Leaving Islam



The World Federal Government vs. UN

 By Ali Sina  

In my previous article I suggested that the present organization of the United Nations is ineffective and therefore it should be repealed in favor of the World Federal Government. To this someone objected that there is no need to reinvent the wheel and that all we have to do is to bring democracy to the UN and only if we eliminated the special veto power given to a few countries who dictate the world politics, we can make a better world with permanent and lasting peace. He suggested the all nations should have equal rights and that is democracy. 

I am afraid the veto is just one of the problems facing the UN. The UN has many implacable procedural as well as structural problems that render it ineffective and futile as an institution that first purports to promote and preserve the peace. 

The truth is that it won’t be fair to give equal representation to all the world’s nations. For instance, a country the size of San Marino has a mere few thousand inhabitants while a country like China or India each has over a billion inhabitants -- should San Marino or Sierra Leon with 4.7 million population and China with 1.2 billion population each be allowed only one representative? It should be obvious that democracy within the UN as it is structured now is simply unfair and cannot work.  If any such representation is enacted by population only, then any alliance forged between China and India could determine the destiny of the whole world. This in effect would make the UN an abettor in monopolizing the political process and leave the governing of the world’s body of nations inoperable. 

The solution to problem is not in restructuring the UN but discarding the UN and creating a new world body. That would be in effect the World Federal Government. This world government would not simply be a United Nations with teeth. It instead represents a completely different concept. The UN as it exists now is the best that the old chaotic world can offer. Sadly, most of the countries that make up the UN are run by dictators. Thus, the representatives to the UN do not actually represent the will of the people of their countries but that of the dictator running those countries. For instance, the representative of Iraq in the UN is not the voice of the Iraqis; he is the ambassador of that infamous despot, Saddam Hussein. Since a great number of the countries of the world are in the hands of the dictators, the Assembly of the United Nations is in fact the assembly of the dictators who are united only in ripping off their people.  The resolutions of the United Nations does not deserve much respect or recognition. It is not the nations that have come together but mostly a bunch of thugs and hooligans, murderers and assassins. How much respect should one give to the vote coming from the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the very criminals who murder their fellow Iranians and are hated by their own people? What legitimacy does the North Korean representative have? And who authorized the Saudi delegate to represent the Saudis? Such an organization cannot be democratic unless its members represent governments that are democratically elected. Yes, there has been some good works done, mostly by the non-governmental institutions of the UN:  The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), UNESCO/CEPES, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Health Organization (WHO) and other institutions related to the UN. Each has provided laudable benefits, in their service to humanity, and for that they need to be acknowledged and congratulated.  Still, the General Assembly of the UN, where the world’s politicians meet, remain a fiasco, and is a mockery of unity, peace and justice. As long as the delegates representing various countries are not the true representatives of their people, their votes will be worth nothing.  Therefore, given that the present UN is nothing more than a charade, it is best suited to be used as a circus than the governing body for the world. Mr. Kofi Anan could still be employed perhaps as the popcorn vender. Any man who goes to Iran, receives a couple of silk Ghom carpets as gifts, then comes out praising the Islamic Republic of Iran and forgets to ask about the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, the stoning of women and the hanging of the youth really would be of better service if he become a popcorn vendor.     

The World Government, as envisioned by us the world federalists, cannot become a reality unless this chaos governing the international relations give way to a new world order. The basis of the new world order would be the rule of law as opposed to the law of the jungle that is at present governing the international relations. Membership in such a government would not be automatic. Only countries that have established democracy should be eligible to join. While such a world government may be incomplete in the first stages of its creation, it would still have the wherewithal to coerce the world’s dictators to yield to political pressure through a series of economical sanctions, and thereby relinquish their dictatorial power.  This in turn would allow those countries that were run by dictators to establish their own democracies. Eventually, as the new world government continues to grow, more countries with emerging democracies will likely join.  

