Shake, Shake,Shake the boobs

Lufthansa

Quiz

World Time Saver GMT/UTC

|

Enter a country or city:

Phone App

Plains Milky Way from Randy Halverson on Vimeo.

Never Been Kissed

Sanskrit Dictionary English Version

	English to Sanskrit Dictionary Powered by Tamilcube.com

rpulim Don't Worry Baby

Modified and Lyrics(english) version of Hero1983_RKP

Happy New Year 2012

Singapore Time

Online Users

online
No Deposit Online Casino

NewsVine

Seed Newsvine

Videos

Britney Spears - Hold It Against Me

Currency Exchange Rates

 |

Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia|Dictionary

meals

Wines

NASA

scanner

Weather

Weather Forecast | Weather Maps | Weather Radar

Secularism

Alas searched the Oxford Dictionary for the definition or meaning.
secular(secu|lar)
1 not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
secular buildings
secular attitudes to death
... Contrasted with sacred
2 Christian Church(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. Contrasted with regular
3 Astronomyof or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
4 Economics(of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period:
there is evidence that the slump is not cyclical but secular
5 occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome). noun
a secular priest. Derivatives
secularism noun, secularist noun, secularity, Pronunciation:/-ˈlarɪti/noun
secularization, Pronunciation:/-ˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/ noun secularize verb, secularly adverb

Wonderful World

by Ramakrishna Pulim on Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 7:35pm

Do you know, we are all living at the verge of the wonderful world, everybody got their own place to make it look like one without being eccentric and filled with pity, sympathy and compassion, else we would have been calling it names.

A Dream

by Ramakrishna Pulim on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 10:03pm

 I had a dream from my child hood to take india to that elite level amongst the world's wealthy nations using our diversified man power .
As i was growing up it became fading n fading as the governments and the bureaucracy fumbled, failed to steady the process of giving good governance as well as administative services.
Then i decided no one can put back n straighten up the fallen foundations build by the fore fathers who fought for the fore existence of the same shattered India into pieces and fought for the causes of the humidified and demystified India in the name of the freedom and Independence for every citizen of India to see that the sun shines in their lives and will participate and be the witness for the better India.
But as one by one faltered n fallen to the cowardice of the corrupted, black marketeers, black mailers, power brokers, arms dealers as well as their brokers in the disguise of terrorism or other nasty and dastardly n disdain acts.
Alas, when hearsey, you took the reigns of shattered indans and Indias dream of competing in to the world of development, using your religion or your hiher offices to influence the powerful leaders n their countries to align with India and full fill the dreams of not only an elementary boy at that times as well as many Indians entrusted confidence to lead India into the fore front along the lines of the advanced and super powerful nations.
You should believe and have faith as a foreigner (by birth)  how far that dream of scores of indians if not tons to build this country into one nation and stood high among the so called rich and super powers. You decide and i will see.

Globalization

by Ramakrishna Pulim on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 12:46pm

 Globalisation meaning according to theAmericans Merriams Webster dictionary is " the act or process of globalizing : the state of being globalized; especially : the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets"
Oxford Dictionary is "the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale:" fears about the increasing globalization of the world economy
Your dictionary.com is "the process of globalizing something; specif., the expansion of many businesses into markets throughout the world, marked by an increase in international investment, the proliferation of large multinational corporations, worldwide economic integration, etc."
                                                       
                                                          

Globalization Pic

Globalization is a difficult term to define because it has come to mean so many things. In general, globalization refers to the trend toward countries joining together economically, through education, society and politics, and viewing themselves not only through their national identity but also as part of the world as a whole. Globalization is said to bring people of all nations closer together, especially through a common medium like the economy or the Internet. In our world, there are few places a person can’t get to within a day of travel, and few people a person can’t reach via telephone or Internet. Because of modern modes of travel and communication, citizens of a nation are more conscious of the world at large and may be influenced by other cultures in a variety of ways. Time and space matter less, and even language barriers are being overcome as people all over the world communicate through trade, social Internet forums, various media sources, and a variety of other ways.
Arguments for globalization include the following:

• It is reducing poverty worldwide.
• It is allowing access to technology in developing countries.
• It promotes world peace.
• It has benefited women and children’s rights.
• It raises life expectancy.

Arguments against globalization are likely to come from people or nations who wish to resist trends in the global society. For instance, a Fundamentalist Islamic country may resist globalization because they see it as equivalent to westernization—weakening the religious strength of a country and exposing its people to corrupting ideas. Similarly, globalization may be feared or a matter of a concern to any country with strong isolationist policies. In the US, much of the arguments for resisting globalization come from conservative groups.
Some people worry about how certain trends, such as outsourcing, might affect the nation. Concern exists that while outsourcing might benefit a nation which gets jobs, this takes jobs from the country or company that outsources. In this way, though the economy of the world is more globalized, the economy of an individual nation might suffer.

Globalization Capitalism
Globalization Pros And Cons
Globalization Americanization
Globalization Euro Union
Globalization China
Effects Of Globalization
Globalization Interdependence
Globalization Positives
World Bank Globalization


Even though globalization may be a subject of argument, it’s highly unlikely to end any time soon. It would take mass destruction of all modern methods of communication and transport, in addition to all countries taking strong isolationist policies in order to reverse the globalization trends in the world. This doesn’t mean that some nations or people won’t resist what they view as globalization, but you could compare this trend to a runaway train. At this point, there is little to do to stop the communication of minds all over the world through vehicles like the Internet. Even teens and kids are communicating with children from “the four corners” of the globe. It’s therefore unlikely that globalization will experience a downward trend, and will likely continue to influence our world in myriad ways

<span>Chinese Globalization  </span>read in this article follow the link:
 http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2005/RAND_CT244.pdf
<span>Euro union Globalisation</span>
European Union

(EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe. The population of 500 million inhabitants, generated an estimated 28% share (US$ 16.5 trillion) of the nominal gross world product in 2009. As a trading bloc the EU accounts for 20% of global imports and exports.
The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC) formed by six countries in the 1950s. Since the Treaty of Rome in 1958 the EEC is committed to regional integration and has grown in size through the accession of new member states. The addition of policy areas to its remit and the implementation of new institutions has increased the political sovereignty. The Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 established the European Union with its current name. A monetary union, the eurozone, has been established since the inception in 1999 and is made of sixteen member states. The last amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU came into force in 2009 and was the Lisbon Treaty.
The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmentally made decisions negotiated by the member states.Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens. The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states including the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area.[14] It ensures the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintains common policies on trade,agriculture,fisheries and regional development. Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy the EU has developed a limited role in external relations and defence. Permanent diplomatic missions have been established around the world and the EU is represented at the United Nations, the WTO, the G8 and the G-20.

Euro flag

The European Union is composed of 27 sovereign Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.The Union's membership has grown from the original six founding states—Belgium, France, (then-West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—to the present day 27 by successive enlargements as countries acceded to the treaties and by doing so, pooled their sovereignty in exchange for representation in the institutions.
 To join the EU a country must meet the Copenhagen criteria, defined at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council. These require a stable democracy that respects human rights and the rule of law; a functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU; and the acceptance of the obligations of membership, including EU law. Evaluation of a country's fulfilment of the criteria is the responsibility of the European Council. No member state has ever left the Union, although Greenland (an autonomous province of Denmark) withdrew in 1985.The Lisbon Treaty now provides a clause dealing with how a member leaves the EU.
There are four official candidate countries, Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia,and Turkey. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia are officially recognised as potential candidates.Kosovo is also listed as a potential candidate but the European Commission does not list it as an independent country because not all member states recognise it as an independent country separate from Serbia.
Four Western European countries that are not EU members have partly committed to the EU's economy and regulations: Iceland (a candidate country for EU membership), Liechtenstein and Norway, which are a part of the single market through the European Economic Area, and Switzerland, which has similar ties through bilateral treaties. The relationships of the European microstates, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican include the use of the euro and other areas of co-operation.

