One-World Government May Become Tyrannical

One-world government may turn tyrannical; total absence of authority is preferrable if peoples never interacted

Actually there are two questions here. I will answer "Would you prefer a one world government?" first. Such a world is an attractive prospect because it makes governance easier. However, our experience has shown us several problems.

The power that dominates one world government would exploit the weak.

Almost a one-world government

We will not discuss a one-world government in a vacuum but in the context of history. The world had almost one government in 1945.

This was the time of the Yalta conference (Feb. 4–11, 1945), and the Potsdam conference (July 17–Aug. 2, 1945). At the apex of this one government were President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, Premier Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain. They held summits; a summit is a meeting among heads of state. These personalities were called the Big Three. Whatever they agreed upon was mandatory for the Soviet Union as it was ruled by the Communist Party, some to be ratified by the Parliament of Great Britain and partly to be ratified by the United States as they were democracies. Their decisions were unilateral, meaning other countries in the world (France, China, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Poland, Japan, Italy, and more) were bound to obey them.

The Big Three were brought together by World War II as leaders of the Allied Powers against the aggressors, Italy, Germany and Japan, also called the Axis Powers.

The state of the world then was: Italy was already defeated and its former dictator, Mussolini, already hanged. Germany was on the verged of defeat. Hitler committed suicide in April 1945 and Germany surrendered in June 1945. The days of Japan were numbered, it surrendered in August 10, eight days after the Potsdam conference.

Other countries were excluded in the summits. France was considered as a follower of the lead of Great Britain, China was within the sphere of influence of the United States. Besides, China was in a state of civil war, supremacy being contested by Mao Tse-tung of the Communist Party of China and by Chiang Kai-shek, president of Nationalist China or Kuomintang (Kolko, J. and G. Kolko. The Limits of Power. 1972).

The Big Three agreed that: “Germany would be divided into occupied zones administered by U.S., British, French, and Soviet forces. The conferees accepted the principle that the Allies had no duty toward the Germans except to provide minimum subsistence, declared that the German military industry would be abolished or confiscated...The determination of reparations was assigned to a commission” (Encyclopedia Britannica 2009).

For “the defeated or liberated countries of eastern Europe” the Big Three agreed upon an “interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population . . . and the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people.” (Encyclopedia Britannica 2009).

For the Far East, “a secret protocol stipulated that, in return for the Soviet Union's entering the war against Japan within ‘two or three months’ after Germany's surrender, the U.S.S.R. would regain the territory lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, and the status quo in pro-Soviet Outer Mongolia would be maintained.".

Another secret agreement was that Soviet Union will have three votes in the United Nations, while other countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, etc., will have one vote each. It was also agreed that all other countries will amend their constitutions to allow the superpowers to exploit their natural resources. In 1947, the Philippines amended its constitution pursuant to the Yalta conference agreements, to wit:

"...the disposition, exploitation, development, and utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of public utilities, shall, if open to any person, be open to citizens of the United States and to all forms of business enterprises owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the United States...." (qtd. in Agoncillo, T. A. History of the Filipino People.1990:438).

In April 1945, Roosevelt died of hemorrhagic stroke and Harry S. Truman took over as president of the United States.

In the Potsdam conference the participants were ”U.S. President Harry S. Truman, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (or Clement Attlee, who became prime minister during the conference), and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin.”

“The protocols of the Potsdam Conference suggested continued harmony among the Allies, but the deeply conflicting aims of the Western democracies on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other in fact meant that Potsdam was to be the last Allied summit conference.

“Stalin failed to keep his promise that free elections would be held in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Instead, communist governments were established in all those countries, noncommunist political parties were suppressed, and genuinely democratic elections were never held.... In the Pacific and Manchuria. In any case, the Soviet Union was the military occupier of eastern Europe at the war's end, and so there was little the Western democracies could do to enforce the promises made by Stalin at Yalta” (Encyclopedia Britannica 2009).

The almost one world government broke up into the Cold War.

New entries as of August 11,2013

Crusades

The crusades initiated by the pope in 1059 lasting for five centuries had the trappings of a one-world government. It was a way for Christians to expiate their sins and reclaim the holy land from the hands of the Muslims, the pope exhorted. If not for the resistance from the Muslims the pope dominated all over Europe, except England since 1532 when King Henry III broke away from the pope and established the Anglican church.

There was a time the pope himself was the general who lead the crusades. One crusade was delayed because the pope was afflicted with malaria. When the Catholic church did not have its army he cajoled kings and princes to make his wars. These rulers obliged because they feared excommunication, or denial of heaven after their death as pronounced by the pope.

Thousands of Christians and Muslims were slaughtered in the crusades. One pope came up with the idea that virgins could not be harmed because they have not sinned. So boys in their teens who were virgins were sent to war. They were slaughtered.

The power of the pope was a combination of priestly power, faith, and economic power. Profits were gained from plunder.

Peoples in the west were consumed each year to prepare for a crusade. Muslims were likewise consumed to prepare for the coming Christian onslaught. There were nine crusades in all that waned in 1500s owing to the protestant movement. One Christian prince disobeyed the pope; he married a Muslim princess.

