Liberty Maven

It is quite fascinating to add up the things Ron Paul was right about over the years. There is one thing I sincerely hope he is wrong about, and I suspect he hopes he is wrong about it too. He laments and warns of a continuing effort toward global governance. There is a potential for taking the idea of a one world global government to extremes, but extremism is not required to imagine its plausibility anymore.

In a thought provoking article in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman explores the possibility, especially now that Barack Obama will be President.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

I’ve always marveled at the phrase “peacekeeping force”. Hmmm I wonder what percentage of the 50,000 would be American? I’m also curious if our government would be able to find enough volunteers for such a force. In fact I would expect there to be a well armed faction against such nonsense. It seems Rachman thinks so to…

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Leaders do not hesitate to use crisis and unrest to help push their own agendas. We saw it from FDR during the Great Depression. We saw it with George W. Bush with Iraq. Now we may see it from Obama to help “solve” our economic problems. After all don’t we need a global governmental body to fix the global economic crisis?

For liberty’s sake, I certainly hope not.