Language
European spoken languages report (EU-251)
Language Native Speakers Total
English 13% 51%
German 18% 32%
French 12% 26%
Italian 13% 16%
Spanish 9% 15%
Polish 9% 10%
Dutch 5% 6%
Greek 3% 3%
Czech 2% 3%
Swedish 2% 3%
Hungarian 2% 2%
Portuguese 2% 2%
Slovak 1% 2%
Danish 1% 1%
Finnish 1% 1%
Lithuanian 1% 1%
Slovenian 1% 1%
Bulgarian <1% <1%
Estonian <1% <1%
Irish/Gaelic <1% <1%
Latvian <1% <1%
Maltese <1% <1%
Romanian <1% <1%

New World Order

by Ramakrishna Pulim on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 5:56pm

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

The first Western usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of World War II when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association to the failed League of Nations the phrase would have brought. However, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a "new world order."
The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and realistic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the Gulf War.



Historical usage



Woodrow Wilson and the Origin of the League of Nations.



The phrase "new world order" was explicitly used in connection with Woodrow Wilson's designs in the period just after World War I, during the formation of the League of Nations. "The war to end war" had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had. The first world war had been justified not only in terms of U.S. national interest but in moral terms—to "make the world safe for democracy." After the war, Wilson argued for a new world order which transcended traditional great power politics, instead emphasizing collective security, democracy, and self-determination. However, the United States Senate rejected membership of the League of Nations, which Wilson believed to be the key to a new world order. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge argued that American policy should be based on human nature "as it is, not as it ought to be."
The term fell from use when it became clear the League was not living up to the over-optimistic expectation, and as a consequence was used very little during the formation of the United Nations. Former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim felt that this new world order was a projection of the American dream into Europe, and that, in its naïveté, the idea of a new order had been used to further the parochial interests of Lloyd George and Clemenceau, thus ensuring the League's eventual failure.
Post-Cold War "new world order"
The phrase "new world order", as used to herald in the post-Cold War era, had no developed or substantive definition. There appear to have been three distinct periods in which it was progressively redefined, first by the Soviets, and later by the United States before the Malta Conference, and again after Bush's speech of September 11, 1990. Throughout the period of the phrase’s use, the public seemed to expect much more from the phrase than any politicians did, and predictions about the new order quickly outraced the rather lukewarm descriptions made in official speeches.

1. At first, the new world order dealt almost exclusively with nuclear disarmament and security arrangements. Gorbachev would then expand the phrase to include UN strengthening, and great power cooperation on a range of North-South, economic, and security problems. Implications for NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and European integration were subsequently included.
2. The Malta Conference collected these various expectations, and they were fleshed out in more detail by the press. German reunification, human rights, and the polarity of the international system were then included.
3. The Gulf War crisis refocused the term on superpower cooperation and regional crises. Economics, North-South problems, the integration of the Soviets into the international system, and the changes in economic and military polarity received greater attention.

Gorbachev's formulation
The first press reference to the phrase came from Russo-Indian talks, November 21, 1988. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi used the term in reference to the commitments made by the USSR through the Delhi Declaration of two years previous. The new world order which he describes is characterized by "non-violence and the principles of peaceful coexistence." He also includes the possibility of a sustained peace, an alternative to the nuclear balance of terror, dismantling of nuclear weapons systems, significant cuts in strategic arms, and eventually a general and complete disarmament.
Three days later, a Guardian article quotes NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner as saying that the Soviets have come close to accepting NATO’s doctrine of military stability based on a mix of nuclear as well as conventional arms. This, in his opinion, would spur the creation of "a new security framework" and a move towards "a new world order."
But the principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Mikhail Gorbachev’s December 7, 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. His formulation included an extensive list of ideas in creating a new order. He advocated strengthening the central role of the United Nations, and the active involvement of all members—the Cold War had prevented the UN and its Security Council from performing their roles as initially envisioned. The de-ideologizing of relations among states was the mechanism through which this new level of cooperation could be achieved. Concurrently, Gorbachev recognized only one world economy—essentially an end to economic blocs. Furthermore, he advocated Soviet entry into several important international organizations, such as the CSCE and International Court of Justice. Reinvigoration of the UN peacekeeping role, and recognition that superpower cooperation can and will lead to the resolution of regional conflicts was especially key in his conception of cooperation. He argued that the use of force or the threat of the use of force was no longer legitimate, and that the strong must demonstrate restraint toward the weak. He foresaw, as the major powers of the world, the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, India, China, Japan, and Brazil. He asked for cooperation on environmental protection, on debt relief for developing countries, on disarmament of nuclear weapons, on preservation of the ABM treaty, and on a convention for the elimination of chemical weapons. At the same time he promised the significant withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe and Asia, as well as an end to the jamming of Radio Liberty.
Gorbachev described a phenomenon that could be described as a global political awakening:
“ We are witnessing most profound social change. Whether in the East or the South, the West or the North, hundreds of millions of people, new nations and states, new public movements and ideologies have moved to the forefront of history. Broad-based and frequently turbulent popular movements have given expression, in a multidimensional and contradictory way, to a longing for independence, democracy and social justice. The idea of democratizing the entire world order has become a powerful socio-political force. At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has turned many economic, food, energy, environmental, information and population problems, which only recently we treated as national or regional ones, into global problems. Thanks to the advances in mass media and means of transportation, the world seems to have become more visible and tangible. International communication has become easier than ever before. ”
In the press, Gorbachev was compared to Woodrow Wilson giving the Fourteen Points, to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Churchill promulgating the Atlantic Charter, and to Marshall and Truman building the Western Alliance. His speech, while visionary, was to be approached with caution. He was seen as attempting a fundamental redefinition of international relationships, on economic and environmental levels. His support "for independence, democracy and social justice" was highlighted. But the principle message taken from his speech was that of a new world order based on pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.
“ For a new type of progress throughout the world to become a reality, everyone must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order. — Gorbachev, June 1990 ”
A month later, Time Magazine ran a longer analysis of the speech and its possible implications. The promises of a new world order based on the forswearing of military use of force was viewed partially as a threat, which might "lure the West toward complacency" and "woo Western Europe into neutered neutralism." The more overriding threat, however, was that the West did not yet have any imaginative response to Gorbachev—leaving the Soviets with the moral initiative, and solidifying Gorbachev’s place as "the most popular world leader in much of Western Europe." The article noted as important his de-ideologized stance, willingness to give up use of force, commitment to troop cuts in Eastern Europe (accelerating political change there), and compliance with the ABM treaty. According to the article, the new world order seemed to imply: shifting of resources from military to domestic needs; a world community of states based on the rule of law; a dwindling of security alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact; and, an inevitable move toward European integration. The author of the Time article felt that Bush should counter Gorbachev’s "common home" rhetoric toward the Europeans with the idea of "common ideals," turning an alliance of necessity into one of shared values. Gorbachev’s repudiation of expansionism leaves America in a good position, no longer having to support anti-communist dictators, and able to pursue better goals: the environment, nonproliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, reducing famine and poverty, and resolving regional conflicts.[6] Similarly, in A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft’s concern about losing leadership to Gorbachev is noted, and they worry that the Europeans might stop following the U.S. if it appears to drag its feet.
As Europe passed into the new year, the implications of the new world order for the European Community surfaced. The EC was seen as the vehicle for integrating East and West in such a manner that they could "pool their resources and defend their specific interests in dealings with those superpowers on something more like equal terms." It would be less exclusively tied to the U.S., and stretch "from Brest to Brest-Litovsk, or at least from Dublin to Lublin." By July 1989, newspapers were still criticizing Bush for his lack of response to Gorbachev’s proposals. Bush visited Europe but "left undefined for those on both sides of the Iron Curtain his vision for the new world order", leading commentators to view the U.S. as over-cautious and reactive, rather than pursuing long-range strategic goals.
The Malta Conference
 George H. W. Bush
In A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft detail their crafting of a strategy aimed at flooding Gorbachev with proposals at the Malta Conference to catch him off guard, preventing the U.S. from coming out of the summit on the defensive.
The Malta Conference on December 2–3, 1989 reinvigorated discussion of the new world order. Various new concepts arose in the press as elements on the new order. Commentators expected the replacement of containment with superpower cooperation. This cooperation might then tackle problems such as reducing armaments and troop deployments, settling regional disputes, stimulating economic growth, lessening East-West trade restrictions, the inclusion of the Soviets in international economic institutions, and protecting the environment. Pursuant to superpower cooperation, a new role for NATO was forecast, with the organization perhaps changing into a forum for negotiation and treaty verification, or even a wholesale dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact following the resurrection of the four-power framework from WWII (i.e. the U.S., United Kingdom, France, and Russia). However, continued U.S. military presence in Europe was expected to help contain "historic antagonisms", thus making possible a new European order.
In Europe, German reunification was seen as part of the new order. However, Strobe Talbott saw it as more of a brake on the new era, and believed Malta to be a holding action on part of the superpowers designed to forestall the "new world order" because of the German question. Political change in Eastern Europe also arose on the agenda. The Eastern Europeans believed that the new world order didn’t signify superpower leadership, but that superpower dominance was coming to an end.
In general, the new security structure arising from superpower cooperation seemed to indicate to observers that the new world order would be based on the principles of political liberty, self-determination, and non-intervention. This would mean an end to the sponsoring of military conflicts in third countries, restrictions on global arms sales, and greater engagement in the Middle East (especially regarding Syria, Palestine, and Israel). The U.S. might use this opportunity to more emphatically promote human rights in China and South Africa.
Economically, debt relief was expected to be a significant issue, as East-West competition would give way to North-South cooperation. Economic tripolarity would arise with the U.S., Germany, and Japan as the three motors of world growth. Meanwhile, the Soviet social and economic crisis was manifestly going to limit its ability to project power abroad, thus necessitating continued U.S. leadership.
Commentators assessing the results of the Conference, and how the pronouncements measured up to expectations, were underwhelmed. Bush was criticized for taking refuge behind notions of "status quo-plus" rather than a full commitment to new world order. Others noted that Bush thus far failed to satisfy the out-of-control "soaring expectations" that Gorbachev’s speech unleashed.


