I've been discussing with Baygon the issue of Multiculturalism, and in the course of that discussion, he/she suggests that we are all now part of a global village.. "Global Citizens".....

What I'd like to explore is the various dimensions of such a thing.

1/ What are it's values?
2/ Who determines them?
3/ What language does it speak?
4/ When conflict between various members of the UN occur(on a cultural or religious level) or.. are simply in conflict by their essential nature, who and/or what is the arbiter or decider of which of the contending sides is supported and which one is supressed?

I believe these are important questions, and without a bit of clear thinking on them, we are more likely than not to end up like philosphical browns cows heading off in all directions.

What happens if a non UN member declares "I don't agree with those values, I have my/our own and they are just as valid"?

Who is to say they are wrong..and on what basis?

ALGOREisFiltHyRICH Wrote:
""" What happens if a non UN member declares "I don't agree with those values, I have my/our own and they are just as valid"?

Who is to say they are wrong..and on what basis? """

Many have spoken out in the past, unfortunately for them - the rest had the bigger GUN!

It's no different to an individual, sovereign being as yourself or myself. I don't agree with today's society and its values, it's all wrong and it's very obvious, the cracks are appearing more and more every day. Why am I forced to live it under protest? Because they have the GUNS and we don't!

Get yourself a nuke, a really big one and then watch them bow before you, just like you bow now before them. Why do you do it? ANS: BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BIGGER GUN THAN YOU.

Quiet simple really!

AlGoreisRich,

The answer to your questions is so obvious i find it hard to believe you ask.

1/ What are it's values?

They are the values of the dominate military force.

2/ Who determines them?

The winner of the battles

3/ What language does it speak?

Right now English could be Arabic soon enough.(if you ment religion same answer)

4/ When conflict between various members of the UN occur(on a cultural or religious level) or.. are simply in conflict by their essential nature, who and/or what is the arbiter or decider of which of the contending sides is supported and which one is supressed?

Simply just look at the conflicts going on that the US is involved in and ask yourself how they got there. Years of suppression and manipulation of governments all around the world. Why do you think they really don't want another country to grow strong? because they will get their's back in spades when they can no longer hold the biggest stick.

It's all force, never reason and subjectivity. The nature of man is to destroy what you don't understand. The US has control at this time with the support of the west. That will change eventually and so will the world, but the answer to your questions will remain the same.

“Global citizen” is the extension of an international-collectivism and the notion that we are all equal and we are all the same and we are all interchangeable, “units of population”.

As a philosophical belief it is a form of pure crap which denies ”individuality” and allegiance to a local community, nation-state or ethnic sub group.

It relies on denying “what is”, replacing it with what some think “should be”.

And like most collectivist stupidity, it demands uniform obedience to its agenda, the penalty for dissent ranging from “re-education” all the way through to “termination”.

Your ability to warp and distort the words of others, Boaz, and then to build a federal case against something they didn't say, is simply stunning.

You give a new dimension to the word "spin".

>>I've been discussing with Baygon the issue of Multiculturalism, and in the course of that discussion, he/she suggests that we are all now part of a global village.. "Global Citizens"<<

Baygon uses the word "global" four times. On no occasion does he/she introduce the concept of a "Global Citizen".

The closest is a reference to a "global society", which does not imply any form of citizenship whatsoever.

But that is no impediment to you, is it?

Off you go, hunting the xenophobe.

>>What I'd like to explore is the various dimensions of [Global Citizenship].
1/ What are it's values?
2/ Who determines them?
3/ What language does it speak?
4/ When conflict between various members of the UN occur(on a cultural or religious level) or.. are simply in conflict by their essential nature, who and/or what is the arbiter or decider of which of the contending sides is supported and which one is supressed?<<

Since it does not exist, it has no shared "values". Why should it?

Since it does not exist, and has no shared values, no-one determines them.

Since it does not exist, it has no common language.

And the United Nations has no interest whatsoever in producing, creating, validating, endorsing or underwriting "Global Citizenship"

A total crock, in fact.

On the other hand, since the people of the world are now connected in ways that would be considered fantasy a mere 150 years ago, it is pretty important that we should accept that we need to find better ways to rub along.

That doesn't mean - nor should it ever mean - that we sacrifice our individuality any more than is necessary to survive with our fellow humans.

But it does mean that we should not, as you do Boaz, spend our every waking moment finding new opportunities to express our fear and loathing of anything even remotely alien,

Dear Al,
As you are aware there is only one race the human race but we have 2 Kingdoms.
1. The Kingdom of God with Jesus as King, with all authority
2. The kingdom of the serpent called Lucifer,the Devil, and Satan.
The serpent twisted Gods word and usurped that authority given to man by God.
Jesus won back the authority on the cross and God the Father gave that authority to Jesus when he raised him from the dead.
The old serpent may have the big guns but he no longer has any authority.
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Seek God resist the devil and he shall flee. Fear not he who can kill the body but fear him who has power to cast into hell.
So while the kingdom of the old serpent enforces his power with a big gun he is not in control of the future as the final authority is in Jesus hands, the Love way. Available to All who call on the name of the Lord. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

“1/ What are it's values?”
Might is right.

“2/ Who determines them?”
The strongest military power.

“3/ What language does it speak?”
US$ and the petro-dollar.

“4/ When conflict between various members of the UN occur (on a cultural or religious level) or.. are simply in conflict by their essential nature, who and/or what is the arbiter or decider of which of the contending sides is supported and which one is supressed?”

The UN is a paper tiger that has no authority without the backing of its major contributors; USA, China, Russia, et al.

The UN is a joke, in as much as the UN Security Council only has 5 permanent members, and those members are the 5 largest arms manufacturers and dealers on the planet. That’s putting the vampires in charge of the blood bank! But strangely, no-one considers it a conflict of interests….well, no-one with enough arms to assert that position, anyway.

“I believe these are important questions, and without a bit of clear thinking on them, we are more likely than not to end up like philosophical browns cows heading off in all directions.”
We actually need to create a TRUE UN, rather than the façade of one that we currently have. No chance of that happening in the foreseeable future, but rather, the status quo will be maintained.

“Who is to say they are wrong..and on what basis?”
Refer back to “might is right”.

This is all human nature…taking advantage of advantages, whether that be technology, economics, military might, resources, political alliances, etc. There is no altruism in any form of government, only altruistic rhetoric. Individuals may be altruistic, but governments are there to make laws FOR business, and to rule the mob, regardless of political system. Ruling is about wealth and power, not altruism. Altruism is for philosophers and individuals, not government.

TBC

“What happens if a non UN member declares "I don't agree with those values, I have my/our own and they are just as valid"?”

That already exists under the current format of the UN.

I would suggest that the Global Village is a technological reality for the average person and a business reality for the multi-nationals, but not at the moment a workable New World Order type concept of a single language/currency/government.

In saying that, I believe that if such a thing occurs, it will be the result of the strongest global political influence of the time….if that was today, we might say US dominant, but in 10 years, we might say Chinese dominant. And even then, I don’t believe that most powerful nations consider it to be in their best interests for this concept to occur. Why? Because they understand conflict and conflict drives arms, technology and the ability to control resources. And with resources becoming more scarce, and therefore more primary in agenda, I see a picture more like A Brave New World scenario of the world being divided into three major sectors, which basically it is now. It is not in the interests of the First World for the Third World to join us. And thriving economies must be thwarted for the larger established ones to survive and thrive. That’s how it works already.

The other important aspect is this…the multi-nationals that know no boundaries. They are more a global government, than any national or group of governments is, or can be. National power in the way we have come to understand it is fast becoming a thing of the past, with conglomerates controlling more wealth than most nations, and being multi-national, loyal to no nation, but only to its own existence and growth. These are the New World Empires, and it is these that nations and a concept of a United Nations must come to terms with.

The United Nations I see in the future will be the Global Chambers of Commerce. Which again, is basically what it is already, but not openly recognized as such.

Dear Mindless cruelty,
The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that the higher law has precedence over the lower law and as you can't prove what happens after the spirit leaves the body I guess it boils down to whose word you are going to believe. How can you believe a word that you have never heard.

What would have been an interesting discussion but never really got off the ground because of the usual conspiracy-theory hysteria that would embarrass even David Icke and Bill o Reilly:

So instead I'll just give a definition and step back:

"Global Citizen": either
1- person who percieves themselves as a citizen and participant in international policy, lobbying, activism, aid, assistance, etc. what we have now.
2- hypothetical citizen of a hypothetical all-world government. All semantics and politics behind it simply depend on who formed the government and for what purpose.

For the record, I think a world government is a stupid idea.

hi Hazza.. don't worry about the colorful input here :) you have a very good point.

