Blogg Post 3
GVPT200
Professor Lugg
All
for One
The
international financial system that is currently in place protects countries of
financial obligations post war.
Implemented after World War II, the Bretton Woods System is system that
leading countries of the world all take part to keep the worlds economy
afloat. I argue that the current
system of international economy is the base building block for a world
government.
Narrowing
our focus two key components of a powerful state: the military power and financials
stability. Of course, there are
other factors, but we will focus only on these two factors. After World War II, the world suffered
economic turmoil. The losers of
the war economies were shattered.
As well as, the winners had war debt to repay. In addition, the states lost multiple military
resources. Nuclear power and mutual
assured destruction had begun to arise.
As a result, the Cold War began.
Aside
for the military perspective of global power, the financial stability of the
world needed regulation.
Therefore, upon urgent agreement sovereign states must agree monetarily. So began, a cooperative financial
system, the Bretton Woods system, to compensate for floating exchange rates, to
establish fixed rates, to limit convertibility, and lastly an institution to
regulate these factors. Under
these circumstances, the leading sovereign states agree on a system that
regulates financial factors is close to a world government. Take note that, the institutions that
regulate the international economy, systematically run on the power of voting
and consecutive agreement, much like a democracy. A vital clue is uncovered and begs the question: if the
world’s finances can run democratically, what else can function democratically on
the global scale? Would a global Constitution
work? Would global individual
rights work?
On
the contrary, establishing a global democracy comes with four contradictions. First, Religion is a major factor will
hinder this argument. Although,
the different religions differ with specifics, so lets' boil down religion to:
treating all people equally, or along the same lines of a feminist. The specific nature of religion begins
with a belief above ones’ self.
Likewise, forcing one specific religion is unethical; therefore, the
religion factor is simply treating all people with respect. Secondly, another
set back to a global government is the lead country in charge. This notion is can be answered just
like our financial problem. Every
sovereign state will have a vote and evenly distributed power. Thirdly, the military factor, as
discussed in lecture mutual assured destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear
war, so it is safe to assume that MAD can work on a lower scale. In the same light, states that cause
global intervention, e.g. Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan will have to dealt
with by killing off the regimes that break the only religion rule, treating all
people equally, obviously they can not function. That statement may sound harsh, but a
global government will have to make drastic decisions for the common good. Lastly, a global language, this factor
branches into culture and citizen’s heritage; similar to the religion factor,
imposing one language for the world is unethical.
A
global government may give the impression of only a few countries have over all
power. Therefore, staying focused
on how our global finical system like the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization,
and others alike will be he base line building block for a global government. All the set backs of this argument are inconclusive,
but these main deterrents are typically the causes of world issues
presently. In conclusion, will a
global government work?
Hey Kai,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post and how you supplied counter arguments to your own thesis of a world government. Some of these counter arguments can be dealt with if the world government gives certain rights to their citizens. I see no reason a world government could not allow freedom of religion, allowing each person to practice what ever they wanted to. For the third objection of killing dictatorial regimes I think it will be easier and more swift with a world government. Instead of one actor always doing the intervening the U.S an entire world army would descend upon them, drastically reducing the likelihood that these regimes would be created in the first place.
Kai, I find your very utilitarian argument very relevant, if a little disconcerting. Can it really be a responsibility of a global government to modify entire states because they have a religion-based government, Not all states want to or should be secular and that is one factor of many that does not need regulation when states are formed-just a thought.
ReplyDelete