The Gulf War and Bush's formulation
 Bush greeting troops on the eve of the First Gulf War.
Bush started to take the initiative from Gorbachev during the run-up to the Gulf War, when he began to define the elements of the new world order as he saw it, and link the new order’s success to the international community’s response in Kuwait.
Initial agreement by the Soviets to allow action against Saddam highlighted this linkage in the press. The Washington Post declared that this superpower cooperation demonstrates that the Soviet Union has joined the international community, and that in the new world order Saddam faces not just the U.S. but the international community itself. A New York Times editorial was the first to assert that at stake in the collective response to Saddam was "nothing less than the new world order which [Bush] and other leaders struggle to shape." In A World Transformed, Scowcroft notes that Bush even offered to have Soviet troops amongst the coalition forces liberating Kuwait. Bush places the fate of the new world order on the ability of the U.S. and the Soviet Union to respond to Hussein’s aggression. The idea that the Gulf War would usher in the new world order began to take shape. Bush notes that the "premise [was] that the United States henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree, as demonstrated by the Iraqi crisis, and that we should attempt to pursue our national interests, wherever possible, within a framework of concert with our friends and the international community."


On March 6, 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the Bush administration’s principal policy statement on the new world order in the Middle East, following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.[18][19] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying; “The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights.” As a first step Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.
A pivotal point came with Bush’s September 11, 1990 "Toward a New World Order" speech (full text) to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson, and to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the creation of the UN. Key points picked up in the press were:

• Commitment to U.S. strength, such that it can lead the world toward rule of law, rather than use of force. The Gulf crisis was seen as a reminder that the U.S. must continue to lead, and that military strength does matter, but that the resulting new world order should make military force less important in the future.
• Soviet–American partnership in cooperation toward making the world safe for democracy, making possible the goals of the UN for the first time since its inception. Some countered that this was unlikely, and that ideological tensions would remain, such that the two superpowers could be partners of convenience for specific and limited goals only. The inability of the USSR to project force abroad was another factor in skepticism toward such a partnership.
• Another caveat raised was that the new world order was based not on U.S.-Soviet cooperation, but really on Bush-Gorbachev cooperation, and that the personal diplomacy made the entire concept exceedingly fragile.
• Future cleavages were to be economic, not ideological, with the First and Second world cooperating to contain regional instability in the Third World. Russia could become an ally against economic assaults from Asia, Islamic terrorism, and drugs from Latin America.
• Soviet integration into world economic institutions, such as the G7, and establishment of ties with the European Community.
• Restoration of German sovereignty and Cambodia’s acceptance of the UN Security Council’s peace plan on the day previous to the speech were seen as signs of what to expect in the new world order
• The reemergence of Germany and Japan as members of the great powers, and concomitant reform of the UN Security Council was seen as necessary for great power cooperation and reinvigorated UN leadership
• Europe was seen as taking the lead on building their own world order, while the U.S. was relegated to the sidelines. The rationale for U.S. presence on the continent was vanishing, and the Gulf crisis was seen as incapable of rallying Europe. Instead Europe was discussing the European Community, the CSCE, and relations with the USSR. Gorbachev even proposed an all-European security council to replace the CSCE, in effect superseding the increasingly irrelevant NATO.
• A very few postulated a bi-polar new order of U.S. power and UN moral authority, the first as global policeman, the second as global judge and jury. The order would be collectivist, in which decisions and responsibility would be shared.

These were the common themes that emerged from reporting about Bush’s speech and its implications. Critics held that Bush and Baker remained too vague about what exactly the order entailed.


Does it mean a strengthened U.N.? And new regional security arrangements in the gulf and elsewhere? Will the U.S. be willing to put its own military under international leadership? In the Gulf, Mr. Bush has rejected a UN command outright. Sometimes, when Administration officials describe their goals, they say the U.S. must reduce its military burden and commitment. Other times, they appear determined to seek new arrangements to preserve U.S. military supremacy and to justify new expenditures. ”
The New York Times observed that the American left was calling the new world order a "rationalization for imperial ambitions" in the Middle East, while the right rejected new security arrangements altogether and fulminated about any possibility of UN revival. Pat Buchanan predicted that the Gulf War would in fact be the demise of the new world order, the concept of UN peacekeeping, and the U.S.'s role as global policeman.
A vision of unipolarity

The LA Times reported that the speech signified more than just the rhetoric about superpower cooperation. In fact, the deeper reality of the new world order was the United States’ emergence "as the single greatest power in a multipolar world." Moscow was crippled by internal problems, and thus unable to project power abroad. The United States, while hampered by economic malaise, was militarily unconstrained for the first time since the end of WWII. Militarily, it was now a unipolar world, as illustrated by the Gulf crisis. While diplomatic rhetoric stressed a U.S.-Soviet partnership, the U.S. was deploying troops to Saudi Arabia, a mere 700 miles from the Soviet frontier, and was preparing for war against a former Soviet client state. Further, U.S. authority over the Soviets was displayed in 1) the unification of Germany, withdrawal of Soviet forces, and almost open appeal to Washington for aid in managing the Soviet transition to democracy, 2) withdrawal of Soviet support for Third World clients, and 3) Soviets seeking economic aid through membership in Western international economic and trade communities.


The past is prologue


James Baker, Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush.