You illustrate the problem. 'Who' does determine the values?

It seems if you believe our 'internationalists' that the UN decides what is good and right and proper.. such as though it's conventions.

If I had a dollar for each time Bob Brown has berated and reminded Australians that we have 'international obligations' I'd retire rich.

But when Bob Brown get's all fired up about something..the red flags go sproinggggggg.. and wave high up in the air. If Brown likes something..it's like us swimming outside the flags at Bondi..there is an unseen RIP waiting to drag us out to sea or moral degradation.

In spite of Pericles protestations and froth, the idea of 'Global citizen' is high in many peoples minds, and Brown would be one of the foremost perveyors of the idea.

It seems Rawmustard is on the money too.. while he uses 'raw' language.. the truth is present in his point. BIG gun=much power.
small gun... little power. The security council is the club of winners of the last war.. we all know that.

Nairbe amplifies Mustards point, and Col gives us the more philosophical approach.. also right in my view.

But poor old struggling Pericles.. sheesh..

"And the United Nations has no interest whatsoever in producing, creating, validating, endorsing or underwriting "Global Citizenship"

If you want to joke with us, we can open a special thread for that.

I'm reminded of the "Ground Zero Mosque" defenders there.
-Named 'Cordoba' (in memory of Muslim invasion,Imperialism and dominance of Spain)
-Supposed to open on 9/11 for 'a peace intiative'
-Japan is also opening a shrine to "Japanese Pilots" Bravery at Pearl harbour.. how dare any confused person suggest this might not be appropriate. Of course the signage will say "In memory of those brave pilots who fought American Imperialism and strove for global peace.

Well Pericles is absolutely correct- the concept "Global Citizen" as an actual literal thing is really nothing more than a concept people occasionally throw around in discussions. For any real sense there really is no such thing.

All international agreements are made, and ignored on a national level at the discretion of the governments who sincerely want to take part or not.
I don't believe many of the charters and declarations we (implicitly) signed were good ideas, but I wouldn't make a big fuss of it because when it comes to the crunch, we are free to ignore them and nobody outside can do anything about them. We would also be at liberty to unsign if we really felt like it.
To fret about any accountability beyond our shores is rather pointless, which was what his point was.

And to please your curiosity, any earnest attempt to merge the world into a single political body would only face opposition from:
-The dictatorial countries losing control
-The first-world democratic countries losing security
-The Islamic countries not wanting infidels interference.
-Basic logic dispelling any arguments for.
(basically everyone)
It simply has no chance of happening. Even the EU is greatly limited in its ability to call the shots- and has stopped expanding due to citizens having no interest in their next neighbouring countries.

The following website may be of interest:

http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod04/cv02m04t01.htm

"Australians As Global Citizens."

It covers the subjects of:
International Citizenship and Global Citizenship.
Gives:
1) Historical Background.
2) Concepts of Transnational Citizenship.
3) Australians as "Good International Citizens."
4) Australians as Global Citizens.
5) Questions: Universal Values. Educational and Global
Governance.

It's an interesting read and may answer quite a few
questions.

I'd like to quote just a little from the site:

"In the modern world and from the 17th century onwards
the world citizenship ideal may be discerned in the
writing of Montaigne, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Paine.
In 1837 Paine's famous phrase: "My Country Is the World,
my countrymen are Mankind," was used as the inspiration
for a poem that appeared in William Garrison's anti-slavery
journal, "The Liberator,":

"I love that free, that pure exalted mind
Which spurns the bounds of clime and native soil
And in his fellow men can brethren find;
Whether a prince or child of care and toil!
In Justice says - by no means prejudice confined -
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

All are my brethren, why should I distain
To own that God has made his creatures one?
Or why should I from righteous acts refrain
To those whose features are unlike my own?
Such thoughts as these should not my conscience blind -
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

In every land, in every tribe I see
Each bears the image of a gracious God
Jews, Greeks, Barbarians, Scythians, bond or free
Savage or tame, wherever man had trod
And if I roam from east to west, I find
'My country is the world, my countrymen mankind!'

All a waste of time.
Read Jeff Rubin's book "Your World is about to get a Lot Smaller".
You can find his video talks on U tube.
The global era is coming to an end and everything will be local.

The business as usual model is obsolete and global village only has
meaning with cheap and fast travel.

Interesting contrasts between Foxy's and Bazz posts.. like East/west kind of thing.

Foxy..thanx for those links I must read more about this.

Hazza.. yep.. I tend to agree.. much opposition from many sources.

I was not suggesting that there is a 'literal' idea of global citizenship, but it is assumed by the existence of the UN conventions no ? Pericles tends to latch onto any shred of dangling comment to feed his 'whack-an-AGIR' Christ-a-phobic paranoia. Ignore him :)

The whole concept of the UN and the conventions suggests that it is a body aiming at establishing those values globally.

That in turn seems to be based on the idea that 'if' all countries subscribe to and follow such conventions, the millenium will have arrived.

But the problem as I see it is the conflict between values which are supposedly encompassed in the Conventions.

"Right to worship" is one thing... "Right to practice one's religion" is another. A religion might involved both Worship and, in our case (Christian) evangelism, reaching out to others with the Gospel.

To do such a thing is considered a crime of the worst kind in some societies.. communist and Islamic and even Hindu (Orissa)

So...this kind of begs the question 'why' should we even have such supposedly unifiying declarations and conventions when they don't have the desired outcome?

Well...I have a theory on this, which does not help my popularity :)

I believe that the "UN conventions" and "International Law" is being applied insideously through an overlay of supposedly 'Human Rights' bodies.. my favorite flogging horse.

So.. the conventions are valuable to the socialist element of our society, because they tend to use them for selective advantage.

Any thoughts on that ?

<< The whole concept of the UN and the conventions suggests that it is a body aiming at establishing those values globally.

That in turn seems to be based on the idea that 'if' all countries subscribe to and follow such conventions, the millenium will have arrived. >>

Er no, Boazy.

That's a wacky idea promulgated by lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christians - you know, the 'One World Government/Mark of the Beast' apocalyptic set.

Could you point us to some UN literature that might support your claim that there is any consideration at all in the UN of the so-called "millennium"?

ALGOREisRICHFATUGLY&LAZY, I support the concept of a global citizen as outline here: http://www4.gu.edu.au/ext/civics/cv02/mod04/cv02m04t01.htm#agc. I reached this via Foxy’s link.

Here, the main tenet of a global citizen is a person who helps others in distant lands as a moral duty independent of pragmatic self-interest.

But I envisage another very different aspect to global citizenry – one that is based on self-interest in maintaining a decent quality of life and environment within one’s own country and region, and who in so doing would be setting a good example for the rest of the world.

I’m talking about doing things that would gear us towards a sustainable future.

Heaven knows we desperately need major changes within Australia society to prevent us from reaching a critical crunch-point in the very near future.

Good global citizens will in particular heed Dick Smith’s message on population policy as presented in his documentary recently, and as supported by Bob Brown, Scott Morrison and Tony Burke.

Those who strive for genuine sustainability within their own societies come closest to ideal global citizens. Those who do the same on a wider basis, via NGOs and international aid programs are similarly good global citizens.

But alas, those who are operating within international NGOs, while doing a lot of good work but missing the imperative to address population growth and sustainability, are not quite up there at the same calibre of global citizenry.

Dear Ludwig,

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability," tells us that:

"Who other than Diogenes (400-325 BC), when
asked by Alexander the Great, "Where do you come
from? What is your country, Diogenes?"
would reply, "I am a citizen of the world.
I am a cosmopolitan." In the 20th century,
Charlie Chaplin voiced these sentiments.
Being a global citizen is, to my mind, the number
one idea underpinning sustainable development...
There are those who would have us accept that a
belief in the possibility of a cosmopolitan
world society is unfettered utopianism. Theirs is
a very pessimistic view, which I am tempted to
suggest has its roots in postmodernist nihilism,
and must be dismissed forthwith. Diogenes was a
classical Greek philosopher and a notable Cynic.
The Cynics were characterised, as we are told,
"by asceticism and emphasis on the sufficiency
of virtue for happiness."

The Australian Government's website on the subject
of Global Citizenship for students and teachers,
tells us in their introduction that:

"International trade, global financial markets
and high speed technologies have connected individuals
and communities beyond the borders of their countries.
At the same time there is an awareness that only
global co-operation can solve poverty, epidemics, stop
wars, and reverse environmental degradation and climate
change.

With this awareness has come the realisation that
individuals, communities, corporations, and countries
have obligations to one another that are global in their
reach.

Understanding these obligations is an important part of
global citizenship..."

