military and the largest economy, we would eventually lose a battle against the rest of the world. Our troops would be too divided, our resources too scarce and our target too grand. It is safe to say any other country wouldn’t last long either.

Going back to our thought experiment, if any number of countries were left out of the global union, they would be wise in banding together in order to survive. However, they would do so with caution. Combining resources, we can see, would prove beneficial to its safety and survival, but it would also run the risk of causing suspicion with the majority. Together, they would need to operate fast and with transparency in order to keep up with the growth of its competitors, and to keep away from unwanted suspicion.

Assuming all 193 countries do reach a consensus, agreeing to come together, each country’s form of administration will have to be re-done or re-worked to fit a global scale. Food and water safety, waste regulation, taxes, education, government documents (birth certificate, ID, etc), hospitals and the police force will all need a face-lift. And what will happen with minimum wage, considering the global poverty line is around two dollars?The transition itself will be costly, slow and uncomfortable. So how will they pay for that transition? Or, more importantly, who? Considering the world is 244 trillion dollars in debt, it’s hard to believe anyone will.

As we’ve seen, the unification of all 193 countries would prove challenging on many fronts. However, the threats ahead of us still remain, and the question of what to do about them demands answering. I’m too realist to believe that a global, utopian state will exist anytime soon. However, I do believe there are causes that are mutually beneficial for all, and are worth coming together for. One form of unification, I propose, is the unification of departments. Suppose the branches of operation like NASA with China, Russia and Germany’s equivalent combined together to form one branch. Each country agreeing to work and operate together, with shared information, shared profits and shared funding. The aggregate being more than the individual, and operating with multiple capacity and fewer restrictions. Moreover, each country invested would have a say in how things are operated. This could prove for slower operation, but it would keep itself in check from growing too powerful, and with combined collaboration, I believe its momentum would not be jeopardized, but rather optimized. Space travel is an example. The same could be applied to hospital research or climate change. Either way, I think the formation of combined departments is a more practical solution to combined governments.

This is one idea, out of many possible solutions. But the future is before us, and the time to start thinking is now.