The Economist published an article explaining the drive toward the Gulf War in terms presaging the run-up to the Iraq War of 2003. The author notes directly that despite the coalition, in the minds of most governments this is America's war, and Bush that "chose to stake his political life on defeating Mr Hussein." An attack on Iraq would certainly shatter Bush’s alliance, they assert, predicting calls from Security Council members saying that diplomacy should have been given more time, and that they will not wish to allow a course of action "that leaves America sitting too prettily as sole remaining superpower." When the unanimity of the Security Council ends, "all that lovely talk about the new world order" will too. And when casualties mount, "Bush will be called a warmonger, an imperialist and a bully." The article goes on to say that Bush and James Baker’s speechifying cannot save the new world order once they launch a controversial war. It closes noting that a wide consensus is not necessary for U.S. action—only a hard core of supporters: Saudi Arabia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Britain. The rest need only not interfere.
In a passage with similar echoes of the future, Bush and Scowcroft explain in A World Transformed the role of the UN Secretary General in attempting to avert the Gulf War. UN Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar arrived at Camp David to ask what he could do to head off the war. Bush told him that it was important that we get full implementation on every UN resolution. "If we compromise, we weaken the UN and our own credibility in building this new world order," I said. "I think Saddam Hussein doesn’t believe force will be used—or if it is, he can produce a stalemate." Additional meetings between Baker or Pérez and the Iraqis are rejected for fear that they will simply come back empty-handed once again. Bush fears that Javier will be cover for Hussein’s manipulations. Pérez suggests another Security Council meeting, but Bush sees no reason for one.
Following the Gulf War



Following the Gulf conflict—which was seen as the crucible in which great power cooperation and collective security would emerge the new norms of the era—several academic assessments of the "new world order" idea were published.
John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War historian, wrote in Foreign Affairs about what he saw as the key characteristics of the potential new order: unchallenged American primacy, increasing integration, resurgent nationalism and religiosity, a diffusion of security threats, and collective security. He casts the fundamental challenge as one of integration versus fragmentation, and the concomitant benefits and dangers associated with each. Changes in communications, the international economic system, the nature of security threats, and the rapid spread of new ideas would prevent nations from retreating into isolation. In light of this, Gaddis sees a chance for the democratic peace predicted by liberal international relations theorists to come closer to reality. However, he illustrates that not only is the fragmentary pressure of nationalism manifest in the former Communist bloc countries and the Third World, but is also a considerable factor in the West. Further, a revitalized Islam could play both integrating and fragmenting roles—emphasizing common identity, but also contributing to new conflicts that could resemble the Lebanese Civil War. The integration coming from the new order could also aggravate ecological, demographic, and epidemic threats. National self-determination, leading to the breakup and reunification of states (such as Yugoslavia on one hand, and Germany on the other) could signal abrupt shifts in the balance of power, with a destabilizing effect. Integrated markets, especially energy markets, are now a security liability for the world economic system, as events affecting energy security in one part of the globe could threaten countries far removed from potential conflicts. Finally, diffusion of security threats requires a new security paradigm involving low-intensity but more frequent deployment of peacekeeping troops—a type of mission that is hard to sustain under budgetary or public opinion pressure. Gaddis calls for aid to Eastern European countries, updated security and economic regimes for Europe, UN-based regional conflict resolution, a slower pace of international economic integration, and paying off the U.S. deficit.

However, statesman Strobe Talbott wrote of the new world order that it was only in the aftermath of the Gulf War that the United Nations took a step toward redefining its role to take account of both interstate relations and intrastate events. Furthermore, he asserted that it was only as an unintended postscript to Desert Storm that Bush gave meaning to the "new world order" slogan. But, by the end of the year Bush stopped talking about a new world order. His advisers explained that he had dropped the phrase because he felt it suggested more enthusiasm for the changes sweeping the planet than he actually felt. He wanted, as an antidote to the uncertainties of the world, to stress the old verities of territorial integrity, national sovereignty and international stability. David Gergen suggested at the time that it was the recession of 1991-92 which finally killed the new world order idea within the White House. The economic downturn took a deeper psychological toll than expected while domestic politics were increasingly frustrated by paralysis, with the result that the United States toward the end of 1991 turned increasingly pessimistic, inward and nationalistic.


In 1992, Hans Köchler published a critical assessment of the notion of the "new world order," describing it as an ideological tool of legitimation of the global exercise of power by the US in a unipolar environment. In Joseph S. Nye, Jr.'s analysis (1992), the collapse of the Soviet Union did not issue in a new world order per se, but rather simply allowed for the reappearance of the liberal institutional order that was supposed to have come into effect in 1945. This success of this order was not a fait accomplis, however. Three years later, G. John Ikenberry would reaffirm Nye's idea of a reclamation of the ideal post-WWII order, but would dispute the nay-sayers who had predicted post-Cold War chaos By 1997, Anne-Marie Slaughter produced an analysis calling the restoration of the post-WWII order a "chimera... infeasible at best and dangerous at worst." In her view, the new order was not a liberal institutionalist one, but one in which state authority disaggregated and decentralized in the face of globalization.


Samuel Huntington wrote critically of the "new world order" and of Francis Fukuyama's End of History theory in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order:
The expectation of harmony was widely shared. Political and intellectual leaders elaborated similar views. The Berlin wall had come down, communist regimes had collapsed, the United Nations was to assume a new importance, the former Cold War rivals would engage in "partnership" and a "grand bargain," peacekeeping and peacemaking would be the order of the day. The President of the world's leading country proclaimed the "new world order"...
The moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony, which was soon revealed to be exactly that. The world became different in the early 1990s, but not necessarily more peaceful. Change was inevitable; progress was not... The illusion of harmony at the end of that Cold War was soon dissipated by the multiplication of ethnic conflicts and "ethnic cleansing," the breakdown of law and order, the emergence of new patterns of alliance and conflict among states, the resurgence of neo-communist and neo-fascist movements, intensification of religious fundamentalism, the end of the "diplomacy of smiles" and "policy of yes" in Russia's relations with the West, the inability of the United Nations and the United States to suppress bloody local conflicts, and the increasing assertiveness of a rising China. In the five years after the Berlin wall came down, the word "genocide" was heard far more often than in any five years of the Cold War.
The one harmonious world paradigm is clearly far too divorced from reality to be a useful guide to the post-Cold War world. Two Worlds: Us and Them. While one-world expectations appear at the end of major conflicts, the tendency to think in terms of two worlds recurs through-out human history. People are always tempted to divide people into us and them, the in-group and the other, our civilization and those barbarians.
Despite the criticisms of the new world order concept, ranging from its practical unworkability to its theoretical incoherence, Bill Clinton not only signed on to the idea of the "new world order," but dramatically expanded the concept beyond Bush's formulation. The essence of Clinton's election year critique was that Bush had done too little, not too much. Following the rise of Boris Yeltsin, eclipsing Mikhail Gorbachev, and the election victory of Clinton over George H.W. Bush, the term "new world order" fell from common usage. It was replaced by competing, similar concepts about how the post-Cold War order would develop. Prominent among these were the ideas of the "era of globalization," the "unipolar moment," the "end of history," and the "Clash of Civilizations."
Viewed in retrospect

A 2001 paper in Presidential Studies Quarterly examined the idea of the "new world order" as it was presented by the Bush administration (mostly ignoring previous uses by Gorbachev). Their conclusion was that Bush really only ever had three firm aspects to the new world order:

1. Checking the offensive use of force;
2. Promoting collective security; and,
3. Using great power cooperation.

These were not developed into a policy architecture, but came about incrementally as a function of domestic, personal, and global factors. Because of the somewhat overblown expectations for the new world order in the media, Bush was widely criticized for lacking vision.
The Gulf crisis is seen as the catalyst for Bush’s development and implementation of the new world order concept. The authors note that before the crisis, the concept remained "ambiguous, nascent, and unproven" and that the United States had not assumed a leadership role with respect to the new order. Essentially, the Cold War's end was the permissive cause for the new world order, but the Gulf crisis was the active cause.
They reveal that in August 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles W. Freeman, Jr. sent a diplomatic cable to Washington from Saudi Arabia in which he argued that U.S. conduct in the Gulf crisis would determine the nature of the world. Bush would then refer to the "new world order" at least 42 times from the summer of 1990 to the end of March 1991. They also note that Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney gave three priorities to the Senate on fighting the Gulf War: prevent further aggression; protect oil supplies; and, further a new world order. The authors note that the new world order did not emerge in policy speeches until after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, maintaining that the concept was clearly not critical in the U.S. decision to deploy. John H. Sununu later indicated that the administration wanted to refrain from talking about the concept until Soviet collapse was more clear. A reversal of Soviet collapse would have been the death knell for the new order.