The website I cited in my earlier post outlines
these facts rather well.

dear Foxy,
Your thoughts struck a cord in my heart. 32 years ago I was an atheist when My wife and family left our home and broke my heart.
5 days later I met the man Christ Jesus and my walk with God began.
32 years later I am still walking with the Lord.
I have traveled many miles since that day and I can honestly say he has never let me down, though I can't say the same about myself but no matter how often I stumble and fall he has never ever condemned me but like he said in Matthew 23:37 he loves us. Moses brought the Law but Grace and Truth came through Jesus. In the old testament we lived under a law of an eye for an eye. To follow Jesus we have to grow up and become responsible for our actions but thank God no matter how many times we soil our diper he never ever rejects us, for in our weakness his strength is available. When my wife wants to punch someones light out for a perceived hurt I always tell her this, if a dog bites you, you don't get down and bite the dog. Vengeance is mine sayest the Lord.Forgive and pray for those who spitefully use you, and as this goes right against human nature we have to let God be God in all circumstances. Then the love walk becomes reality and we walk the walk and talk the talk. People perish from lack of knowledge, pride comes before the fall, and without the Grace of God there goes I.

Those people who live all their lives in the congested pollution of traffic in a concrete jungle, who have no family and who farm no land would not have a clue of how to sustain a growing population. Australia needs water; and we have it but it needs storing and redirection. Australia's population needs decentralizing and we could easily support a population twice what it is now

Hardly, Boaz.

>>Pericles tends to latch onto any shred of dangling comment<<

I concentrated on the core concept that you introduced here...

>>"Global Citizens"..... What I'd like to explore is the various dimensions of such a thing. 1/ What are it's values?etc...<<

...and deconstructed it.

You determined, because that was the argument that you wanted, that a "Global Citizen" required a common set of values, and asked us what they should be.

Your fellow posters have gently illuminated for you the tree up which you are barking.

Foxy, as always, pitched it perfectly.

>>In 1837 Paine's famous phrase: "My Country Is the World, my countrymen are Mankind,"<<

No requirement for common values, common language or the United Nations. Just compassion and thoughtfulness.

Ludwig's contribution reflects his typically elegant style:

>>Here, the main tenet of a global citizen is a person who helps others in distant lands as a moral duty independent of pragmatic self-interest.<<

No requirement for common values, common language or the United Nations. Just compassion and thoughtfulness.

There is, and never will be, a "Global Citizen" in the sense that you attempt to present here. And to pretend that the United Nations has a role to play in the creation of such an animal, is absurd.

Especially when you employ the fact that they produce "declarations" and "resolutions" and "conventions" as evidence of this.

>>this kind of begs the question 'why' should we even have such supposedly unifiying declarations and conventions when they don't have the desired outcome?<<

They act as a kind of umpire, whose verdict you can either accept or reject. They often act in a non-partisan fashion, in order to bring some pressure to bear, or to help out in a trouble spot. To encourage (but not coerce) countries to help out in places like Pakistan, or Bangladesh, when there is a natural disaster.

They did other stuff too

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005685

Global Citizenship is not a nationality. If anything, it protects the right to be different, rather than insist that everyone conforms to one pattern.

Perhaps that's why you dislike the idea so much

If there is one organisation that makes the Catholic church look good its the UN.

Dear Pericles,

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
I enjoy reading your posts and admire
your intelligence and reasoning.
The fact that you read my posts as well,
I take as a great compliment.
Thank You.

Dear Richie,

Thank You for your kind words,
and I feel humbled that my words
struck a cord in your heart.
The poem that I cited in my
earlier post, by William Garrison
I found particularly moving.

Dear runner,

Have you heard of the Saint Vincent de
Paul Society and the work that they do?
The Catholic Church certainly has its
share of problems but the total number
of people annually assisted by Vinnies
is an extraordinary 1.8 million in Australia.
They represent Catholicism at its best.

I'm quite impressed with what you guys have brought to the table so far!

I'd reinforce that the UN is accepted precisely because its' own values (which are, essentially humanist: which has a lot less consensus among the world) are nothing more than an advertisement to the world- which is why so many countries (especially those that clearly have different values) are so happy to join up and try to work with it (or else, do business through it).

As a recent vote to treat criticism of religion an offense among most national members (well, beyond those who abstained) endorsed mostly from Middle Eastern Countries and opposed primarily by Western countries, there is clearly no consensus whatsoever to work to beyond that as a voluntary mediator- which is the way it should be.

With the recent events and insights into multiple cultures over the past decade, it is clear that to even try to attempt to forcefully install ones values into another society isn't so easy anymore (and less effective to justify), so the possibility of such a thing happening has been shelved forever.

cont'd ...

Dear runner,

An important element in any global co-operative
process is the international community and its
mechanisms for restraining conflict and gaining
co-operation among
its members. Trade, travel, and telecommunications
as I stated earlier, have made the nations of the
modern world more interdependent than ever
before. The United Nations provides a forum for
world opinion as well as a mechanism for conflict
resolution. We also have a growing body of
international law that specifies the right and
obligations that nations have toward one another.

Over the years, the United Nations has intervened
successfully in a number of wars as well as in
several situations that might have led to war.
Of course a major difficulty of course, is that
compliance with the resolutions of the UN and the
rulings of its World Court are voluntary, as no
country is willing to surrender its sovereignty
to an international body.

The United Nations is most effective, in fact,
when the superpowers are able to agree on a
course of action and mobilize their blocs to
support it. Even so, the organisation
provides an influential forum for world opinion,
and while it doesn't always prevent things like
war, it surely helps make it less likely.

Foxy

Dear runner,

Have you heard of the Saint Vincent de
Paul Society and the work that they do?
The Catholic Church certainly has its
share of problems but the total number
of people annually assisted by Vinnies
is an extraordinary 1.8 million in Australia.
They represent Catholicism at its best.

Could not agree more.

Dear Runner,
This is a true story from the north of England. A pastor from a denomination went to the local barber shop for a hair cut. His usual barber was absent so another cut his hair. The young man wanted to talk and asked him what he did for a crust so he told him that he was a pastor of a church, then the young man asked if he would be welcome in his church as he is a practicing homosexual. The pastor said that his answer astounded himself as he said that we only have people in our church and all are welcome. He was delighted to see the young man in church the following sunday, and personally went out of his way to to make him welcome after the service. Jesus loves sinners and if we want to be his disciple we MUST do likewise for you can chose your friends but not family. I have one sister who found Jesus at the 1956 Billy Graham crusades. Another was lead to the Lord by a catholic priest, and I found him in the cow shed and I have his assurance that we all belong to him. We do not major on our respective doctrines as we love one another and our mother taught us that Love covers a multitude of sins. If the devil is king division reigns. If Jesus is king unity reigns.
Ps. the blood of Jesus dealt with sin and we can save no one. If God is for us who can be against us so I try not to be an a ginner.

ALGORisRICH and has just done 90 pushups so Ludwig won't be able to mock him any more about being overweight. :)

The main thrust of the critics of my 'apocalyptic/beast' thingy is that we should basically follow "Do for others...." to be good global citizens.

CJ.. I think you blokes don't see the tongue in cheek side of me.. I wasn't talking about a literal millenium...but the supposed global harmony which is supposed to result when we all follow the UN conventions.

DO UNTO OTHERS.... is what most of you are saying. Even the Paine comment "My Country Is the World, my countrymen are Mankind"
has a nice ring to it, but in a way it's like "If your left hand sins..cut it off".. i.e.. a rather idealistic way of describing things.

IF..... Paines platitude is taken literally, then it leads to the issue of 'values' which bind that 'world' together. Otherwise Paine and those who think like him are islands in the sun. One person having noble values will not alter the evil values held by other people neccessarily, specially if those adhering to the evil values are strong... they just don't give a damn about the Paine's of this world.

WHY THE UN ? of course if being a 'global citizen' is just helping others out irrespective of self interest......then what is the UN 'on about' with all these conventions ?

Call me an intellectual drop kick but surely they don't write them for no reason... they are in fact established with the idea that those values will become part and parcel of the...

GLOBAL LEGAL SYSTEM...
Surely I don't have to dredge up specific documents which state that it is the desire of the UN that the conventions become part of our law and constitutions...do I? I can if I have to.

King Hazza, apparently you haven't noticed us trying to "democracize" Iraq and Afghanistan. Forcing culture upon another culture has not been "shelved" as you so quaintly put it, but is alive and kicking. Even our own country of Australia is inculcated with American culture, causing us to develop many similar attitudes as the Americans. And it is "forced" upon us in the form of coerced "free trade agreements" and the amount of American media that we MUST buy.