How else should we look at the crusades if not tyranny? Tyranny of the pope and cardinals and bishops over the Chistians and Muslims. Of course, Buddhists and Confucians did not join the fray.

The crusades demonstrate that the dominance of one-world government results in tyranny. End of new entries.

Would I prefer total absence of authority?

Absence of authority is possible if only one man remains standing. Even between two man/woman there is authority if they live together. If they don't even meet in their lifetime to the extent that they do not influence each other, total absence of authority is preferable.

Starting with several people interacting, total absence of authority would result in chaos. The strongest will finally enact laws favoring himself. If he were left alone, he does not need any law. In experience peoples are like fishes and a crocodile habituating one pond. The crocodile will eat all the fishes.

The history of France during the French revolution of 1799 demonstrates this. The masses' representatives declared themselves the true rulers of France and abolished the privileges of the nobles and clergy. They beheaded by guillotine the King and Queen whom they accused of treason for calling the help of and attempting to escape to Austria. Once France was under their hands, the revolutionaries turned against each other beheading one leader of a camp like the Jacobins after another leader. Voltaire and Rousseau were victims of the Reign of Terror that was virtually absence of authority.

There were those who wanted order so they got Napoleon Bonaparte into the ruling triumvirate. Napoleon was the commander of the French army that favored the revolutionaries. Bonaparte was an ambitious power player and usurped power; he crowned himself showing everyone that he was beholden to no one. It used to be that the pope bestowed the crown on kings. After the failure of an assassination attempt on him he declared himself emperor. That way even when he was killed his heir would take over thus the Bonaparte dynasty was born.

Elements of one-government world in place

One element of one-government world in place is the International Monetary Fund in tandem with World Bank. Members have to follow their rules or else. Now there is a lot or countries following their rules that are poor or are in ruins as far as their economies are concerned.

China is also a member of IMF. However, it is not a teetotaler. It does not follow IMF hook and sink. In the latest IMF conference in Tokyo, the top financial ministers of China did not attend.

The corporations in the US want China to privatize the public corporations in China so that they can come in and control the Chinese corporations. China does not oblige.

The GATT has elements of one-government of the world. It is a way by which the industrialized countries come in to underdeveloped countries without regard to territorial boundaries.

The United Nations is a form of one-government world. But the US can manipulate the UN to its wishes as it did in launching an election in South Korea in 1948 resulting in the birth of South Korea. In a hurry, leaders of People's republic conducted another election that gave birth to North Korea. .

The Marshall plans I and II (economic loan windows) of the US after WWII were a form of one-government world. They shaped the economic policies of Europe. The US could do that because it was the only source of credit after WWII (Kolko and Kolko, 1972). Europe is not better off than the US even with the European economic community.

The US could not get the nod of the UN in invading Iraq but it got a coalition nonetheless. Early on the Philippines joined the coalition then withdrew from it. Iraq was invaded on the pretext that Saddam had a stockpile of biological weapons. It turned out that Saddam had no stockpiles of biological weapons.

The US executed Saddam on allegations by the US that Saddam committed genocide against some sectors of his people not after a trial by the World Court. The US got away with it. Assuming that Saddam committed a crime, he should have been tried by his own people or by the World Court. Who could now prosecute and punish the US if found guilty of war crime?

Power and not justice will likely prevail in one-government world.


More by this Author


Comments 2 comments

lone77star profile image

lone77star 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

A beautifully written argument.

What you seem to illuminate here with both the one-world government and complete anarchy is the problem of "ego."

This is why the Bible describes the time after the coming judgment as one of wailing and gnashing. This is a description of victim and perpetrator -- the base minimum of ego. This is what civilization reduces to without the civilizing effects of God and religion. But even religion is assaulted by ego.

Only with organized competition is there a chance for civilization. Only when there is a balance of power and access by the individual are governments held accountable. Only then do they behave in a civil and more citizen-friendly manner. It's not perfect. But no earthly system ever can be, because of ego. Ego will always find a way to suborn and pervert the progress of sanity.

This is why the bright and shining experiment that was America is now dying.


conradofontanilla profile image

conradofontanilla 4 years ago from Philippines Author

I wonder if the prediction of Marx and reinforcement by Lenin is unfolding in the United States that of imperialism imploding. Even as the United States had been an imperial power, now a neocolonial power, it has created a power that is even bigger than itself as a country. That is corporate America. The corporation is not solely comprised of Americans but it is based in America because America is its enforcer. The irony of it is that it has victimized America.

The corporation, with its legal personality, has grown so big it could strangle the government of the United States. Early on it should have been given a limit as to its size in terms of capitalization, or another means to limit its power. Now that limit could not be put in place because Congress is under the thumb of the corporations. When Chrysler was in dire financial crisis, with over a hundred banks around the world threatening to foreclose on Chrysler, it swung a guarantee from the United States government which is contrary to the ideology of capitalism, Lee Iaccoca tells us so in his autobiography. But corporate Chrysler would not care less about capitalism as ideology. How to put back the genie that has turned into a monster to the bottle, as it were? Smaller countries like ours suffer under the euphemism of globalization. One simple example, our cane sugar cannot compete with beet sugar, beet growing being subsidized. Subsidy on cane growing is not allowed.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working