World Government??????????

Francisco César Pinheiro Rodrigues
Lawyer, retired principal judge and writer. He’s a member of IASP Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo. _______________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone still doubt the need for a World Government?

The Middle East is currently one of the best arguments for this imperative. There are others, such as the quasi-collapse of the WTO (nothing more logical, natural, without laying specific blame on any particular government), environmental pollution and chaotic population growth, where those who are able to provide adequate conditions for rearing children do not have them, and those who cannot provide such conditions have them in abundance.
There are simple and effective ideas which, in spite of being so, give rise to ill-judged reactions, irrespective of whether such reactions are based on reasoning, emotions or that vast cerebral archive of automated opinions.
The human brain is rather like the enormous control panel of a supersonic aircraft, with hundreds of highly sensitive buttons and devices that, at the lightest touch, even an accidental one, unleash automatic reactions that may even bring down the plane. Obviously, all these buttons are necessary for the safety of the aircraft or the comfort of its passengers. The problem lies in the automatic nature of the response, as each item has no knowledge (of course, this would be impossible) of the function of its neighbor on the control panel. Do what is required, react as programmed, nothing more. If the aircraft crashes, it is not the poor button’s fault, but that of the pilot, or that of the stewardess’s elbow that should not be there. In the event that the plane crashes and the button is still in one piece, it would think, with smoke still arising from it: “Why did the plane crash? I only did what was required of me! I just don’t understand anything any more...”
This is the kind of reaction shown by the vast majority of people – irrespective of whether they are cultured, uncultured or somewhere between the two – when one speaks of a possible world government in the form of a democratic federation. This adjective is in bold and underlined because two of the aforementioned mental buttons, “sovereignty” and “patriotism”, react right away instinctively, possibly for the reason of simply being close to one another, like certain automatic hand driers that “divine” the need for their blast of hot air.
The foregoing considerations come to mind whenever I see photos and headlines in newspapers of the conflict involving Israel in Palestine and Lebanon.
There is no other more obvious example of the need for effective Global Justice in order to resolve a conflict that looks like being permanent and which may result in immense difficulties for the whole world, if there is no legitimate democratic centralized power able to impose the fairest possible solution.
For centuries, in the internal order of all countries (all, without exception), when neighbors begin to fight and cannot reach agreement, there has been found to be a need for an “outside” state power, a legitimized judge, professionally prepared for the role, to pass sentence and ensure that an eventual ruling is fulfilled, even if it displeases one of the parties involved. It would be too much, unthinkable, to require that every judicial decision always satisfy both parties, even the party that is in the wrong. Essentially, justice is almost always “outside” in origin, i.e., external to the parties involved in the dispute. In those cases where justice lies “within” the parties themselves, there is no conflict or a need for any kind of “judge”. In disputes, the parties involved obviously intervene in the process, but solely by putting forward arguments and evidential proof of their allegations. Even “private justice” (i.e., arbitration) is “external” in origin, involving an arbitrator with no material or ideological interest in the conflict. Besides this, the arbitrator is chosen by both parties involved. Nevertheless, once a ruling has been made, there must be compliance with the arbitrator’s decision, irrespective of whether or not the losing party agrees with it. Elementary, isn’t it?
However, it is not this that occurs in the international area, where the elementary is rarely given recognition. Each country does exactly what it wants in the “house where anything goes”, which could be better defined as the “madhouse where anything goes”. Whoever has the most power sheds the least tears. In addition, just to aggravate the problem, the governments of countries or peoples involved in conflict, even if they feel, at heart, that their reactions are exaggerated, believe that they are under an obligation, based on rancorous “patriotism”, to crush the adversary. Like “big boys”, it is necessary, to put on a show of valor for electors, who are generally rather perplexed and only concerned with saving their own skins, and do not have the slightest concern for the suffering of others, or the just or unjust manner in which their government treats the enemy.
Israel and its Arab neighbors are going to continue to kill one another, as long as no “outside power” interferes, in order to impose (as fair as a decision pronounced by human beings can be) and following an in-depth analysis of the arguments put forward, an immutable and really respected frontier. Taking the law into one’s own hands is considered a crime according to the internal legislation of all civilized countries. In the international area, however, it is a “virtue”, as it involves patriotism, sovereignty, “pride of our race”, “break but not bend” and other such notable grandiloquent phrases. However, there is an associated problem: the opposing party repeats the same kind of phrases in a similar fashion, but with diametrically opposite content.
For centuries, the Jewish people have suffered as a result of residing in the home of others. The Jews were subject to a particularly notable massacre when Hitler, with his ferocious eloquence, politically exploited the abuse imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Commiserate with the Holocaust, the world applauded the creation of the State of Israel. However, the area in question was already occupied by the Palestinians, who are also human beings and do not consider themselves to be (and are not) the instigators of the Jewish expulsion. Some, not all, have reacted and, reacting in this way, are labeled as “terrorists”.
Given that the State of Israel has been created (an irreversible fact), an “outside power” (the UN in this case) should establish the frontiers of the Jewish homeland and set up compensation for Palestinians displaced from land they have occupied for centuries. As such compensation did not occur, only pure and simple expulsion, it is only natural that this is unacceptable to those Arabs who are more disposed to fight. They became “terrorists”, in the same way that the Jewish followers of Menachem Begin, members of the “Irgun Zwai Leumi” movement, who fought against the British occupation of Palestine, were also labeled “terrorists”. This struggle was also not merely verbal in nature.
During World War II, hundreds of French people, in whose eyes the German occupation of their country was unacceptable, also reacted on their own account, without waiting for orders to be issued by the French government. This was the patriotic “Resistance”, however, as far as the Germans were concerned, those involved were little more than “terrorists”, as they acted on their own account, without formal delegation by the French government. Indulging in a mere game of reasoning, if the United States were to be invaded by the Soviet Union, there would certainly be a resistance movement that would manifest itself in the form of attacks against the invader. In this case, the Americans would be called “terrorists” by the Soviets.
The foregoing considerations only serve to show that, without the existence of an impartial international judge (with the power to impose decisions), the use of force as a means of resolving conflicts is a relic from the time when humans lived in caves. In the international area, we still have a lot of ground to cover. The principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice, functions more as an “opiner”. It makes “rulings”, but only those who wish to comply with such rulings actually do so. This is demoralizing. And in a household where there is no order, no head, anything can happen. I am certain that if the USA had treated the expelled Palestinians with the same concern that it treated the Jews, the Twin Towers would still be standing. The world would be quite different.
The world is taking too long to recognize the obvious. The “global village” has already become a city, a state, and, if no action is taken, it will end up being transformed into a lawless badland.