As far as the UN being a forum for "conflict resolution", though I agree that this is the concept that is spruiked by the UN, in practice however, I don't see it happening, and the Balkans War is a good example of how truly impotent the UN is, as is the current conflicts around the globe, besides Iraq and Afghanistan.

The UN is funded by member countries according to their GDP. America has the habit of non-payment until it has an issue it wishes to push, and then fees are paid. But it is not unusual for America to be a few years behind in its contribution fees.

Mugabe has been getting away with murder for over 20 years now in Zimbabwe, and what has been done by anyone? The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe. That's it! The UN has done NOTHING, and the Commonwealth has done the same. Is there gold, oil or diamonds in Zimbabwe? No...so there's no interest by the UN, and more importantly, no interest by anyone that FUNDS the UN. It is dominated by dominant forces and economic blocs, not by an autonomous governing body. This is the political reality of the UN.

As residents of a Western country having this discussion, we can afford to talk of many altruistic ideals. However, were we all to be resident in Third World countries, I suggest the tone of this same discussion would have little to do with altruistic ideals about the UN, and much about impotence and facade. We enjoy the fruits of living amongst the dominant forces, so our collective perspective must be biased towards that end.

Mindless Cruelty- I was referring specifically to Iraq and Afghanistan;
hundreds of thousands of civilians killed as a result of our attempt to 'help'- and ultimately we just got displaced by local guerrillas.

The Balkan war was probably the last conflict an outside power picking a side to fight with actually succeeded- Iraq potentially one- but at the expense of stability in the middle east. Not saying that it was wrong (although I'm sitting on the fence on this), but future attempts to swoop down to a country and set it right will come with considerable consequences. North Korea could be a justified target because of it's aggression against the South- but that may well cause huge problems with China.

Terrorism also (eg IRA, ETA) reduces the appeal of nations to expand (democracy itself also prevents expansion and annexxation, because it means the annexxed get a say at the expense of the existing population's representation- the more mouths there are, the smaller the piece of pie they get)).

On the flipside, as I said before, most member states voted to make 'blasphemy' an offense- all western nations opposed it.

Hence why the age of imposition seems to be coming to a close, and for peace in the next millenium we will have to learn to tolerate the injustices committed within an individual country and interfere only when another country is being drawn into it.

Otherwise, the UN acts as nothing more than a conduit for nations to talk- which is all it SHOULD do.

Pertaining to the OP and "What is a Global Citizen"?

It depends upon your residence and ability of movement. Many of us in Western countries consider ourselves as global citizens for we feel free to move around the planet as we desire, and live in countries where we can have the means to do so. I imagine that this would not be the case for people outside of this sphere. Though again, in some of the more primitive cultures, they consider themselves as only care-takers, or travellers on the planet.

Hmm...philosophically, it would depend upon how you perceive yourself within the context of your existence, and what you considered to be "freedom" or your "role" in the universe. For you could be confined by means and forces, but still consider yourself a citizen of the globe, or you could freely roam the planet, yet feel lost and without a home...a citizen of nowhere. It's all relative to the individual.

So...a global citizen is one that perceives themselves as a global citizen. There will always be the people that see themselves as the more global minded, and those that are more parochial.

In practical terms, I'm a citizen of anywhere that takes Visa, Am-ex or MasterCard. And in legal terms, it depends upon where I want to go, and why, and what colour and religion I am.

Richie 10

Good story Richie. Hopefully the young man turned his sin and received forgiveness.

King Hazza, I stand corrected on your stance with Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I don't agree with your appraisal of The Balkans, for much of the time the UN forces were impotent and could not intervene unless fired upon.

You said," to swoop down to a country and set it right". The last time anything was "set right", IMO, was WWII. Everything since then has been a development of the Industrial Military Complex and the acquisition of resources for consumer driven economies, both working in harmony to sustain and justify each other. Afghanistan is a wonderful example...when the Russians invaded, we provided the very people we're fighting today with arms, to fight the Russians. Now we've invaded Afghanistan, and the Russians are supplying the arms to the very people they were fighting, to fight us. So Afghanistan has been nothing more than the marketplace for arms for Russia and America for a couple of decades. Each testing, developing and researching their own and the opposition's technology. The rest is political rhetoric to justify the monies that are directed towards this, which for the US alone is trillions of dollars.

Errr.... runner?

>>Good story Richie. Hopefully the young man turned his sin and received forgiveness<<

That's runner-code for "hope he stopped being gay", is it not?

Pericles,

I think you know by now that all sexual immorality is not an option for those following Christ. This includes homosexuality. Accuse me of what you like but you should know that I don't work by codes.

So that's a "yes", is it runner?

Runner,
Some plant, others water, and others harvest. I Have no idea what stage the young man is at but I know that if you disturb seeds and tender young plants they often do not produce a harvest. Gently goes it.
The Holy Spirit is much better at conviction of sin than we are, as often we go in boots and all. The letter killeth but the Spirit gives life. God Bless
Richie 10

@Mindless and Hazza

the UN is indeed quite impotent when it comes to military conflict resolution.

The UN has a far more sinister agenda. It's called Agenda 21.

But more so, do you blokes realize that they intend for the binding declarations/conventions to become part of our constitutions ?

That is evil and sinister in the first order, specially when you consider that it would make being 'big' in the UN, 'big' in global control. Something like when Constantine legalized Christianity..big in the Church mean't big in society. (the rot set in at that point)

Very true Mindless Cruelty; I was being rather tongue-in-cheek about 'fixing'. And the interveners in the Balkans I was referring to was the NATO members who invaded Serbia.

The fact that the UN can't do anything about it- I'm still weighing up if that's for the worse or better actually.
Admittedly it would be better than individual nations with a more politically-sectarian agenda or allegiance in mind, but against broader stability it might be better (especially in this age) for countries to take a more neutral stance (judging by the less than ideal amount of casualties in recent interventions)- and the backlash from terrorism.

@AlGoreIsRich...I wasn't aware of "agenda 21", so I Googled it. Interesting. That would depend on your views of the "global warming" issues. If you believe in GW, then it is reasonable to make these considerations and deliberations, though as in any bureaucratic organisation, we mmgiht note the many aspects that can be manipulated and misused.

If you don't believe in GW, then of course it presents as being rather insidious.

For me personally, I believe the planet has a cycle of its own that we are yet to understand, but in saying that, I believe that human impact must have some consequences that could aid and abet the planet's own process. The school is still out as to the proportions of each. It's just good sense for me to clean-up our act, just from a pollutants perspective, regardless of larger cycles of the planet.

My problem with it all, is that it is and will be politicized for other ends and business influences, making the issue more confusing than it already is. And in that sense, it creates another bureaucracy and set of issues to be manipulated and for public monies to be led astray. My problem is that I don't trust the politicians...they will push information that their oligarch masters desire, not what is in the collective interests.

We live in an impossible situation...business seeks to monopolize both markets and resources, just for the shear good business sense of it, no conspiratorial implications, but for the economies of scale that are achieved. The government is supposed to represent the collective which is both the masses AND business. While the masses ostensibly desire an equitable distribution of resources. Business and the masses are in direct conflict, with the government in the middle positioned and paid for by the masses, but given access to power by business. Or as we've just seen in the past months with the usurping of Rudd and a hung parliament, business has the resources to put government in and out of office just by some advertising ...Australia "losing" from a mining tax, funded by mining.

Richie10

Point taken however no one wins when you fail to call sin sin. That is how we have ended up with liberals in the pulpit who know nothing of the righteousness of God. A person can't be saved if he does not know he is a lawbreaker.

I seen a global citizen today. There was this great big fat female driving a very small car. I don't fancy her chances of gettin out of the car in any sort of a rush.

579>> I seen a global citizen today. There was this great big fat female driving a very small car. I don't fancy her chances of gettin out of the car in any sort of a rush.<<

Was she pretty?

@King Hazza, "I was being rather tongue-in-cheek about 'fixing'."

Sorry, as a newbie to this forum I'm not yet familiar with personalities to recognize your subtlety.

"The fact that the UN can't do anything about it- I'm still weighing up if that's for the worse or better actually."

Yes, it's not as easy a proposition as we would like it to be, is it? One way creates an autonomous all governing global government that in turn puts to question every nations sovereignty, creating a giant bureaucracy and power-base to (mis)-use. The other way is to have an impotent facade that is manipulated by self-serving large powers, that is unable to effect policy unless supported by it's major contributors, such as we have now.

There doesn't seem to be a win/win scenario, but only a choice of two evils.

"..and the backlash from terrorism."