The benefits of being a member of the World Federal Government are immense. Member nations would feel safe, while military expenditures could be greatly reduced, providing enormous relief to their economies. In addition, there would be great trade advantages among the member nations.  Dictators would not have a chance to maintain themselves in power if they are universally boycotted by all the member countries of the World Federal Government. Actually the WFG can ban its members from trading with dictatorial regimes. Thus, the WFG soon would engulf all nations and the need for any country to maintain its own military would become superfluous, as it would eventually be replaced by a world police force. 

What about the problem of representation? That can be solved when we are dealing with democracies. Countries with enormous populations often are heterogeneous.  In order to resolve this, such countries would be allowed to have not just one representative, but several representatives, each from a different region, independently elected and accountable only to their electorates.  

This would entail some restructuring of the world's political map within most, if not all the countries. The ethnic groups that now are minorities and underrepresented would have their own voice and representatives. The concept of country would likely undergo a change. Perhaps instead of 200 countries we would have 1000 or more political regions. A country such as India may have 20 political regions; a country such as Iran may have 3 or 4. Each region would be autonomous and sovereign, with its own representative. 

This is a plan for a new world order. It cannot be implemented in the present chaotic system where dictators control most of the countries of the world. It is a new way of thinking that will require a total transformation of the human psyche. Achieving this transformation would bring a real metamorphosis of human society. It would indeed mean the birth of humanity as one entity. 

In my opinion the present European Union is carrying forth the seed of such a world government. Eventually the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, India and other democratic countries will join this union and every body will benefit from it. 

Many of today's countries, like the old Yugoslavia, are kept together through force, by gross violations of human rights. These countries are potential time bombs. They have to be divided in political regions through referendums and without the bloodshed. It would be the job of the world government to ensure that each government is a legitimate representative of its people and is democratically elected. Take the example of Iraq. There exists a never-ending animosity between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. This country should never really have existed in its present form. When the British dissolved the Ottoman Empire, they drew a political map of Arabia without any consideration to ethnic and religious diversity of the people. Iraq is composed of Sunnis, who form the majority, the Shiites, the Kurds and a smaller Christian population . These groups cannot get along with each other. Iraq can only be held together with iron fist and dictatorship. The only reasonable solution to this problem is that Iraq be broken up into at least three separate political regions so that each region can have a real government representing the will people. The same solution could be applied to Iran, Turkey, China and virtually every country of the world, including the United Kingdom. A country such as United States may want to split itself into 10 political regions and Canada may break up into 3 or 4 without losing their integrity. This decision would be made by the people. No one from above would decide how these political maps should be drawn. The argument can be made that smaller political regions are more manageable than mega-countries with powerful central governments that are often unfamiliar with the unique challenges of the country that they are trying to govern. 

I am not suggesting how these political regions should be formed, nor the creation of such regions mean the dissolution of the countries. If you are, say an American, and the size and shape of your country has sentimental significance for you, just as I love the way my country looks on the map, you don't have to worry. The creation of these political regions does not mean the end of your country. It means that the delegates to the world government come from different regions of your country and each one of them is representing that part of the country. It means more people get to express themselves and have a say in the government of the world. But if all the citizens of a country are happy with the status quo and no one is complaining, there is no reason to break up that country. The political regions are only supporting basis of the world government. 

There are only two reasons in favor of keeping countries huge. One would be for defense. That need would no longer exist in the new world order since the fear of external invasion would be nonexistent. The other is for the benefit of the dictators, for they can rip off more if they can control more resources. Smaller political regions would grant governments that are representative of the people and for the first time the minorities can elect their own governments and be recognized as independent people.   

One thing is certain and that is this new century is pregnant with world-shattering changes, ones that could take humanity from its current plain of existence to a much higher one, like a worm breaking out of its cocoon only to emerge a butterfly. These metamorphoses will continue, transforming our world. Dictatorial regimes will collapse and new democracies will emerge in their place, joining the federation of the World Government, and paving the road for world peace and eternal prosperity for mankind.   

The immediate years ahead may prove austere and arduous. If we manage to survive these next few dreadful decades, we could very well see ushered an era of glory and peace never before experienced by any preceding generation. I can only pray that we do not blow it all up, for the immediate forecast is tempestuous and bleak. 


Comment on this




Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.