The first one to speak would reveal himself to be the head of the Illuminati?
Ambassadors at the UN do what heads of government tell them to do. Why would getting heads of government together be any different?
Because, per Lemur866’s post, the 192 governments will do what the 192 heads of government agree to do.
Yeah, the American Congress has such a long history of doing what the President tells it to do!
Yeah, but it would be the President backed by all the other heads of government, most of the other governments of the world, and many, many people.
It would be one hell of a joint session of the United States Congress.
No, it wouldn’t.
Why wouldn’t it be?
Why would it be?
Even if, say, the President of the United States accepted some decision made by this mythological G-192, he’d still have to convince his advisers, his cabinet, Congress, and the American public - none of whom would care that the rest of the world backed this hypothetical decision. The President of the United States is not an absolute ruler, just the most powerful individual - arguably - in the U.S. government, and neither are most other heads of government. Are you familiar with the phrase “all politics are local”? It’s true. Politicians care about their internal political systems, not the international one. If the “world” said one thing, and their voters (or other powerful local interests) said another, they’d do what internal politics dictated.
And another way it won’t be like a congressional session: when Congress passes a law, it becomes law, and even those who voted against it must obey it, as does the executive branch of the government. Whereas the G-192 *has *no executive branch, and if a minority doesn’t agree with a majority vote, it can simply ignore it; the G-192 cannot force the governments of its members states to do anything they don’t want to do.
Let’s say the President convinced his advisers, his cabinet and the American public. The President calls for a joint session of the United States Congress. At the joint session he addresses the Congress, the American people, and the world. Even if half of Congress disagreed, it would not matter. Those Senators and Representatives would find themselves out of Washington after the next election.
So the President of the United States - arguably - is the most powerful individual in the world.
And if the American people vote out Congress, even those who were voted out who were against it must obey the will of the people.
So you’re saying that the President is capable of convincing the public so successfully that 100% of the public would back him, and vote solely for his party in the coming election? Really?
Maybe, but he’s just an individual. Anyone who does what he says does so because they choose to do so.
Again, you’re envisioning a situation where 100% of the electorate votes either for the Republicans or the Democrats.
Are you even from this planet?
And BTW, what about the heads of government that do not agree with the majority decision of the G-192?
For thos eof you playing at home who are not familiar with Kozmik’s political ideas, I pit the derisive, condenscending, anti-conspiriacy ... [merged threads] - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board
Why did you stop there? In this fanciful scenario, why not just add that the president convinced both houses of Congress as well? Heck, he convinced all state legislatures as well. Now he can finally pass that Constitutional amendment that gives pigs the right to fly.
Oh, and to answer today’s question, anarchy in international relations is a Feature, not a Bug.
A formal structure where every decision is made through individual interactions between heads of state would ensure that the concerns of less powerful peoples and countries would not be addressed, and the agenda of the more powerful or influential countries would be imposed.
It might be very interesting but would also never happen with things being the way they are. The U.S. and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since 1980, and I’m sure Iran has never recognized Israel. In fact this is one of the reasons there are so many levels of diplomatic contact: if the U.S. and Iran need to discuss some issue, they can do so without their presidents or chief diplomats meeting and conferring, which might confer some kind of unintended legitimacy or approval of the other country’s government or actions.
Congress regularly disagrees with what Presidents and the international consensus agrees with. Google the Law of the Sea Treaty. Or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Or the Kyoto Protocol. Or many other things.
I’m pretty sure lemur was disagreeing with you; your cite of his post actually means you’re “proving” your assertion by citing a rejection of your assertion. I’m afraid you simply didn’t understand what he was saying.
So again, why would heads of government agree on things when ambassadors at the UN, acting under instructions from their government, disagree on so many things?
No. I’m envisioning a situation where only Tea Party/Occupy Republican/Democrats are elected.
Because presumably heads of government would not be acting under instructions from anyone.
Really. So please tell us: what, exactly, could the President of the United States say to make that happen?
No, they’d be acting under instructions from the heads of government, just like the ambassadors.
It seems to be that your entire “theory” is based on the assumption that heads of government possess some crucial information that they withhold from their direct subordinates. Can you tell me, in concrete terms, what this information is?