IMO, most of the terrorism that we have witnessed has been State sponsored. We have been all duped into two unjust wars under the one banner of "terrorism". My cynical view ... SAUDIs in planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, so America attacks Afghanistan on its way to Iraq. Hypothetically, if Australia was attacked by Indonesian terrorists crashing planes into Parliament House and the Opera House, should we attack Japan on our way to South Korea...like America, we just attack SOMEONE in the region?!? And then, should we wine and dine with the Indonesians, as the Americans do with the Saudis? Or, could it be that Saudi has a lot of oil, and America consumes 30% of the globally produced oil, and needs more, and Iraq is "convenient"? Afghanistan may well be a strategic move to control that region which is not far from the south-eastern border of China, and while being in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America flanks Iran.

There's far more to all this than meets the eye of us Joe Averages that aren't in US government.

VERY well observed MindlessCruelty;

1- true on the interests behind pushing for carbon policy; especially note the 'carbon trading' policy, as there are plenty of marketing options opened up from such an industry (not to mention a great excuse to jack up prices).

2- An additional problem with a global government is what kind of government they would need to be to represent, and deciding what rights to govern over which areas they would actually get. Considering the broad difference in laws, rights and governing styles, getting consensus would be quite impossible.

3- Very well observed about the Saudis- adding to your points how much money that family has- and how many investment opportunities their oil companies would provide, I imagine their interests would be the highest priority of US middle East policy (and I imagine, quite a few other countries around the world).

@King Hazza, thanks for your kind words, and I agree with your points.

"2- An additional problem with a global government is what kind of government they would need to be to represent, and deciding what rights to govern over which areas they would actually get. Considering the broad difference in laws, rights and governing styles, getting consensus would be quite impossible".

Good point, and is behind my belief of the well prepared speech for GWB in his declaration of war..."you're either with us or agin us," was pivotal to America's push for just such a position. America isn't selling democracy, it's selling consumerism while it's expanding its marketplace through cultural influence, and securing its resources.

Multiculturalism is fine, so long as you speak American.

America's greatest fear at the moment has to be China. A billion people being Communist was great, but a billion people becoming Capitalist and consumers puts a strain on not only resources, but the deals for them. The combination of the tight regulation and the power of numbers, makes China not only formidable, but their usurping of the US-dominant global economic engine, inevitable.

So America is attempting to "get there first", and squeeze China's access to them. However, China is very aware of how America squeezed the oil supply to Japan during WWII, by placing an oil embargo on Japan and controlling the Taiwan Straits. China has been busy building infrastructure in all directions of its continent so that it can't be hemmed-in like Japan was, for up until relatively recently, China too has been dependent upon the Taiwan Straits for access to oil. But apparently, not anymore. And as an aside, thus the relevance of Taiwan to the West, and to China...control of the Straits, and thus oil to the East in times of hostilities, for all oil by sea passes through there.

So positioning in Afghanistan has numerous geo-political advantages for the US. It forces China to go over land and mountain, or the long way around, north through seas that freeze in winter.

It's an interesting game of multi-level chess to watch.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=7

Some of the possible paths to a global democratic parliament include:

* Reform of the United Nations. Through constitutional reform the United Nations could transform itself into a genuine domocratic world federation of nations. An example of this would be the United Nation Parliamentary Assembly.

* Enlargement of the Euopean Union. Gradual enlargement of the European Union to include countries outside the borders of Europe.

* The Functional Approach. Functionalists such as David Mitrany would argue for what might be called the “look, no hands!” approach. The functional needs of the world community will demand their own solutions. Agencies and committees will be set up to handle these common problems, and little by little the various national sovereignties will be whittled away and transferred to the growing network of international agencies. There is no need to set up any formal political structures to achieve integration.

* The Regional Approach. Following on from the success of the European Common Market, other economic integration and free trade organisations have sprung up for example, North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This can lead on to other associations been built like the Organisation of American Strates (OAS), African Union, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Nordic Council and the League of Arab States (Arab League). Although none of these organisations have a political structure like the EU, it is a start and may follow the same road that the EU began.

* The Evolutionary Approach. This strategy is to begin with an association of a few of the more progressive states, with a specific and limited set of aims, and then let it evolve in a natural, state-by-stage fashion towards a more deeply integrated community with wider membership.

ALGORE SAID:

“But when Bob Brown get's all fired up about something..the red flags go sproinggggggg.. and wave high up in the air. If Brown likes something..it's like us swimming outside the flags at Bondi..there is an unseen RIP waiting to drag us out to sea or moral degradation.

In spite of Pericles protestations and froth, the idea of 'Global citizen' is high in many peoples minds, and Brown would be one of the foremost perveyors of the idea.”

OK, I’ve got you all worked out now. If Greens are for it, you’re against it. No thought involved… you’re an automaton and unable to think for yourself.

So why was I engaging you in the other threads? I thought, for a moment, that you were a thinking person. I thought as a Christian you’d be all for human rights? I guess I was wrong.

World democracy is the only way we’re going to guarantee something like the Rwandan massacre doesn’t happen again. World democracy is the way to end many of our wars. World democracy might just create a worldwide ‘demographic transition’ which will solve population growth and encourage true sustainability.

It’s why I’m a fan of the EU. Applicant countries have to vastly increase their human rights records, accountability and transparency in government, and improve in all sorts of areas to even have the HOPE of joining. I imagine a world government will start through enticement rather than at the point of a gun. The EU will gradually grow. The Asian Union, the South American Union, and the African Union are all on the way. It’s happening, bit by bit. And one day they may just get together to form a global government. Then we’ll finally have something that can stand up to the multinationals!

ALGORE, if “Agenda 21” is as terrifyingly scary as the dreaded “Vancouver city rezoning” declaration you got us all to read in “Behind the Green curtain”, we’ll, I may just have to yawn and turn the page and look for a thread that has some substance.

Eclipse Now --What came first your belief in AGW, or your commitment to world govt ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
I can think of few things more scary than having people like Eclipse Now, in control of our destinies (except, perhaps, having his stable mate Grateful and his mob in control)

Eclipse now with his wet-nosed-puppy adulation of new-world-order advocates and his starry eyed delusion that world govt & a borderless world would magically solve our problems, would set humanity back a thousand years .

Even if he were permitted to divvy up all the worlds resources today, within a decade, or less, we’d have another population of have-nots --either through laziness, bad luck or foolhardiness.

And any who rose above the rest, through sacrifice , enterprise, or good fortune, would (little doubt) be deemed to be exploiters –Eclipse and his crowd can produce all sorts of creative accounting-“externalities” measures to prove that.

Eclipse & his commissars would have to have periodic purges or a punative tax system to keep everyone in roughly the same strata. You'd have to say goodbye to all those entrepreneurs/risk takers who've driven society up till now, you'd have to say goodbye to much of our cutting edge R&D & the space program, since they are not focused enough on the wants of the “worlds needy”, who his plan would put into the box seat. Much more relevant –in a world mobocracy dominated by such less well offs, would be funding for child birth --the more the merrier – and childcare , you rear what they bear!

Actually, Eclipse and Grateful differ mainly as to who will be the ruling group in a new world order.And, it’s highly likely that after a decade of IPCC–UN misgovernment we’d probably all be ripe & ready for a (Grateful, endorsed) new Islamic caliphate.

We don't need ya U-N-nation
We wont heed ya marchin tune
No more commie equalisation
Clipso dude ya such a loon
Hey! Dude! leave Ozland alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need ya ruin-ation
We wont be 'clipsed by Benk Ki-Moon
No more IPCC fabrication
Clipso dude ya such a loon
Hey! Dude! leave Ozland alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"
"You can’t ‘ave meat ‘n you can't ‘ave suet .
“’n if you buck the system we’ll make you rue it.”
“Oy! what ya mean “more please”? get ya ass back in line!”

Horus,
My political preference is "Social Liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy".
Basically by crying “socialist” over this subject you’re displaying the lack of imagination that early Australia probably witnessed in some colonial die-hards. I can see you there, spreading paranoid conspiracy theories. “No, don’t Federate Australia, it’ll be a step backwards for NSW! We don’t need Victoria, they don’t have any resources we actually need, what are we doing? Setting up a socialist state?” Blah blah blah.

Your lack of climate science is condemning enough though. How original. I guess conspiracy theories come naturally to you then, and OF COURSE you’ll be right up there with bug-eyed Monckton foaming at the mouth about world conspiracies. If climate were a conspiracy, it’s not a very good one is it? The IPCC didn’t actually ACHIEVE anything did they? So go ahead and ‘believe in’ a conspiracy involving thousands of independent scientists and scholars and think tanks. Maybe the laws of physics got recruited as well? Oh, and with a socialist world government AND worldwide climate science conspiracy, I’m guessing you also believe in Area 51? Mate, please carry around some Vaseline. I hear those ‘alien probes’ hurt!

