Imagine a perfect society composed of reasonable people
having a debate as to the merits and demerits of an idea that someone has
christened “globalism.” After a short give-and-take, the debaters agree that
globalism is the natural next step in the quest to organize the human species.
From there, the debaters go on to make the following observations:
As indicated by the verb “to organize,” the evolutionary
process going from inanimate matter to animate matter could not have taken
place if it weren't for the self-organization of nature’s basic elements.
Therefore we can only deduce that life itself owes its existence to
organization. As well, we cannot fail but observe that the more complex the
development of an organism, the higher the level of its existence.
This settled, the debaters review the stages through which
organisms have developed from the primitive insects to the mammals to the
higher primates and the homo-sapiens. From there, they see that evolution has continued
to ascend from the nuclear family to the development of the tribe, the village,
the city state, the country and the federal republic of independent states.
The debaters agree that the next step will have to be a
supranational structure that will be given specific powers over matters of
concern to the entire planet. They make clear that in the same way there has
been “Federalist Papers” in America where it was agreed that the power to
legislate will be split between the federal government and the states – there
will have to be a comparable worldwide debate concerning “Globalist Papers”
that will define the powers of the supranational structure, and distinguish
them from the powers of the sovereign states.
And so you ask: Has there not been such a debate already? If
not a worldwide great debate, were there not a few mini debates taking place
here and there in the world? The answer is yes, there have been mini debates,
one of which took place in America .
It was brought to light by Clifford D. May who wrote about it in a column that
came under the title: “Give anti-globalism a chance,” published on April 3,
2018 in The Washington Times.
Clifford May sheds light on the thinking of eight writers
who contributed to that debate. They are Michael Gerson, Bret Stephens, David
Rothkopf, John Bolton, John Fonte, John Yoo, Anne Marie Slaughter and Brian
Urquhart. What comes out from this debate is that depending on the point of
view of each participant, there are pros and cons to accepting or rejecting the
very principle of establishing a supranational structure meant to assist the
sovereign states in governing themselves and the planet.
The proponents of the idea argue that its implementation
will force a high level of transparency on the sovereigns whose natural
tendency is to operate in secrecy. It will create standards in many fields of
human endeavor and see that they are applied equally, everywhere and on
everyone. It will help resolve disputes peacefully, thus save lives and wealth
that would otherwise be squandered on the training for, and fighting of wars
that never settle anything permanently.
Economically, such structure will raise the standard of
living of everyone on the planet, which is a good thing not only for those who
will benefit immediately but also in another important way. It is that when a
natural disaster hits a community, those affected expect to get help not from
the poor that have nothing to contribute, but from those that have enough to
give away some. Thus, when everyone is in a position to help, everyone else
feels they have an insurance policy covering them adequately should disaster
strike them.
As to the opponents of the idea, they say they are happy
with the American Constitution and will stick with it. They want everyone to
understand they do not want to be ruled by a global institution of any kind;
period. They prefer not to interfere in the lives of others, and will leave
everyone alone as long as they remain weak and could not harm America even if
they wanted to. But if someone starts to get strong, they'll destroy him
because they know that people are naturally evil, and will harm America the
moment they can.
And this is why the option of preemptive strike must remain
on the table all the time, and used when the time comes, say the opponents of
globalism.