ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT...Is It Possible?
In some respects, the world economy is as important as human rights. After all, if starvation was rampant all other issues would seem irrelevant. While the complexity of the world economy would normally call for an in-depth analysis considering the numerous currencies, rates of exchanges and especially the impacts from countless trade issues, a brief overview can still hold value. A fresh perspective from someone who is not an economist might hold even more value.

Trade negotiations
It is said the world economy is so incredibly complex that only a handful of people in the world can fully comprehend it. The most difficult part is fathoming the ripple effects for every action. If that is true, then it follows many policymakers are probably pushing buttons without fully realizing the consequences. It is apparent world economic policies, collectively and jurisdictionally, are based on a ‘patch mentality’... that is, just keep plugging holes. In lieu of a foundation with solid footing, substituting instead are those international agreements and understandings serving as a temporary foundation. This makes negotiations the only alternative available to these policymakers. What constitutes ‘solid footing’ is relatively simple, it requires uniformity (single currency, equal pay scales).

Perhaps at this particular stage in our development as a civilization, that is, with all the various currencies still in circulation and with the various authorities and ideologies, there is simply no choice but to patch and make adjustments… this means negotiations are necessary. Of course, these 'negotiations' would entail bargaining over trade issues, economic understandings and treaties may often result.

However, due to the precariousness of this patching process (negotiations), it can produce countless inequities and even pitfalls. The greatest pitfall, although awaiting far down the road, is the natural tendency to jockey for position, make the best deals and ultimately… to ‘win’. To win is a natural desire, something humans strive for everyday in one way or another. When it comes to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings, we see this in action. Every advantage is sought and the biggest exporters, always trying to out-muscle each other, has the effect of forcing everyone else to the same competitive level. It's a situation whereby the disadvantaged third-world countries, which, without the resources and economic clout, are losing out and falling further behind. Some can't even afford to field a bargaining delegation.

Positioned somewhere between the U.S. and the EU in this wrestling match is Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, Brazil and China and because of America’s huge trade deficits, as creditor nations Japan and especially China are assuredly affecting outcomes. After all, creditors would have leverage. It's also a matter of 'dumping' in an attempt to control the market. Third-world countries can't afford to dump their products nor do they have leverage.

So, could something be done to overcome the resulting inequities as seemingly allowed within the current system? Assuredly it’s possible and assuredly the third-world countries are trying to solve their dilemma every waking minute. After all, they’re up against tough negotiators with advantages in leverage. As said, it boils down to something more basic... it’s because we live in a world where everyone wants to win. Winning too often however, can be dangerous.

The current process under which the WTO operates, that is, negotiations (for all that entails), the facts say it is a situation whereby the rich countries get richer and the poor, poorer. A case against NAFTA? Yet negotiations themselves, normally considered a healthy function basic to the principles of free enterprise, the use of leverage can often make a mockery out of fairness. How much 'pressure' is fair pressure? Or can legalese even describe it?

Well, perhaps knowing the stated position of the WTO will yield clues.

The WTO says it is:"—the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business"

While such an organization is necessary, nonetheless it seems apparent something must be inherently wrong with the WTO. Far too many claim it's an unfair system. After all, nations such as India, Argentina, Venezuela and even Brazil have been threatening to pull out. While 'negotiations' is serving as the poster-boy for the WTO, psychologically representing fairness, apparently that is not the reality. It seems the unfair use of leverage is the culprit... the limits of which legalese cannot describe. No, legalese can't describe how much you love your spouse either. It's amazing how much mankind must rely on 'good faith'.

So, is taking advantage of a bargaining position an ethical matter? Perhaps it depends on the extent ... although certainly an ethical matter if threats are involved. But what about intimidation? Can legalese describe it? On this note, it seems even 'implying' a particular position could affect other trade issues and programs would be unfair. To the extent possible, it would seem each trade issue should stand on its own. If not, it could create an atmosphere ripe for economic blackmail.

The WTO dilemma assuredly lies within the likelihood those countries with the advantages will surely not voluntarily cede them. As a result, what would seem to be a very predictable scenario is that many, if not all, third-world countries will eventually pull out of the WTO upsetting the entire world economy… by regionalizing it. However, perhaps not a bad idea, it may turn out to be a healthy situation in the long run. And, to everyone's delight, it might also strangle those unconscionable transnational corporations out of existence. Taking advantage of a desperate work force is, after all, unconscionable.

Human rights opportunity
In the interests of globalization it seems these third-world countries should be pacified to the full extent fair play allows to keep globalization on track. While that may sound like a vote in favor of globalization but whether uniformity or regimentation is distasteful or not, it seems inevitable. Yet, within the process of creating a potentially distasteful single-world authority, there exists a great opportunity for egalitarianism. If the third-world countries should pull out of the WTO and set-up their own regional economies, it would send a powerful message… that indeed the concerns of all must be taken into account before globalization can succeed.

As it stands now, globalization, as an ideal, is nothing more than a house of cards. If the powers-that-be truly want to see it become a reality, they need everyone onboard... and we common folk would be more receptive to the idea of globalization in exchange for guaranteed human rights. A one-world government doesn’t have to be a bad thing; it could be a very good thing for world justice and peace. However, we first need a ‘perfect’ constitution prepared beforehand for that occasion... one perfectly clear with teeth whereby encroachments upon human rights would carry the harshest of penalties. Penalties, by the way, are something the American Constitution lacks. In other words, no perfect constitution, no globalization.

It should be recognized the most likely scenario for the next 100-200 years is not an ‘official’ one-world government but rather a de facto one-world government. And, dependent upon economic positions and the outcome of wars, countries might take turns being the head honcho. Unfortunately this would have the effect of stringing out the prospects for human rights as should universally exist today. America's chances? Not so good since Adam Smith's tenet 'all new wealth comes from the soil' was dismissed as folly and abandoned, and not since America began bean-balling its farmers aground. In 1950 there were 5-1/2 million family farmers in America, now there is less than 2 million... less than the pre-Civil War days of 1860. Conversely, Brazil understands this relationship between soil and wealth and could be, within 50 years, the next economic powerhouse.

Meanwhile, until this one-world government becomes a reality, we will continue to see the world economy negotiated because there is no alternative yet. While perhaps some credit is due the policymakers, that is, somehow they’ve managed to keep things from totally collapsing so far, they should recognize that their patchwork must include rectifying economic injustices... otherwise disaster looms. While the causes for economic meltdowns in the past were understood in hindsight, today it should be obvious beforehand economic injustices is the greatest threat to economic stability... as the number of desperately poor third-world countries continues to grow.