**To who actually have their brains engaged** and are interested in world peace, global prosperity, and solving global warming and peak oil, I’d encourage people to get acquainted with the EU’s Lisbon treaty. This has the hall-marks of a world Federation! The EU is just a prototype of what is to come. When we’ve succeeded, we’ll have the money to fund a REAL space agency and get serious about an off-world colony.

I guess I'm still with Albert Einstein then.

“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”,

Albert Einstein

The argument on my global government page states:

1. Why I like the idea of a World Parliament (or World Federation)
2. Groups promoting global governance
3. The European Union shows how it might START
4. The European Union shows how it might WORK
5. Save $1000 000 000 000 and other benefits
6. Africa has caught the dream of an African Union
7. South America has formed UNASUR
8. PM Kevin Rudd has called for an “Asia Pacific EU”.
9. Scientific American (podcast) discusses a world without war.

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reform-global-government/

But how do we get there? How much pain will we go through before realising this goal? It could get 'worse' before it gets better. The "United States of Africa" project is still ticking along.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/829060.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/ambitious-plan-for-a-new-africa-welcome-to-the-usa-thats-the-united-states-of-africa-455337.html

Same for South America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAN

There has even been talk (from the usual suspects) about the USA and USAN forming an alliance of a "global south" to help stick it to the north. But my view is that once an Asian Union, African Union, and USAN start to actually form and mean something, then the momentum will build for global democracy.

And then, to answer ALGORE, the citizens of the WORLD will be the ones who vote on the values of that organisation.

There are more than a few flies of reality crawling around in your ointment of peaceful cooperation, Eclipse Now, when it comes to imagining a world government.

I personally believe that the EU experience argues forcefully in the opposite direction to that which you imagine. But let's leave it aside for a moment, and instead consider a couple of alternative examples of grand federation.

1. Yugoslavia. The bringing together of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Montenegrans.

Success or failure? Discuss.

Feel free to apply any of the wisdom learned during the course of the twentieth century, should the clarity of hindsight be required.

2. The USSR.

The unifying creed of Communism was used to unite Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Success or failure? Discuss.

Feel free to invent a political philosophy that would stand a greater chance of keeping these countries together, again using the entire history of the world to assist with the hindsight necessary to achieve this.

I'm generally regarded as an optimist. But this goes beyond optimism. Humans will need to evolve substantially beyond where we are, even to stand the slightest of chances to reach this goal. I'd say, a minimum of another thousand years. Absolute minimum.

In the meantime, any attempts to speed the process towards world government would actually be counterproductive. They would be the source of wars, more destructive than any we have so far witnessed.

Actually, thinking it through, that is probably the fastest way to bring it about.

If there are any survivors to enjoy it, of course...

Pericles,
This is a bit blunt, even for you. What created Yugoslavia? Was it a reforming and peaceful process of EU enticement to join, or Communist invasion and forceful take-over? Was it the implementation of efficient economic systems and accountable democracy, or the installation of a failed economic system?

Discuss

The USSR — a failure of a large Federal system and proof that Federal systems don’t work, or the failure of economic management within an authoritarian, unaccountable regime?

Discuss

Basically what is it with you and Horus bluntly assuming that regional unifying forces have to be Socialist and tyrannical? Let’s try again.

&#8232;America’s rise over the last 4 centuries was due to maintaining independent isolated mini-colonies, or uniting in Federation? Discuss.
&#8232;
The EU now exerts more ‘soft-power’ on the world stage as a unified and successful DEMOCRATIC free market Federation. Discuss.

I agree with Pericles.

Yugoslavia: Held together under Communist regime during the USSR years by a murderous tyrannical leader. Prior to which, a region that has been under dispute for about 450 years with Kosovo being the line in the sand where the North has been able to travel no further south, and the South has been able to travel no further north. Many conflicts over the centuries, with Muslims invading and living amongst Christians, and then Christians invading and living amongst Muslims, that the region is a melting pot of confusion, inter-relationships and atrocities committed by all at some time or another.

The day the 5 Yugoslavian States got their independence was the day they starting planning to settle old scores as well as recent ones. Particularly the Croatians and Serbians, who had fresh scores to settle from WWII.

The USSR: the perversion of the ideal of communism manifested in ruthless totalitarianism for its first 30-40 years under Stalin, who created an atmosphere of fear and poverty as a result of feeding his murderous paranoia within his own circles, and the real fears of American and European intent, both pre and post WWII. This resulting in the Cold War, which fed the Industrial Military Complex post WWII in America, and Stalin felt compelled to compete against, focusing resources on the military and not the community.

China: a bloody transition that transformed a starving nation into a fed one. However over time in recognizing the lack of incentive under this system, have slowly re-introduced capitalism, but under strict government regulation. This combination is proving currently to be rather formidable.

Eclipse Now, if you're wondering how painful a transition into World Government will be, then think of the Russian or Chinese Revolutions, then put them on a global scale. Mankind does not agree to change, but is forced to change by necessity and survival...whether that be physical, emotional, financial, religious, social, et al. But we don't co-operate. We play for keeps...winner take all.

I would like it to be co-perative, but have absolutely no reason to believe that it will be.

You're avoiding the issue, Eclipse Now.

>>Basically what is it with you and Horus bluntly assuming that regional unifying forces have to be Socialist and tyrannical?<<

Nothing really. They were the most obvious and accessible examples.

But at least we agree they were unsuccessful.

>>What created Yugoslavia? Was it a reforming and peaceful process of EU enticement to join, or Communist invasion and forceful take-over?<<

More the former, actually.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was knitted together, voluntarily, following the ending of Ottoman domination via the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Montenegro was more reluctant, but was annexed anyway. The whole lot became Yugoslavia in 1929.

Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was proclaimed in 1943 - by the Yugoslav Partisans resistance movement, no less - and voluntarily installed a Communist government in 1946. At that time they established six Socialist Republics and two Socialist Autonomous Provinces.

What is instructive, is how quickly they reverted to their earlier format as separate entities, just as soon as they possibly could after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

>>The USSR — a failure of a large Federal system and proof that Federal systems don’t work, or the failure of economic management within an authoritarian, unaccountable regime<<

I'd say both, myself.

The key point being - as the EU experiment is telling us, daily - that monetary (let alone economic) union is ineffective, without political union.

So whichever of the two you decide was at fault, the other is fully implicated.

Your "examples" of the US are not at all relevant in this context.

>>America’s rise over the last 4 centuries was due to maintaining independent isolated mini-colonies, or uniting in Federation?<<

You provide only two options, I notice. On balance, I'd say neither was particularly instrumental, given that there were so many other contributing factors.

>>The EU now exerts more ‘soft-power’ on the world stage as a unified and successful DEMOCRATIC free market Federation.<<

An interesting assertion. But evidenced by... what, exactly?

Iraq?

No, based on the countless "Big Ideas" and other ABC podcasts I listen to that discuss EU soft-power. The basic idea is that EU membership is such a great 'carrot' that countries start the long road to reform on the promise that *one day* they'll share those benefits. So without a single shot fired, less accountable, less open nations start to deal with creating more successful democratic institutions.

That's all I'm talking about. The carrot, not the stick. Soft power will gradually see the African Union become more like the European Union. There is already the economic need and program to begin this. Will the final deal be a global parliament? I hope so, then we could vote on GLOBAL issues. But the cynical part of me is concerned that it will stop just short of such an achievement. We could end up with a number of regional super-powers, such as an Asian Union competing with the African Union and South American union, not to mention the EU and USA. They might get together for 'diplomatic talks behind closed doors' as happens in the current arrangements.

And anyone that prefers that over open and accountable democratic voting systems in a global parliament, well, good luck with that. I think most people want global decision making processes out in the open thanks.

Not the most convincing source, Eclipse Now.

>>...based on the countless "Big Ideas" and other ABC podcasts I listen to that discuss EU soft-power<<

EU "soft power" is a journalistic tic. It cannot be properly defined or measured.

And I'm extremely familiar with the theory.

>>The basic idea is that EU membership is such a great 'carrot' that countries start the long road to reform on the promise that *one day* they'll share those benefits. So without a single shot fired, less accountable, less open nations start to deal with creating more successful democratic institutions.<<

What I have been trying to do - in vain, clearly - is to draw your attention to the growing body of actual, real, live, documented evidence, as to what is happening in the EU.

The reason I chose to use Iraq as an example, is because in theory, it would have been an ideal opportunity for the EU's "soft power" to become tangible, and to produce results with which it could be associated.

