History has shown that a large collection of small nations sharing a geographical region are much more prone to warfare than are a smaller number of nations sharing that region. It seems that each sovereign government, in its efforts to maintain power within a nation, extends that attempt outward and runs into the power struggles of the neighboring nations. Examples include the Balkan Wars of both the early and late 20th Cent., the numerous German-speaking principalities of the Middle Ages, the Celtic, Saxon and Nordic kingdoms of England prior to 1066, the Greek city-states of the 5th and 4th Cent. BCE.
There is no end to available illustrations of this situation and a clear conclusion may be drawn: Competing sovereign governments will almost always find a justification for war and, the more governments are competing, the more continuous war becomes. To end–or, at least, reduce the incidence of–war, steps must be taken for individual national governments to anneal themselves into a single, good government administering the entire region.
The gradual process of the bickering nations of Europe merging into the European Union has been tremendously encouraging and I applaud their good sense and this giant step toward the end of war in Europe. But what are the chances of, for instance, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Burma amalgamating into a single nation, thus bringing peace to the region? Zero, I should say. Something must be done to help bring this about.
The United Nations was a good idea, back in the late '40s, but has shown itself, because of its structure and dependence on charity for operating funds, to be hopelessly ineffectual in accomplishing real gains. The UN does what it can and it has my total respect for what it has been able to accomplish in health, education and peacekeeping…but it clearly IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE in a position to enforce world peace.
Therefore, I do here propose that the United States of America begin now to take those steps which will bring it to the position of the “national” government of the entire world over the course of the next century or so.
Consider:
-
The USA, as the last remaining superpower, is the one nation with both the stability of government and national resources to accomplish this goal.
-
The USA, as a federal system of “sovereign” states, encourages local self-government for as many governmental functions as possible but with the national umbrella ensuring basic rights and freedom of choice. Thus, it could extend its sway without trampling on or attempting to submerge local cultures, languages, or customs–beyond those changes necessary to guarantee those basic rights for all humans.
-
The USA, since the end of W.W. II, has acted as the world’s policeman, called in whenever a local situation has deteriorated into violence and major help is needed. Despite the verbal criticisms and hatred by a minority in many nations, the USA is, by and large, trusted and respected as having good intentions.
-
The governmental and legal systems of the USA, though far from perfect, are better than most. The government is stable and subject to the rule of law; a military coup is totally unthinkable. Official corruption is far less prevalent than in most countries and is prosecuted when found. The even-handed legal system usually manages to preserve equity and to dispense a reasonable facsimile of justice.
The Process:
Please understand that I am NOT advocating a military conquest of the world. Not at all. What I suggest is that, when the USA is called in by rival factions or by other nations in the region to bring peace to a troubled nation, it offer options to the people of that nation.
For instance, the nation of Somalia was in deep trouble about 10 years ago (it’s not much better off now) and the USA was asked to step in and police the situation so relief supplies could be distributed. At the time, the mission’s commanding officer stated that his orders were NOT to disarm the feuding warlords but merely to keep them from fighting openly when UN trucks were going by.
In other words, the USA kept an “arm’s length” attitude even when they were getting deeply involved. I think that this attitude was the fatal mistake in policy, NOT that of getting involved in the first place.
What the USA should have done in Somalia: When invited to help get the people fed, the USA should have moved in sufficient force to ensure peace, disarmed the warlords entirely, fought battles as necessary, and thereby have restored peace and a reasonable hope for the future to the people of Somalia. After peace had been in place and people were breathing freely for a while–perhaps a year or so–the USA should have then conducted a plebiscite in Somalia with the following options:
- The USA should leave entirely and let the Somalian people and government take up where they left off.
or - The USA should annex Somalia as a territory, with permanent peacekeeping and other governmental services in place during a waiting period of several years before Somalia becomes a state in union with the United States, with full rights, responsibilities, etc.
or - The USA should maintain the temporary status quo now in place and conduct another plebiscite a year or two in the future.
This plebiscite would be conducted and monitored by the UN or other third-party with a commitment to fairness in determining the true feeling of the people. My guess is that the people of Somalia would have opted for long-term peace through amalgamation with the USA and would be in a much better position today if this had been offered to them.
It is true that the American taxpayer would be asked to carry a heavier tax burden while a new territory is being assimilated…but it seems like a better idea than having to intervene once every few years in some unhappy region and starting fresh from zero every time. In Afghanistan? It would be a tough sell in the USA and in Afghanistan…but make sure the Afghan women vote in the plebiscite. 
After a few decades’ operation of this policy, the USA might be administering 4 or 5 territories worldwide and perhaps have a couple more states in the union. The rest of the world could see how much these (ex-)nations have benefited and, I think, other nations would start queueing up, requesting annexation. The final result would be clear from this point looking forward: world government (with a few holdouts: the EU and China and probably Quebec) and world peace.
One last comment: I hate governments; all governments–except for that individual self-government which resides (or should reside) inside each human being. In a conversation with Libertarians, they see me as a radical. I am NOT a chauvinistic supporter of “the American Way”; I am NOT hungry for conquests. But, evil as governments may be, I see the current violent whirlpool of competing governments as worse. First, let’s get world peace and THEN let’s talk about reducing the power, gradually, of the United States of Earth.
Ok, gang, let me have it. And I especially would like to hear from non-US citizens.