Bush and Scowcroft were frustrated by the exaggerated and distorted ideas surrounding the new world order. They did not intend to suggest that the U.S. would yield significant influence to the UN, or that they expected the world to enter an era of peace and tranquility. They preferred multilateralism, but did not reject unilateralism. The new world order did not signal peace, but a "challenge to keep the dangers of disorder at bay."
Bush’s drive toward the Gulf War was based on the world making a clear choice. Baker recalls that UNSCR 660’s "language was simply and crystal clear, purposely designed by us to frame the vote as being for or against aggression". Bush's motivation centered around 1) the dangers of appeasement, and 2) failure to check aggression could spark further aggression. Bush repeatedly invoked images of World War II in this connection, and became very emotional over Iraqi atrocities being committed in Kuwait.


He also believed that failure to check Iraqi aggression would lead to more challenges to the U.S.-favored status quo and global stability. While the end of the Cold War increased U.S. security globally, it remained vulnerable to regional threats. Furthermore, Washington believed that addressing the Iraqi threat would help reassert U.S. predominance in light of growing concerns about relative decline, following the resurgence of Germany and Japan.

The Gulf War was also framed as a test case for UN credibility. As a model for dealing with aggressors, Scowcroft believed that the United States ought to act in a way that others can trust, and thus get UN support. It was critical that the U.S. not look like it was throwing its weight around. Great power cooperation and UN support would collapse if the U.S. marched on the Baghdad to try and remake Iraq. However, practically, superpower cooperation was limited. For example, when the U.S. deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze became furious at not being consulted.


By 1992, the authors note, the U.S. was already abandoning the idea of collective action. The leaked draft of the (Wolfowitz-Libby) 1992 Defense Guidance Report effectively confirmed this shift, as it called for a unilateral role for the U.S. in world affairs, focusing on preserving American dominance.
In closing A World Transformed, Scowcroft sums up what his expectations were for the new world order. He states that the U.S. has the strength and the resources to pursue its own interests, but has a disproportionate responsibility to use its power in pursuit of the common good, as well as an obligation to lead and to be involved. The U.S. is perceived as uncomfortable in exercising its power, and ought to work to create predictability and stability in international relations. America need not be embroiled in every conflict, but ought to aid in developing multilateral responses to them. The U.S. can unilaterally broker disputes, but ought to act whenever possible in concert with equally committed partners to deter major aggression.
Recent political usage
Henry Kissinger stated in 1994, "The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions. Just like Zishan says." Then on January 5, 2009, when asked on television by CNBC anchors about what he suggests Barack Obama focus on during the current Israeli crises he replied that it is a time to reevaluate American foreign policy and that "he can give new impetus to American foreign policy ... I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such a crisis."


Former British United Kingdom Prime Minister and current British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000 in his Mansion House Speech that "There is a new world order like it or not"[39]. He used the term in 2001, November 12, 2001 and 2002. On January 7, 2003 he stated that "... the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it."
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on December 17, 2001, stated that "This is not the first time the world has faced this question - so fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and - in their day and for their times -- built a new world order."


 Brown also called for a "new world order" in a 2008 speech in New Delhi, to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of "the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries." He then went on, "To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions -- fit for the Cold War and a world of just 50 states -- must be radically reformed to fit our world of globalisation." He also called for the revamping of post-war global institutions including the World Bank, G8 and International Monetary Fund. Other elements of Brown's formulation include spending £100 million a year on setting up a rapid reaction force to intervene in failed states.


He has also used the term on the January 14, 2007, March 12, 2007, May 15, 2007, June 20, 2007, April 15, 2008, andon the April 18, 2008, Brown also used the term in his recent speech at the G20 Summit in London on April 2, 2009.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a new world order based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. In an exclusive interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Ahmadinejad noted that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.
Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, has said "it's time to move from words to action because this is not going to go away. This nation is fighting for its survival, but we are also fighting for world peace and we are also fighting for a Future World Order."
Turkish President, Abdullah Gül, has said "I don't think you can control all the world from one centre, There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge."
On the Colbert Report, guest John King (of CNN) mentions Obama’s "New World Order" after Stephen Colbert jokes about the media’s role in getting Obama elected.

World Government

by Ramakrishna Pulim on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 6:47pm

World Government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. Its modern conception is rooted in European history, particularly in the philosophy of ancient Greece, in the political formation of the Roman Empire, and in the subsequent struggle between secular authority, represented by the Holy Roman Emperor, and ecclesiastical authority, represented by the Pope. The seminal work on the subject was written by Dante Alighieri, titled in Latin, De Monarchia, which in English translates literally as "On Monarchy". Dante's work was published in 1329, but the date of its authorship is disputed.

 History
Empires
The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire
No complete world government has ever existed, but over human history there have been several empires or dictatorships that encompassed substantial portions of the then known world. Famous examples are Alexander the Great and his empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and the British Empire. In the case of the British, a quarter of the world's land surface and approximately a third of the world's population was part of the Empire. This is the single closest time that the world has come to a total political unification.
 Persian Empire
 Persian Empire at its greatest Extent
Under Cyrus the Great and Darius I the Persians founded one of the world's first stable empires based around the area of modern day Iran and Iraq. At its height, the empire was, arguably, the largest and most powerful state in the world, stretching from the banks of the Indus river in the area of modern-day Pakistan to roughly what now forms the westernmost boundaries of modern-day Turkey. The empire itself was widely known for its immense wealth, and it had a highly-developed bureaucracy which governed and maintained order over every part of the empire. The empire's prosperity, wealth and power drew both the admiration and envy of neighboring states, and later inspired the Ancient Macedonian king Alexander the Great to invade the empire and seize it for himself.
Asokan India
The Maurya Dynasty at its largest extent under Asoka the Great.
The Cakravartin is a popular Indian conception of a global authority. The Mauryan emperor Asoka the Great, is often considered an example of this highest political figure.
 Roman Empire
 Roman Empire at its greatest extent with the conquests of Trajan
The beneficial role of the Roman Empire in relation to Pax Romana was a subject of discourse in ancient times.
Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Since it was established by Caesar Augustus it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its timing was approximately 200 years (27 BC to 180 AD).
Sa'di
Sa'di (poet), a medieval Persian poet, considered the essence of mankind to be one and implicitly called for the elimination of racial, political and national boundaries. The most famous aphorism of Sa'di is this call for breaking all barriers:
 "Of One Essence is the Human Race, Thusly has Creation put the Base. One Limb impacted is sufficient, For all Others to feel the Mace. The Unconcern'd with Others' Plight, Are but Brutes with Human Face."
Hugo Grotius
De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) is a 1625 book in Latin, written by Hugo Grotius and published in Paris, on the legal status of war. It is now regarded as a foundational work in international law.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
United States
Federation, or federalism, evolved in the late 18th century, a period in which the first modern democratic federation, the U.S., was established (1776).

Immanuel Kant
 Immanuel Kant wrote the essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.) (1795)". In his essay, Kant describes three basic requirements for organizing human affairs to permanently abolish the threat of a future war, and, thereby, help establish a new era of lasting peace throughout the world. Specifically, Kant described his proposed peace program as containing two steps.