Fact is, you can discuss what EU soft power should be able to achieve until the cows come home

You can explain that EU soft power should be able to act as a force for good, with a shimmering halo hovering over your head.

You can deliberate at great length on this podcast and that, how EU soft power will gradually do this, or gradually do that.

But what you cannot show is anything identifiable that will back up your theory. So that's where it remains - an untried, untested theory.

What is possible to demonstrate, of course, is that soft power can flow from economic and/or military dominance, just like everything else in this world. Which kinda/sorta leaves the EU out in the cold.

So, right back to the sentence that caught my eye, and against which all my words have been directed:

>>The EU is just a prototype of what is to come.<<

It may well be.

But not in the way that you would like it to be, I'm afraid.

Mate, you're either blind or dishonest.

The 'soft power' of the EU is demonstrated by the sheer number of 'non-Western' countries that have ALREADY, IN HISTORY, DEMONSTRABLY rushed to join it and changed their political and economic systems to do so!

It is also demonstrated by the ongoing debates in those countries that wish to join, one day, and are slowly — ever so slowly — reforming with a view to do so.

If you are suggesting this has to happen overnight it is a fantasy of your own construction. Surely you know how the EU formed initially out of humble beginnings in a mere Steel and Coal agreement between a few post-WW2 nations? Surely you know how it took 50 years to get to where it is today? In a similar way Africa wants to create a more successful Federal structure that can unify efforts to develop that continent, South America has similar goals, and slowly, bit by agonising bit, the pieces are falling into place.

You also never addressed whether you like dirty diplomatic deals done behind closed doors. Interesting

Well I'm not.

>>If you are suggesting this has to happen overnight it is a fantasy of your own construction.<<

So it isn't.

>>The 'soft power' of the EU is demonstrated by the sheer number of 'non-Western' countries that have ALREADY, IN HISTORY, DEMONSTRABLY rushed to join it and changed their political and economic systems to do so!<<

The converse of that position is, of course, that the more (less well off) countries that join, the more diluted becomes their power. Think Greece and Ireland from the economic standpoint. And Turkey from the political.

It is the difference, really, between evaluating the concept - as you and the podcasts do - and the end result. Which doesn't bear a great deal of resemblance to the picture on the packet.

>>Slowly, bit by agonising bit, the pieces are falling into place<<

Not really. There are a lot of people making their living from mouthing these vacuous platitudes, that I will grant you. A quick glance at the massive bureaucracy that supports the present gravy-train mentality of the EU is evidence enough.

But in terms of realistic progress towards a common goal? Nothing.

When you have a moment to take off those rose-coloured specs of yours, take a look at the attitude of the various nationalities within their homeland towards the EU. Typically, you find a pattern of hope and enthusiasm, followed by disillusionment and rejection.

Don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm

The "trust" factor is interesting. Even Germany's is disappearing fast.

>>You also never addressed whether you like dirty diplomatic deals done behind closed doors. Interesting<<

You never asked. As a rule I deplore them.

What's your point?

What could be wrong with the following?

http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/wfm-home

"Our planet is in crisis, suffering grave problems unable to be managed by nations acting unilaterally in a chaotic world. There is an urgent need for the world’s people and governments to join in achieving a new level of global cooperation that can only be sustained by a commitment to the planet as a genuine community.

WFM is a global movement dedicated to the realization of global justice, peace and sustainable prosperity through the development of democratic international institutions and the global application of international law. WFM believes that federalism applied on an international level, inspired by the experiences of the federal political systems worldwide that represent 40% of the world’s citizens, is the best way to accomplish these goals. Our vision is of a world where people have a sense of citizenship beyond national borders, to include their region and the global community.

World federalism is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which confers power to the most appropriate and local levels of government possible. This allows the preservation of national and local identities as well as legitimate sovereign rights, while promoting collective action on regional or global issues such as the prevention of war, the eradication of poverty and the preservation of the environment. WFM’s vision of federalism also includes a vibrant civil society, active throughout all layers of government."

Looks like a classic feel-good gravy-train to me, EclipseNow.

>>What could be wrong with the following? http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/wfm-home<<

Set up a web site, employ a scriptwriter, get him/her to write a long series of motherhood statements that play on the insecurity that haunts your average affluent left-leaning latte-sipper, and wait for the money to roll in.

Mind you, this particular one is just an offshoot of the United Nations, that home-from-home for all gravy-trainers.

I just wish I had thought of it first. Lots of opportunities to speak at conferences around the world, flying first class and staying in top hotels, mouthing uncontradictable platitudes and demanding that other people do stuff.

"...an international citizen's movement working for justice, peace, and sustainable prosperity. We call for an end to the rule of force, through a world governed by law, based on strengthened and democratized world institutions"

Who can argue with "justice, peace, and sustainable prosperity"?

And of course, the cry, that "someone has to do something, dammit".

Perfect.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

But that's just me.

Incidentally, I couldn't find a single word on their web site on how they account for the expenditure of their funds.

Any thoughts?

You obviously love the status quo. Dirty deals done behind closed doors. Enough said.

I actually enjoy democracy, and think it is the best way we have of keeping human corruptibility in check. I'd love to see it applied at the global level, and I can see plenty of crisis coming our way that may just trigger the need for stronger regional unions (Africa, South American, Asian, etc) that will form. Then instead of being a "G20" agreement it will become a meeting of the 5 or 6 big "Unions". Once we're at that level, we'll all *have* to push hard for a global parliament or an uber-council might be established that none of us can vote for. A global 'coup' of authority could easily occur, with some huge multi-national or other interest group taking over without our consent.

At least with a global parliament and global Federal constitution, we might have the opportunity for a referendum on Constitutional reform to occur every decade.

And you prefer idealism, Eclipse Now.

>>You obviously love the status quo. Dirty deals done behind closed doors. Enough said.<<

Just how does your idealistic vision prevent "dirty deals" being done "behind closed doors", by the way?

>>I actually enjoy democracy, and think it is the best way we have of keeping human corruptibility in check. I'd love to see it applied at the global level<<

And just how does "democracy" per se keep human corruptibility in check, pray tell? Perhaps you could provide examples of a country that operates on democratic principles that is free of this particular vice...

>> Then instead of being a "G20" agreement it will become a meeting of the 5 or 6 big "Unions".<<

In what way would this constitute an improvement? I can certainly imagine how inherently more productive a grouping of five might be over a group of twenty. But would they simply not become increasingly polarized in their views, as the number of groups gets smaller?

Orwell described this situation in "Nineteen Eighty-four".

"Three perpetually warring totalitarian super-states, control the world: Oceania (ideology: English Socialism), Eurasia (ideology: Neo-Bolshevism), and Eastasia (ideology: Obliteration of the Self)" Wikipedia (edited).

If we managed to survive that, would we not inevitably reach the situation envisaged by Huxley in Brave New World"?

"The vast majority of the population is unified under The World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy." Wikipedia.

And we all know how that turned out, don't we.

It might just be, that the world would achieve a longer-lasting "balance" by having as many different States and entities as possible.

Pericles said:
"It might just be, that the world would achieve a longer-lasting "balance" by having as many different States and entities as possible."

Einstein said:
“In my opinion the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”

Enough said.

Thanks Pericles, you've helped me clarify a point on my blog.

5. The need for a global parliament grows as new regional unions form

The global south has had a sad history of resource pillaging and mismanagement under colonial rule. Also tragic has been the political instability since throwing off the shackles of colonialism and succumbing to civil war and local disputes instead. However, recent moves towards new continent wide unions may stabilise these troubled regions. Whether realistic or not, timetables for political and market unity have at least been drawn up for Africa and South American Unions. Africa is even dreaming of an integrated national Federation. While I support these Unions as a means of encouraging stability and development, I do worry that in a world of declining resources these new super-powers may also form the basis for as yet inconceivable future cold wars and tensions.

Consolidated political blocks controlling vast natural resources may prove a threat to world peace. Today’s fragmented African nations are easy targets for aggressive Chinese buyers. But tomorrow’s ‘United States of Africa’ may demand higher prices, or even refuse to sell at all — especially their last drops of oil. I am concerned that the hopes of Federation might turn into hyper-nationalism. Only a truly global democracy can prevent such scenarios.

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reform-global-government/

Einstein is entitled to his opinion too, Eclipse Now.

>>Pericles said... Einstein said... Enough said.<<

But don't forget the circumstances in which he voiced his views.

It was 1946, just after the end of a conflict that finally ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Events for which our favourite physicist probably felt a nagging feeling of guilt, given his contribution to the science involved.

Faced with processing the impact of such a catastrophic event, it is unsurprising that he defaulted to the most simplistic of "if only" scenarios.

