HOME...... WFCVB...... MEETINGS ...... ARTICLES...... LINKS
RPQA
Riley Park Youth Council Questions
Answers provided by Tony Fleming, Communications Director, World Federalist Association U.S.A.
1. How does having a world government make the world better?
The intent of world federalists is to establish the rule of law for conduct between national governments. In part, this means that conflicts and disagreements would be resolved through judicial instead of military means. Additionally, problems of a global nature would be resolved by competent and capable authorities empowered to address problems on that scale. In short, this means that the world's most pressing (or oppressing) problems could be addressed - war, human rights, poverty, environmental degradation, terrorism - on the only scale in which effective action is possible.
2. Wouldn't a single government eliminate economic competition?
It is important to first understand that world federalists do not advocate a single world government, but rather simply an additional level of government intended to address problems that cannot be addressed at the local, provincial or national levels. Economic competition would continue in full force, although its more risky elements, such as currency speculation, might be moderated. It is important that economic competition and the entrepreneurial spirit is supported, as long as they are held accountable to basic democratic principles.
3. Not everyone is an idealist, why are you?
"I'd rather be an optimist and be wrong, than be a pessimist and be right." That may be an over-simplification, but the point is that if we feel that change is impossible, then the essence of democracy and the ability of individual citizens to influence their government is meaningless. John F. Kennedy noted, "Our task now is not to fix the blame for the past, but to fix the course for the future." You are correct, that not everyone is an idealist, but those of us who are will be the ones who change the world in which those who aren't have to live.
4. Will a single government force the world to take on everyone's problems?
Once again, this speaks to the need for a *federal* system of world government. Local problems would (and should) continue to be addressed by competent, capable local authorities, empowered democratically, to address them. The same applies to provincial or national problems. This applies around the world, whether the concerns is education standards in Alberta, irrigation problems in South America or a trade dispute between Germany and France. Such problems could and would be addressed by their respective levels of a federal world government. Only if and when the problem escalated to a global scale would global authority be needed to address it. Until then, local, national or continental levels of government would be empowered to address it first.
5. If you use the World Passport at the airport today, how will it work?
The World Passport is a document advocated by the World Citizens Foundation, a private non-governmental organization. They claim differing levels of success in passing it off as an official government documents at entry points to several countries, but in the end, its use probably borders on illegality. I wouldn't recommend using it.
6. Are the World Passports easy to forge?
Again, they are documents manufactured by a private organization, so I am unfamiliar with their security arrangements. As noted above, they are not official government documents, so even "authentic" World Passports could land you in trouble with authorities.
7. How will the governing system work?
The governing of the world federal government will depend on what duties, powers and structures are put into place by a constituting assembly (or assemblies). World federalists do not claim to have the answers for a "perfect" world government, but rather promote general principles on which it should be based, i.e. democratic accountability, transparency, representativeness.
8. How are you going to get every person to agree with you?
We have no delusions about the getting every person to agree with us. The point of a world federal government is not to make everyone happy and end all dispute, but to put into place a system in which those disputes can be handled civilly, by negotiation or in a court of law if necessary. Even with a world government, crime will exist, as will large scale conflict for a while. However, having other options available to them, national governments will not be forced to resort to war to protect their interests.
9. Do you believe that it is possible to have every country accept this concept?
Similar to above. We hope that one day the "world government" will indeed be universal, but admission and participation must be based on governments meeting certain benchmarks, such as are applied to candidate countries to the European Union today. The benefits of stability, trade, movement and peace encourage governments to meet standards in human rights, elections legitimacy and contract protection to the degree the decision is a no-brainer. It is possible, for one reason or another, that a country may choose to remain outside the world government, but such self-imposed isolation will have its inevitable consequences.
10. How do you propose to convince current governments to give up their power? This is a very important question, but based on the premise, I believe, that most government have substantial power in the international community. While the UN is predicated on the equal sovereignty of states, that view does not hold true in the real world. A handful of governments, notable the permanent members of the UN Security Council, members of the G-7, NATO, etc. do indeed wield great influence over world affairs, but in most other countries' cases, influence requires alliances and regional grouping. The goal is to provide benefits to governments and their citizens that outweigh what appears to be a loss of singular influence. Whether this includes greater security (both military and economically), diplomatic or economic clout or other benefits will depend on the respective governments and its place in the international community. As the Wall Street Journal described the development of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), "An Asean-10, as it is sometimes called, will be a dynamic, free-market area of 500 million people by early next century. Already, ASEAN wields enormous diplomatic clout, either driving or co-driving APEC (ASIA/PACIFIC ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION), ARE and ASEM (ASIA EUROPE MEETING)."
11. How would you deal with countries/factions/regimes who do not agree with a World Government?
It would really depend on how they expressed their disagreement. For those who simply wished to remain outside the government, they would be considered as independent states, and dealt with through treaties, trade agreements, etc. Those who militarily threatened the members of the world government would need to be contained or isolated, or depending on the threat level confronted militarily. Military action against another government however should always be a last resort, necessary to protect the sustained security of the world government. The gray zone would be in those cases in which an independent government was in violation of customary international norms, such as human rights or environmental regulations that indirectly threatened the members of the world government. In all cases, however, the constituting document(s) of the world government would need to address this concern and layout parameters.
