To the Global Citizens:
In my previous discourse, I elucidated various reasons why the security of humanity is best ensured through a unified global governance, particularly in mitigating the risks of conflicts arising from legitimate grievances among nations. Such a unified system not only reduces the frequency of these grievances but also facilitates their resolution more effectively than fragmented national or regional entities.
However, the safety of the global populace against external threats hinges not only on abstaining from actions that might justifiably provoke war but also on positioning ourselves in a manner that neither invites hostility nor disrespect. It is imperative to acknowledge that wars can be waged under both genuine and fabricated pretexts.
Regrettably, history has shown that nations often resort to war when they foresee potential gains. Absolute rulers, in particular, may initiate conflicts driven by personal ambitions—be it the pursuit of military glory, vengeance for personal slights, aspirations of expansion, or to bolster their familial or partisan interests. Such motives, rooted solely in the sovereign’s psyche, frequently lead to wars devoid of justice or the genuine interests of their people. Beyond these monarchial inclinations, other war-inducing factors emerge from our interrelations and circumstances.
For instance, competition in fisheries has historically bred rivalry among nations. Similarly, advancements in navigation and the carrying trade have positioned some countries as competitors to established European powers, challenging their economic interests. Engaging directly in trade with regions like China and India disrupts monopolies previously held by certain nations, altering traditional economic dynamics.
The expansion of a nation’s commerce, especially when it surpasses others in production quality, proximity, and the enterprise of its merchants, often breeds jealousy and unease among other states. This is evident when nations restrict access to vital waterways, hindering mutual trade and interaction.
Such considerations reveal how easily suspicions and discomfort can infiltrate the minds and strategies of nations. We must not naively expect them to view our progress in unity, power, and global standing with indifference.
Aware of these potential triggers for conflict, humanity wisely views global unity and effective governance as essential to deter war rather than invite it. This deterrence is achieved through optimal defense mechanisms, which inherently rely on cohesive governance, collective resources, and shared capabilities.
Given that the safety of all is a universal concern, unattainable without governance—be it singular, multiple, or manifold—we must examine whether a singular, effective global government is more competent in this regard than any conceivable number of fragmented entities.
A unified government can harness the talents and experiences of the most capable individuals worldwide. It can operate on consistent policy principles, harmonize and protect various regions, and extend the benefits of its foresight and precautions universally. In treaty formations, it considers the collective interest, recognizing the interconnectedness of individual regions with the whole. It can swiftly and efficiently allocate global resources and power to defend any specific area, a feat unachievable by isolated national governments due to a lack of coordination and unified strategy. It can standardize military discipline, ensuring that forces operate under a cohesive command structure, thereby enhancing their effectiveness compared to disparate, independent units.
Reflect on the hypothetical scenario where the militias of England, Scotland, and Wales operated under separate governments. In the face of invasion, could these three governments, even if aligned, respond as effectively as a single, unified Great Britain?
Historically, much has been said about the prowess of the British fleets. Similarly, a time may come when unified global fleets command attention. However, without a national government regulating navigation to cultivate seafaring expertise, Britain’s naval dominance would have been unattainable. If England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland each managed their navigation and fleets independently, their individual significance would have diminished considerably.
Applying these lessons to our current context, if humanity remains divided into numerous independent nations, what armies could they muster and sustain? What fleets could they hope to build? If one nation were attacked, would others readily come to its aid, sacrificing their resources and lives in its defense? Might some be tempted into neutrality by enticing promises or an overwhelming desire for peace, choosing to preserve their tranquility rather than risk it for neighbors they might distrust or view as rivals? Such behavior, though unwise, is natural. History, including that of ancient Greece, is replete with such instances, and it is plausible that similar circumstances would yield similar outcomes.
Even if nations were willing to assist an attacked neighbor, questions arise: How, when, and in what proportion should support be provided? Who would command the allied forces, and from whom would they receive orders? Who would negotiate peace terms, and in case of disputes, what authority would arbitrate and enforce compliance? Numerous challenges and complications are inherent in such a fragmented system. In contrast, a singular global government, overseeing common interests and directing collective powers and resources, would eliminate these obstacles, significantly enhancing global safety.
Regardless of our structural organization—whether united under a single global government or fragmented into numerous independent entities—foreign nations will perceive and interact with us accordingly. If they observe an efficient, well-administered global government, prudent trade regulations, organized and disciplined defense forces, well-managed resources and finances, restored credit, and a populace that is free, content, and united, they will be more inclined to seek friendship than provoke animosity. Conversely, if they find us lacking effective governance, with each nation acting independently, or divided into multiple discordant republics or confederacies, each aligning with different major powers and potentially manipulated against each other, humanity would present a pitiable spectacle. Such a scenario would render us susceptible to contempt and aggression, leading to the harsh realization that division invariably works against collective interests.
Dr. Lawiy Zodok
Leave a comment