"If only" we could all live under one rule of law. "If only" people and nations wouldn't be so different, in their needs and aspirations. "If only..." usw.

There's an interesting article on World Government in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

It introduces man's age-old contemplation of the issue as follows:

"Some are motivated negatively and see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation. More positively, some have advocated world government as a proper reflection of the unity of the cosmos, under reason or God."

It overviews the history of your quest through the ages - Dante, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant - do give it a read.

Incidentally Eclipse Now, I'm not sure I quite follow your logic here:

>>Consolidated political blocks controlling vast natural resources may prove a threat to world peace. Today’s fragmented African nations are easy targets for aggressive Chinese buyers. But tomorrow’s ‘United States of Africa’ may demand higher prices, or even refuse to sell at all — especially their last drops of oil. I am concerned that the hopes of Federation might turn into hyper-nationalism. Only a truly global democracy can prevent such scenarios<<

Considering that you contemplate the formation of the African regional bloc as a precursor to World Government, is not the above somewhat contradictory? Or circular, I guess.

If you encourage regional "activism" - especially in the realm of scarce resources - will this not militate against the creation of a "global democracy"? Blackmail very rarely produces the results intended.

Pericles,
While probably very fascinating and revealing about the origins of western thought on western thought, I’m not sure how relevant that Stanford Philosophy paper is. The world is already on a timetable. The African Union and Union of South American Nations (USAN) have plans — USAN to be like the EU within 9 years! They might not achieve these timetables, but the goal is definitely there.

Then there are even more outlandish plans by some of the ‘usual suspects’ (Gaddaffi, Chavez), to form a “Southern Union” between Africa and South America to help stand up to the North! These ideas have been voiced publicly, but I don’t see any timetables. ;-) ( Please don’t bother debunking this one, I winked OK? )

But the serious point here is that the areas of major instability are trying to work it out for their own security and eventually their own prosperity.

“Considering that you contemplate the formation of the African regional bloc as a precursor to World Government, is not the above somewhat contradictory? Or circular, I guess.“

Not at all. I’m saying that the unifying process has a head of steam but needs extra momentum to help it make the full distance. There are dangers in stopping half way. The world could end up *less* secure if the new regional super-powers end up in conflict in a world of scarcer resources. So as the AU and USAN grow, we’ll also need to watch the middle-east, Muslim states, Asian States, etc. We’ll need to think about the parameters of a global democracy. What are its powers? What will elections mean? What referendums will the world vote on? Where does the World Union end and the ‘Nation-State’ begin?

Just imagine it! Imagine a global tax plan from which multinationals can no longer hide, or blackmail governments for tax breaks in case they leave. Imagine a World space-agency with the funds for an off-world colony. Imagine a World disaster relief agency rolling out the worlds best water purifiers and recovery plans. Imagine a global health plan!

Exactly, Eclipse Now.

>>But the serious point here is that the areas of major instability are trying to work it out for their own security and eventually their own prosperity.<<

One of the reasons that they are doing this is could well be that they do not trust the motives of people who want them to form broader alliances, with countries and blocs with whom they have little in common.

>>I’m saying that the unifying process has a head of steam but needs extra momentum to help it make the full distance<<

From whom do you suggest this "extra momentum" should come? And to whom should it be applied?

>>We’ll need to think about the parameters of a global democracy. What are its powers? What will elections mean? What referendums will the world vote on? Where does the World Union end and the ‘Nation-State’ begin?<<

Seriously. If you don't have a perception of the destination, how will you persuade anyone that the journey is worthwhile?

All you are left with is a bucketful of wishful thinking.

>>Just imagine it! Imagine a global tax plan from which multinationals can no longer hide, or blackmail governments for tax breaks in case they leave. Imagine a World space-agency with the funds for an off-world colony. Imagine a World disaster relief agency rolling out the worlds best water purifiers and recovery plans. Imagine a global health plan!<<

Imagination is all very well. But such utopian dreams do have the habit of acting as a substitute for the rational and workable. And there is a massive step between the creation of like-minded trading groups and the coming-together of political will.

As you yourself point out, a higher-level fragmentation of major power blocs is the most dangerous, least palatable outcome. And it is also that with the highest probability of coming to pass.

Incidentally, did you bother to read the Stanford paper?

>>While probably very fascinating and revealing about the origins of western thought on western thought, I’m not sure how relevant that Stanford Philosophy paper is<<

Sure doesn't sound like it.

I don't think you've demonstrated the relevance of the Stanford paper for me to bother reading it. You don't get to dictate an hour of my time on the basis that you happened to find it interesting. Unless it can answer the questions I raised in my last post, it's a dusty history of ancient speculation about world government, not a *proposal* for world government that we are probably only a generation away from.

The reason I raised those questions was to provoke thought about the dangers ahead. We could drift into a dangerous, untested new cold war unless we have a clear proposal for a world parliament. You certainly haven't proposed a solution to how the citizens of the world are going to moderate the effects of having a handful of new super-powers. (Especially as I fully expect America to be bankrupted within the next 20 years).
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2988904.htm

Basically, I think the European Union is heading towards a model of a World Parliament. Check out this page, and YOU can spend the next hour reading their various links and proposals for world government.

http://www.federalunion.org.uk/world/

I guess that's another difference between us, Eclipse Now.

>>I don't think you've demonstrated the relevance of the Stanford paper for me to bother reading it. You don't get to dictate an hour of my time on the basis that you happened to find it interesting... Check out this page, and YOU can spend the next hour reading their various links and proposals for world government.<<

When I am shaping my views on a topic, I read widely, not narrowly. I found the Federal Union site extremely interesting. As indeed I found the arguments on the World Federalist Movement site.

To me, they are not persuasive. Basically because they - as you do - assume that talking about something is the exact equivalent of doing something. Doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter if it makes any sense. Just say something.

The "Federal Union" site is probably a standout in this field of endeavour. The justification it puts forward for its existence is straight out of the Stanford playbook:

"global flows of money are now far beyond the power of any national authority to regulate or control... the World Trade Organisation and the IMF, lack legitimacy... we face environmental and humanitarian problems on an unprecedented scale but the international institutions and agreements lack powers and they lack teeth etc.etc."

But it has nothing - nothing at all - by way of positive suggestions as to what should be done.

For example, the link "A world parliamentary assembly" doesn't actually go anywhere.

>>Unless [the Stanford article] can answer the questions I raised in my last post, it's a dusty history of ancient speculation...<<

Hardly dusty. Hardly speculation.

It is however a handy guide to the arguments - for and against world government - that have been conducted through the ages.

Valuable background material, I would have thought.

But hang on.

Isn't it you who should be answering these questions?

Quick recap: you are proposing a World Government. I'm just saying "can't be done, won't be done" and giving you my reasons.

With examples.

Which, so far, you have managed to ignore.

>>But it has nothing - nothing at all - by way of positive suggestions as to what should be done.<<&#8232;I’m surprised by that, as years ago it was quite clearly laid out. I note they are using Wordpress now and may have either changed the website over to Wordpress or changed the theme and navigation systems.

Anyway, the World Citizens Australia Association (WCAA) has a variety of goals and support similar organisations trying to create a United Nations Parliament or even reform NATO to become an inclusive, umbrella organisation on a journey towards a global parliament of democratic nations.

http://tinyurl.com/24dkhk2

They focus on reforming the UN or NATO into organisations that could gradually grow and become more and more inclusive. I think we already have the backbone in the EU. The EU have certainly been discussing world government.

http://tinyurl.com/2b7sm7y

Thanks for your input and time. In an otherwise busy life, I'm mainly motivated to learn through debate.

My 'super-states' argument about the benefits and potential risks of New Unions has been re-written under point 2. I've also tidied up the structure of the rest of the page a bit. Thanks.

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reform-global-government/

You are most welcome, Eclipse Now.

>>Thanks for your input and time. In an otherwise busy life, I'm mainly motivated to learn through debate.<<

I wish you joy with your hobby.

What do you make of a mix of the following strategies?

* The Functional Approach. Functionalists such as David Mitrany would argue for what might be called the “look, no hands!” approach. The functional needs of the world community will demand their own solutions. Agencies and committees will be set up to handle these common problems, and little by little the various national sovereignties will be whittled away and transferred to the growing network of international agencies. There is no need to set up any formal political structures to achieve integration.

* The Regional Approach. Following on from the success of the European Common Market, other economic integration and free trade organisations have sprung up for example, North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). This can lead on to other associations been built like the Organisation of American Strates (OAS), African Union, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Nordic Council and the League of Arab States (Arab League). Although none of these organisations have a political structure like the EU, it is a start and may follow the same road that the EU began.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=7