Burying the Case for a World Republic

A very interesting book review over at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists caught my eye this morning. In it, Tad Daley takes a look at the dawn of the nuclear disarmament movement as documented by Lawrence Wittner in his 2009 book Confronting the Bomb. Wittner takes as his jumping off point the little-known fact that "the ultimate aspiration of the disarmament crowd was not just to eliminate nuclear arsenals, but to create a federal republic of the world."

This concept was on the minds of Oppenheimer, Truman, and others partially as a practical means of anti-proliferation, and partially out of revulsion at the thought of another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. To ensure that the latter would never happen again, a political solution seemed attractive, akin to the peace reigning between states such as New York and New Jersey.

In the crucial paragraph of his review, Daley asks:

What kind of UN system might we design from scratch today? Is democratic federal world government desirable—or might the costs exceed the benefits? If desirable, will it ever be achievable? If not achievable, is there any alternative world order imaginable that might someday eliminate both war and standing militaries from the human condition? These sorts of questions—among foreign affairs professionals, peace activists, college students, columnists, blogosphere commentators, talk radio hosts, and television pundits—are conspicuous only by their complete absence from the contemporary policy debate.

These questions do seem a little out of joint in a world where right-wing activism in the United States has branded the UN's environmental Agenda 21 as a conspiracy theory to erode American sovereignty; where political scientists like Ian Bremmer are documenting a move toward coalitions of the willing and a geopolitics of every nation for itself; where Europe's experiment with federalism is going off the rails; and where prominent foreign policy journals publish articles on how an Iranian bomb would actually stabilize the Middle East.

Less and less it appears that our biggest challenges—peace, development, environment—will be solved by top-down power. More and more it seems that the horizontal transfer of good ideas will yield the most resilient results. As the late Elinor Ostrom wrote in relation to the Rio+20 process, "Decades of research demonstrate that a variety of overlapping policies at city, subnational, national, and international levels is more likely to succeed than are single, overarching binding agreements."

The movement for zero global nuclear weapons now depends upon emergent activism in all the nuclear powers. Without the will of the people demanding these things, it's hard to imagine how peace will prevail.

[PHOTO CREDIT: James Vaughan (CC).]

Views: 114

Tags: environment, peace, politics, war


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

A Case for Giving Climate Migrants Protected Legal Status

With climate change already affecting vast regions of the planet, Bard College's Brian Mateo makes the case for expanding legal protections for refugees to include people displaced due to environmental issues. Whether by updating the 1951 Convention or working on a new global agreement, Mateo writes that this an urgent human rights issue for vulnerable populations today and future generations.

Need for a New Consensus

Foreign policy experts are having diffuclty linking the negative implications of a shift towards trasactionalism for U.S. foreign aid to voters. This begs the question: Should there be a clear quid pro quo for U.S. assistance?

The End of the U.S.-Taliban Talks? with Jonathan Cristol

Despite progress over the last year, Donald Trump effectively ended the latest round of U.S.-Taliban negotiations with a tweet earlier this month. Will talks continue in a more understated way? Does this change anything on the ground in Afghanistan? And what is the Taliban doing in Moscow? Jonathan Cristol, author of "The United States and the Taliban before and after 9/11," discusses all this and more.





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.