The "Preliminary Articles" described the steps that should be taken immediately, or with all deliberate speed:

1. "No Secret Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War"
2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation"
3. "Standing Armies Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished"
4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States"
5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State"
6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State"

Three Definitive Articles would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace.

1. "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican"
2. "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States"
3. "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"

Karl Krause
In 1811, a German philosopher Karl Krause, suggested, in an essay titled "The Archetype of Humanity", the formation of five regional federations: Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Australia, aggregated under a world republic. In 1842, the English poet Lord Alfred Tennyson, published the oft-quoted lines "Locksley Hall": For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see / Saw a Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be /... / Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer / and the battle-flags were furled / In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. / There the common sense of most shall hold / a fretful realm in awe / And the kindly earth shall slumber / lapt in universal law.
Bahá'u'lláh
Though not playing a significant role in Western history, between 1852 and 1892 Bahá'u'lláh founded the Bahá'í Faith, a religion which identified the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations as a key principle. He envisioned a set of new social structures based on participation and consultation among the world's peoples, including a world legislature, an international court, and an international executive empowered to carry out the decisions of these legislative and judicial bodies. Connected principles of the Bahá'í religion include universal systems of weights and measures, currency unification, and the adoption of a global auxiliary language.[3] The Bahá'í Faith currently counts in excess of 5 million members spread across the globe.
Switzerland
Following the U.S. experiment, Switzerland (1848) and Canada (1867) formed the first multi-state federations, uniting distinct ethnic/cultural/lingual regions under a common government.
Ulysses S. Grant
Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us."
Wendell Wilkie expanded on this notion in his book One World.
International Peace Congress
Starting in 1843, International Peace Congresses were held in Europe every two years, but lost their momentum after 1853 due to the renewed outbreak of wars in Europe (Crimea) and North America (American Civil War).
International organizations
 International organizations started forming in the late 19th century – the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863, the Telegraphic Union in 1865 and the Universal Postal Union in 1874. The increase in international trade at the turn of the 20th century accelerated the formation of international organizations, and, by the start of World War I in 1914, there were approximately 450 of them. Support for the idea of establishing international law grew during that period as well. The Institute of International Law was formed in 1873 by the Belgian Jurist Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns, leading to the creation of concrete legal drafts, for example by the Swiss Johaan Bluntschli in 1866[citation needed]. In 1883, James Lorimer published "The Institutes of the Law of Nations" in which he explored the idea of a world government establishing the global rule of law. The first embryonic world parliament, called the Inter-Parliamentary Union, was organized in 1886 by Cremer and Passy, composed of legislators from many countries. In 1904 the Union formally proposed "an international congress which should meet periodically to discuss international questions".
League of Nations
The League of Nations (LoN) was an inter-governmental organization founded as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919–1920. At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members. The League's goals included upholding the new found Rights of Man such as right of non whites, rights of women, rights of soldiers, disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global quality of life. The diplomatic philosophy behind the League represented a fundamental shift in thought from the preceding hundred years. The League lacked its own armed force and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, keep to economic sanctions which the League ordered, or provide an army, when needed, for the League to use. However, they were often reluctant to do so.
Atlantic Charter
 Winston Churchill's edited copy of the final draft of the Atlantic Charter.
 The Atlantic Charter was a published statement agreed between Britain and the United States of America. It was intended as the blueprint for the postwar world after World War II, and turned out to be the foundation for many of the international agreements that currently shape the world. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the post-war independence of British and French possessions, and much more are derived from the Atlantic Charter.
United Nations
Emblem of the United Nations

                                   

United Nations

World War II, 1939–1945, resulted in an unprecedented scale of destruction of lives (over 60 million dead, most of them civilians), and the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some of the acts committed against civilians during the war were on such a massive scale of savagery, they came to be widely considered as crimes against humanity itself. As the war's conclusion drew near, many shocked voices called for the establishment of institutions able to permanently prevent deadly international conflicts. This led to the founding of the United Nations in 1945, which adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Many, however, felt that the UN, essentially a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, was insufficiently empowered for the task. A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government.


World Federalist Movement

The years between the conclusion of World War II and 1950, when the Korean War started and the Cold War mindset became dominant in international politics, were the "golden age" of the world federalist movement. Wendell Wilkie's book "One World", first published in 1943, sold over 2 million copies. In another, Emery Reves' book "The Anatomy of Peace"(1945) laid out the arguments for replacing the UN with a federal world government and quickly became the "bible" of world federalists. The grassroots world federalist movement in the US, led by people such as Grenville Clark, Norman Cousins, Alan Cranston and Robert Hutchins, organized itself into increasingly larger structures, finally forming, in 1947, the United World Federalists (later renamed to World Federalist Association, then Citizens for Global Solutions), claiming membership of 47,000 in 1949.

Similar movements concurrently formed in many other countries, leading to the formation, at a 1947 meeting in Montreux, Switzerland, of a global coalition, now called World Federalist Movement. By 1950, the movement claimed 56 member groups in 22 countries, with some 156,000 members. In France, 1948, Garry Davis began an unauthorized speech calling for a world government from the balcony of the UN General Assembly, until he was dragged away by the guards. Mr. Davis renounced his American citizenship and started a Registry of World Citizens, which claimed to have registered over 750,000 people in less than two years. Opinion polls carried out by UNESCO in 1948-1949 found world government favored by a majority of respondents in six European countries and rejected in three other countries (Australia, Mexico and the United States)[citation needed]. On September 4, 1953, Davis, from the City Hall of Ellsworth, Maine, announced the formation of the "World Government of World Citizens" based on 3 "World Laws" — One God (or Absolute Value), One World, and One Humanity. Following this declaration mandated he claimed by article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he formed the United World Service Authority in New York City as the administrative agency of the new government. Its first task was to design and issue a "World Passport" based on article 13(2) of the UDHR. To date, over 800,000 of these documents have been issued to individuals worldwide. They have been recognized de facto by over 150 countries.
World Passport (1953)
The World Passport is a 45 page document issued by the World Service Authority, a non-profit organization,citing Article 13, Section 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. World Passports have reportedly been accepted on a de facto, case-by-case basis by over 174 countries and, at one time or another, on an explicit, legal or de jure basis by Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia. The latest edition of the World Passport, issued January 2007, is an MRD (machine readable document) with an alphanumeric code bar enabling computer input plus an embedded "ghost" photo for security, printing overcovered with a plastic film. The passport is in 7 languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Esperanto. Two covers are available: "World Passport," and "World Government Passport" (for registered World Citizens), ("passport" is in 7 languages on both covers). Duration is 8 years, 5 years or 3 years. Other documents issued by WSA are a World Birth Certificate (Art. 1, UDHR), a World Political Asylum Card (Art. 14, UDHR), a World Marriage Certificate, (Art. 16, UDHR) and a World Identity Card, (Art 21,3, UDHR).
Legal Realism (1954)

Legal anthropologist E. Adamson Hoebel concluded his treatise on broadening the legal realist tradition to include non-Western nations: “Whatever the idealist may desire, force and the threat of force are the ultimate power in the determination of international behavior, as in the law within the nation or tribe. But until force and the threat of force in international relations are brought under social control by the world community, by and for the world society, they remain the instruments of social anarchy and not the sanctions of world law. The creation in clear-cut terms of the corpus of world law cries for the doing. If world law, however, is to be realized at all, there will have to be minimum of general agreement as to the nature of the physical and ideational world and the relation of men in society to it. An important and valuable next step will be found in deep-cutting analysis of the major law systems of the contemporary world in order to lay bare their basic postulates – postulates that are too generally hidden; postulates felt, perhaps, by those who live by them, but so much taken for granted that they are rarely expressed or exposed for examination. When this is done – and it will take the efforts of many keen intellects steeped in the law of at least a dozen lands and also aware of the social nexus of the law – then mankind will be able to see clearly for the first time and clearly where the common consensus of the great living social and law systems lies. Here will be found the common postulates and values upon which the world community can build. At the same time the truly basic points of conflict that will have to be worked upon for resolution will be revealed. Law is inherently purposive."
The end of the Cold War (1990)
While enthusiasm for multinational federalism in Europe incrementally led, over the following decades, to the formation of the European Union, the onset of the Cold War (1950–1990) eliminated the prospects of any progress towards federation with a more global scope. The movement quickly shrunk in size to a much smaller core of activists, and the FWG idea all but disappeared from wide public discourse.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, interest in a federal world government and, more generally, in the global protection of human rights, was renewed. The most visible achievement of the world federalism movement during the 1990s is the Rome Statute of 1998, which led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002. In Europe, progress towards forming a federal union of European states gained much momentum, starting in 1952 as a trade deal between the German and French people lead, in 1992, to the Maastricht Treaty that established the name and enlarged the agreement that the European Union (EU) is based upon. The EU expanded (1995, 2004, 2007) to encompass, in 2007, nearly half a billion people in 27 member states. Following EU's example, the African Union was founded in 2002 and the Union of South American Nations in 2004.
Caliphate

