First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
I believe the first and second point. Mainly that technology has made a world govt possible. I do not believe in the political will to get there. But what do I know.
I personally believe that nation states are dangerous notions from the 19th century. As political bodies they were a necessity back in these days, but nowadays they are dangerous constructs. Not everything is a matter of global politics, many issues are in fact local, and unlike what the article states, I do not think the EU model is one to emulate, where the power resides squarely with local politics, but rather the US model where state and federal powers are clearly defined.
I do not believe the nation state will go down peacefully, the political body is too invested in its own survival to vote its own dismissal, we need a Gorbachev of local nation states, one per country, to reach that state. There will be a lot of inertia in the dismissal of the nation state. I really like the idea.