12. Considering world events today, how would you make sure that countries co-operate with each other?
Cooperation is a non-zero-sum outcome. What this means is that, instead of one government winning a conflict (+1) and another losing (-1), the result being zero, cooperation provides scenarios in which both governments gain (+1, +1) and the outcome is positive for both. This occurs everyday through trade agreements, political alliances, etc. and has been the basis for the development of human government for millennia, from the founding of city-states to the growth of kingdoms and nations. Robert Wright, author of Non-Zero, put it this way: "In 1500 B.C., there were around 600,000 autonomous polities on the planet. Today, after many mergers and acquisitions, there are 193 autonomous polities. At this rate, the planet should have a single government any day now."
13. How would you unite traditionally different and/or opposed cultures?
The beauty of federalism is that it only unites that which is in common. Common approaches to resolving conflict, agreement on which problems are global in nature, and agreements on which legal systems are used to adjudicate international disputes (such as the Rome Statute for the ICC) represent enormous steps forward to a global civics that recognizes common international standards while respecting local and regional cultural values.
14. How would the World Budget be formed, allocated & enforced?
This would depend on what was decided by the constituting assembly (or assemblies). There is really no way to foresee this at present, although the most likely options include members dues or direct taxation. In part, this would depend on the degree to which the world government is seen as a government of the member states (such as the UN is today) or a government of the people (as the Canadian and U.S. governments are).
15. How would the banking system work?
Same as above.
16. Is there any point to having a currency system since there would be a single world economy?
This question presumes that the world government would adopt a single economy, which, while not out of the question, is a major step. The European Union overlaps a number of other European grouping, including the Euro zone. Even this took years to work out. The question also depends on the world government being universal, which was addressed above.
17. What would happen to friendly competition between nations (i.e.. the Olympics)?
There is no reason that the Olympics or other international competitions could not continue as today. Sports education and other local/regional cultural activities could be encouraged more so under a world government in which there is less outlay for military and/or diplomatic expenditures. Competition could be seen as even more important and a source of pride in one local region, much as the NCAA and other sports leagues highlight pride in one's school today in national governments.
18. What method of government would you use? Again, this would depend on the constituting assembly (or assemblies), with the proviso that world federalists advocate the specific principles notes above.
19. How would a World Government be implemented, where would the capital be?
Again, this would be decided by the constituting assembly (or assemblies).
20. How would laws be enforced?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has noted that a stable and effective rule of law requires universal application to all citizens indiscriminately, democratically enacted and based on a set of fundamental rights. The enforcement of law requires an institution of government, namely, a police force. To be credible and respected, the police are entrusted to apply the rule of law as Justice Kennedy as described. In the vast majority of cases, despite what you hear from the media, this is exactly what occurs. It is important to note the difference between a civilian police force and military soldiers. The former provide for the sustained application of the rule of law; the latter should only be used to restore order after it has broken down. One reform advocated by world federalists is the establishment of a UN Civilian Police Corps that can help restore confidence in the rule of law after peacekeepers have left a post-conflict situation.
21. What type of education system would be implemented?
Again, this would be decided by the constituting assembly (or assemblies).
22. What languages would be recognized by the World Government?
Again, this would be decided by the constituting assembly (or assemblies).
23. What languages would citizens be allowed to speak?
Again, this would be decided by the constituting assembly (or assemblies). Personally, though, I believe that the freedom of speaking one's own language is a fundamental human right. It is important to note however the difference between what are called "positive rights" and "negative rights." Negative rights, using this example, are those in which the government is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on their language or prohibiting their speaking their language. Positive rights would require the government to pro-actively support and provide resources in that language. (In short, negative rights prohibit the government from doing something; positive rights require it to do something). While there is a fine line there, it is an important one to understand.
24. How would you ensure that every citizen has a voice?
World federalists advocate a world government that is compatible with basic human rights, such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes the right to free speech, a free press, free and fair elections, etc. The responsibility of citizens to act on these rights is fundamental to an informed and democratic government. Policies or acts by the government to restrict or restrain these (negative) rights would be fundamental contrary to basic human rights.
25. Would there be people who are considered non-citizens?
The important nature of citizenship cannot be overstated. Depending on its nature and role within a society, it connotes dignity of person, legal status and economic security. Any truly democratic government must be one of the citizenry, of the people governed. Alexander Hamilton noted this explicitly in Federalist Paper #15, stating that to secure true sustainable prosperity and peace, the new Union could not be a government of the member states, but rather that, "we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, - the only proper objects of government." Depending on whether the world government is indeed universal, there could be nationals of independent states living or working within the territory of the world government. Their rights would need to be specifically addressed, either in the constituting document(s) or in legislation adopted by a democratic body of the world government.
URL: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/library.html