More recently a minor movement in Islam has called for a world Caliphate, whereby sharia law would be applied to everyone, everywhere.
Existing regional unions of nations

Main article: Regional organization

Main article: Supranational union 

A global map showing some supranational unions.

The only union generally recognized as having achieved the status of a supranational union is the European Union.
There are a number of other regional organisations that, while not supranational unions, have adopted or intend to adopt policies that may lead to a similar sort of integration in some respects.

• African Union (AU)
• Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
• Central American Integration System (SICA)
• Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG)
• Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
• Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC)
• South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
• Union of South American Nations (UNASUR)
• Union State
• Arab League
• Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

Other organisations that have also discussed greater integration include:

• Arab League into an "Arab Union"
• North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into the "North American Union"
• Pacific Islands Forum into the "Pacific Union"
• Caribbean Community (CARICOM) into a Caribbean Federation

European Union
Map of EU nations.
The most relevant model for the incremental establishment of a global federation may be the European Union, which politically unites a large group of widely diverse, some formerly hostile, nations spread over a large geographical area and 500 million people. Though the EU is still evolving, it already has many attributes of a federal government, such as open internal borders, a directly elected parliament, a court system, an official currency (Euro) and a centralized economic policy.
The EU's lead is being followed by the African Union, the Union of South American Nations, the Organization of Central American States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. A multitude of regional associations, aggregating most nations of the world, are at different stages of development towards a growing extent of economic, and sometimes political, integration.
CARICOM
Map of CARICOM nations.
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), is an organization of 15 Caribbean nations and dependencies. CARICOM's main purpose is to promote economic integration and cooperation among its members, to ensure that the benefits of integration are equitably shared and to coordinate foreign policy.[1] Its major activities involve coordinating economic policies and development planning; devising and instituting special projects for the less-developed countries within its jurisdiction; operating as a regional single market for many of its members CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME); and handling regional trade disputes.
Since the establishment of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) by the mainly English Creole-speaking parts of the Caribbean region CARICOM has become multilingual in practice with the addition of Dutch speaking Suriname on 4 July 1995 (although the lingua franca in Suriname is Sranan Tongo, which is an English-based Creole like the languages spoken in much of the rest of CARICOM) and Haiti, where French and Haitian Creole are spoken, on 2 July 2002. In 2001, the heads of government signed a Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas in Trinidad and Tobago, clearing the way for the transformation of the idea for a Common Market aspect of CARICOM into instead a Caribbean (CARICOM) Single Market and Economy. Part of the revised treaty among member states includes the establishment and implementation of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).'
African Union
The African Union (AU) is an organisation consisting of fifty-three African states. Established on July 9, 2002, the AU was formed as a successor to the amalgamated African Economic Community (AEC) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Eventually, the AU aims to have a single currency and a single integrated defence force, as well as other institutions of state, including a cabinet for the AU Head of State. The purpose of the union is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market.
Projects for improved economic and political cooperation are also happening at a regional level with the Arab Maghreb Union, the Economic Community of West African States, the Economic Community of Central African States the Southern African Development Community and the East African Community.
ASEAN
ASEAN, pronounced /ˈɑːsiːɑːn/ AH-see-ahn in English, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed on August 8, 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand[12] as a display of solidarity toward communist expansion in Vietnam and insurgency within their own borders. Its claimed aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, and the promotion of regional peace. All members later founded the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, which aims to unite the entire continent.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an intergovernmental organization which was founded on June 14, 2001 by the leaders of the People's Republic of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, these countries had been members of the Shanghai Five; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organization.
Commonwealth of Independent States
The Commonwealth of Independent States is comparable to a confederation similar to the original European Community. Although the CIS has few supranational powers, it is more than a purely symbolic organization, possessing coordinating powers in the realm of trade, finance, lawmaking, and security. It has also promoted cooperation on democratization and cross-border crime prevention. As a regional organization, CIS participates in UN peacekeeping forces.[14] Some of the members of the CIS have established the Eurasian Economic Community with the aim of creating a full-fledged common market.
Arab League
The Arab League is a regional organization of Arab states in Southwest Asia, and North and Northeast Africa. It was formed in Cairo on March 22, 1945 with six members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan after 1946), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Yemen joined as a member on May 5, 1945. The Arab League currently has 22 members, which also include, Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia and UAE. It has also been proposed to reform the Arab League into an Arab Union. the Arab League currently is the most important organization in the region.
Union of South American Nations
The Union of South American Nations was founded in 2006-2008 and is modeled on the European Union. It incorporates all the independent states of South America. These states are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an economic and political organization of eight countries in Southern Asia. In terms of population, its sphere of influence is the largest of any regional organization: almost 1.5 billion people, the combined population of its member states. It was established on December 8, 1985 by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan. In April 2007, at the Association's 14th summit, Afghanistan became its eighth member.
Organization of the Islamic Conference
 Organisation of the Islamic Conference منظمة المؤتمر الإسلامي (Arabic)Organisation de la Conférence Islamique (French)
 Headquarters Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Official languages Arabic, English, French
Membership 57 member states
Leaders
 -  Secretary-General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu
Websitehttp://www.oic-oci.org/
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organisation with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. It groups 57 member states, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans, Southeast Asia and South Asia. These States decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts and speak with one voice to safeguard the interest and ensure the progress and well-being of their peoples and those of other Muslims in the world over. The official languages of the organisation are Arabic, English and French.
Since the nineteenth century, many Muslims had aspired to uniting the Muslim ummah to serve their common political, economic, and social interests. Despite the presence of secularist, nationalist, and socialist ideologies, in modern Muslim states, they have cooperated together to form the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The formation of the OIC happened in the backdrop of the loss of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. The final cause sufficiently compelled leaders of Muslim nations to meet in Rabat to establish the OIC on September 25, 1969.[15]
According to its charter, the OIC aims to preserve Islamic social and economic values; promote solidarity amongst member states; increase cooperation in social, economic, cultural, scientific, and political areas; uphold international peace and security; and advance education, particularly in the fields of science and technology.[15]
The flag of the OIC (shown above) has an overall green background (symbolic of Islam). In the centre, there is an upward-facing red crescent enveloped in a white disc. On the disc the words "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "Allah is great") are written in Arabic calligraphy.
On August 5, 1990, 45 foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights in as much as they are compatible with the Sharia, or Quranic Law.[16]
The World Constitution and Parliament Association
The World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA) was created in 1958 to promote democratic world government. During the next 33 years the WCPA held four Global Constituent Assemblies centered around creating a Constitution for the Federation of Earth. At the fourth assembly in Troia, Portugal in 1991, final amendments to the Constitution were made and approved. Even before this assembly, the organization has been involved in a worldwide campaign to ratify the Earth Constitution under the provisions set forth in Article 17. Since 1982, the WCPA has also organized sessions of the Provisional World Parliament, the first of which was in Brighton, England and the tenth session of which was in Kara, Togo in 2007. Under the authority of Article 19 of the Constitution, the Parliament debates and passes provisional world legislation that serves as a model and a guide for developing democratic world government. The Parliament also works toward a founding ratification convention at which the nations and people of Earth join together to ratify the Constitution and initiate a new demilitarized, democratic world order.
United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
Main article: United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
                                                                    

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is a proposed addition to the United Nations System that would allow for participation of member nations' legislators and, eventually, direct election of United Nations (UN) parliament members by citizens worldwide. The idea was raised at the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920s and again following the end of World War II in 1945, but remained dormant throughout the Cold War. In the 1990s and 2000s, the rise of global trade and the power of world organizations that govern it led to calls for a parliamentary assembly to scrutinize their activity. The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly was formed in 2007 to coordinate pro-UNPA efforts, which as of February 2009 has received the support of over 600 Members of Parliament from over 90 countries worldwide.
The current global governance system
See also: United Nations


                                         

 Flag of the United Nations.
                                         

                                         

Flag of the World Health Organization.
 As of 2010, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution, with jurisdiction over the entire planet.
The Earth is divided geographically and demographically into mutually-exclusive territories and political structures called states which are independent and sovereign in most cases. One may also make the case that political and economical independence, although related, are not the same, and even though former colonies have acquired political independence since World War II, they have become more dependent upon each other financially. There are numerous bodies, institutions, unions, coalitions, agreements and contracts between these units of authority, but, except in cases where a nation is under military occupation by another, all such arrangements depend on the continued consent of the participant nations. Thus the use of violence is unprohibited throughout the realm and is only checked by the threat of retaliatory violence or nonviolent sanctions (see Gene Sharp), so where no such threat exists a nation may use violence against another.
Among the voluntary organizations and international arrangements the following are:

• The United Nations (UN) is the primary formal organization coordinating activities between states on a global scale and the only inter-governmental organization with a truly universal membership (192 governments). In addition to the main organs and various humanitarian programs and commissions of the UN itself, there are about 20 functional organizations affiliated with the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), such as the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, and International Telecommunications Union.[19] Of particular interest politically are the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.
• The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were formed together at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States in July 1944, to foster global monetary cooperation and to fight poverty by financially assisting states in need. The World Trade Organization (WTO) sets the rules of international trade. It already has a semi-legislative body (The General Council, reaching decisions by consensus), and a judicial body (The Dispute Settlement Body). Another influential economical international organization is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with membership of 30 democratic members.
• G8, an association of the eight highest GDP Nations of the World. The leaders of the G8 countries meet annually in person to coordinate their policies in confronting global issues, such as poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, and climate change.
• G20, an association of twenty developing and established nations and entities, including the European Union.
• Militarily, the UN deploys peacekeeping forces, usually to build and maintain post-conflict peace and stability. When a more aggressive international military action is undertaken, either ad-hoc coalitions (e.g., multinational force in Iraq), or regional military alliances (e.g., NATO) are used.
• International law encompasses international treaties, customs, and globally acceptable legal principles. With the exceptions of cases brought before the ICC and ICJ (see below), the laws are interpreted by national courts. Many violations of treaty or customary law obligations are overlooked.
• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) (also known as World Court) is the judiciary organ of the United Nations. It settles disputes submitted to it voluntarily by states (only), and gives advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by other organs of the UN, such as the General Assembly or Security Council.

A recent development in international law is the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first ever permanent international criminal court, which was established to ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished. The ICC treaty was signed by 139 national governments, of which 100 ratified it into law by October 2005.
In addition to the formal, or semi-formal, international organizations and laws mentioned above, many other mechanisms act to regulate human activities across national borders. In particular, international trade in goods, services and currencies (the "global market") has a tremendous impact on the lives of people in almost all parts of the world, creating deep interdependency amongst nations (see globalization). Trans-national (or multi-national) corporations, some with resources exceeding those available to most governments, govern activities of people on a global scale. The rapid increase in the volume of trans-border digital communications and mass-media distribution (e.g., Internet, satellite television) has allowed information, ideas, and opinions to rapidly spread across the world, creating a complex web of international coordination and influence, mostly outside the control of any formal organizations or laws.

World governments in fiction
World governments are frequently portrayed in film, video games, comics and in literature; particularly in science fiction.
In literature

• In the dream book in H.G. Wells The Shape of Things to Come, after first appearing in the early 20th century, and only after more than a hundred years of war and disaster in which those religiously [20] committed to it does an atheistic and socialist world state arise from the ashes of the old order which completely destroys itself .
• Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers, which was later adapted into a series of films, featured a militaristic world government where people must become "Citizens" through military or civil service in order to vote.
• Frank Herbert's Dune universe is ruled by the Emperors of the Known Universe
• In Orson Scott Card's "Shadow of the Giant", Peter Wiggin becomes Hegemon over the Earth through an alliance known as the Free People of Earth.
• In Larry Niven's Known Space universe, the United Nations is the de facto world government. It imposes the death penalty for nearly every crime, however trivial, and executed criminals are broken up for their organs. In addition, it practices laissez-faire eugenics via a so-called "fertility board", and suppresses technology it deems as "dangerous".
• In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
• In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, world government is divided between several superstates, which continually war against each other to maintain fear and blind nationalism in the masses.
• In the book Invitation to the Game by Monica Hughes
• In the Left Behind series, the Antichrist Nicolae Carpathia leads the Global Community, a world government which was created after the Rapture.
• In Eiichiro Oda's popular manga series One Piece, there is a world government which controls most, if not all of the smaller governments in the fictional universe. 

In television

• In Star Trek, the Earth is united under one government in the 22nd century. United Earth is the name of the planetary state created through the unification of Earth in the 22nd century following First Contact in 2063. United Earth continued to exist as a political subdivision of the United Federation of Planets when its government helped found that interstellar state in 2161. In Star Trek's mirror universe, the Earth is unified as the Terran Empire.
• In Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, Fireball XL5, Stingray and Joe 90 the world is governed by some form of World Government that is involved in or in charge of most of the organisations featured.
• In the Indian series Captain Vyom, a futuristic sci-fi in which the Earth is united under a common Government with headquarter in New Delhi, India and Captain Vyom being the top agent in law enforcement.
• In the Japanese manga "One Piece", the world is ruled by a corrupt system called simply the "World Government". This organization allows such things as slavery, torture in prisons, killing of innocents, as well as other grotesque acts.

Organizations

• The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is a global citizens movement with 23 member and 16 associated organizations around the globe working towards the establishment of a federated world government. The U.S. member organization is Citizens for Global Solutions, and the Canadian organization is World Federalist Movement - Canada
• The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) is a well-funded research and education center in Canada dedicated to the subject. It is preparing to launch IGLOO: "a global online research community focused solely on strengthening governance around the world."
• One World Trust (OWT) is a charity based in the United Kingdom and member of the World Federalist Movement. Its current work aims to promote reforms of existing global organizations leading to greater accountability.
• Civitatis International is a non-governmental organization based in the United Kingdom that produces legal research promoting increased systems of global governance to policymakers.
• The Committee for a Democratic UN is a network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations from Germany, Switzerland and Austria which is based on world federalist philosophy.
• Democratic World Federalists is a San-Francisco-based civil society organization with supporters worldwide, advocates a democratic federal system of world government.
• The World Government of World Citizens, founded September 4, 1953 in Ellsworth, ME, by former Broadway actor and WWII bomber pilot Garry Davis following the registering of 750,000 individuals worldwide as World Citizens by the International Registry of World Citizens, headquartered in Paris, January 1, 1949. Its main office is in Washington, DC.

Initiatives

• Vote World Parliament(VWP) is a Canadian NGO which has independently begun a global referendum posing the following question : Do you support the creation of a directly-elected, representative and democratic world parliament that is authorized to legislate on global issues?