February 23, 2014

Is One World Idea Practicable

Essay : [Is One World Idea Practicable]

English Essay on "Is One World Idea Practicable"

Is One World Idea Practicable

There is almost unanimity among progressive political thinkers that ill due course of time, all nation-states,' on reaching on optimum stage of political and economic advancement, will find it desirable, in their own interests and in the interests of fellow nation-states, to accept the concept of one world order with a full-fledged one world Government. Only such a government could create conditions in which an ear of everlasting peace and international security', based on equal prosperity of all nation-states, could be achieved.

The experiment in federation' making by regional states, confederations and. loose alliances, have not proved equal to the tasks of integrating diverse elements during the last few centuries, since Austin's sovereignty theory caught worldwide attention. This theory which acted as stabilizing concept for' some time has outlived its relevance in modern outlived its relevance in modern societies. It is high lime this concept is discarded or compromised with its' international brand. Diluting of the national sovereignties IS muse if mankind wants to escape the spectra of a nuclear or neutron holocaust division of the human race on grounds of ideological differences and national jealousies and animosities must be ended once for all.

The United Nations may have succeeded in many ways but it has so far not been able into the minds of the world leaders any concrete idea of a world federation.

World War 1 (1914c 18), brought considerable havoc to the world. The damage done by this war to human as well as other material resources started hovering over Europe. The League of Nations proved too weak to bring in to being a climate of general will-being. Nationalism should itself in extreme forms in some countries of Europe and remind that the darker days that followed the fall of roman Empire still hung on the horizon chamberlains weak policy towards Hitler and his going out of the ways out of the way to pacify the raising hunger of the Nazi regime made it certain in August 1939 that war was at hand.(4essay.blogspot.com) It came thundering in September 1939. The Celassa damage that it did to the world directly or indirectly, in human and material resources, is indescribable. The end of the war came when humanity was shuddering in the horror of an atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan. How could a progressive nation, United States of America, take this drastic step' It killed a million people and disabled many more, this baffled everyone. But perhaps, the stronger among nationalists thought that everything is fair in love and war.

The war ravaged Europe forget the miseries of the first world war and indulged in a new wave of nationalism by crossing national barriers, The Nazis pampered up nationalism to such an extent that it is assumed dangerous proportions. Its extreme dimensions spread from Germany to Italy.

The Second World War was not yet officially over when a number of leading nations including Russia. U.S.A, Britain, France and China along with others meet in Brettanwoords in 1944 to chalk out and lay the foundations of an organization which could promote with its allied organization in social and economic sphere, one world concept and ensure a lasting peace for the world. Thus were laid the foundations of the present United Nations.

Even to-day 52 years after the foundation of the United Nations one hears of negative arguments, advanced at the U. N. platform about the redundancy of the concept of the world government. Some leaders still hold the view that one would concept violates the traditional concept of sovereignty of nations. A state is to be free in its internal affairs and external relations. It is only when that sovereignty can be called indivisible, inalienable and correct in the true Austin an sense, Protagonists of this theory; therefore, underline the importance of the fact that in the ultimate analysis in actual practice the theories of nation-states and national governments alone would be able to deliver goods. Any concept of the world according to them is not tenable and would not be able to last very long. This school of thought emphasizes the uselessness of the concept of one world because they are convinced that it is never going to be realized. In support of this contention they repeatedly draw the attention of the world to the uselessness of the United Nations to contain peace, They highlight the failure of the U. N, as against its achievements in social and economic fields, The concept of one world government is repugnant to their very way to thinking,

To what extent is it correct that one world concept violates national sovereignty There who favor the one world' concept, point out that for better international relations and for creating mutual understanding in international matters, the doctrine of so-called classical sovereignty ought to be given up by nation-state in the larger interests of improved harmony and economic exchange. According to them this surrounding of absolute sovereignty does not mean end of national sovereignty. As a matter of fact the concept of one world does not require the readjusting of geographical boundaries of nation states only each nation should part, with some of its national sovereignty for improving international environment.(4essay.blogspot.com) In such an arrangement, it cannot be said that the sovereignty of a state is being, interfered with or is being taken away and the state is losing one of its fundamental concepts. History bears testimony to this that one has to take different concepts of national sovereignty even within a nation state itself. Gone are the days of the so-called absolute sovereignty. The world to-day believes in what is so called plural sovereignty as opposed to absolute sovereignty. The concept of pluralism in international sphere is. Therefore absolutely justified and necessary if the world has to survive and make better purpose.

Very often the failure of U. N has encouraged those who are opposed to the one world idea. This school of thought feels the organization is weak, ineffective and cannot under present set-up become strong. Any strong super one-world government cannot actually be established unless there is also a world military force at the command of the U. N. It is true that force is a necessary part of any sovereign state. As a matter of fact the element of coercion is one of the major distinguishing features between a state and the society. But it will take a long time before the nation states agree to change the outlook on their much-guarded concept of national sovereignty.(4essay.blogspot.com) Setting up a world government and having' a permanent world force are two serious needs of the one world government or the one-world federation. There have to be, perhaps different stages not to come into being automatically, suddenly' without definite planning each stage will require careful handling. A series of stages will have to be launched in the years to come. For the time being states are making their respective contribution to the civilization of the world; existing human races. If they show greater restraint and appreciate the difficulties of each other, practice greater patience to the finding of solutions to international problems and take greater, care in handling delicate and explosive issues concerning disarmament of UN forces, there is every reason to hope that the leading powers would be able to chalk out an agreed plan of launching the' series of stages needed for ushering in World Federation Nation-States. Nations will no doubt continue to be equipped with their national sovereignties but they will have to adjust to same internationally imposed restraints on the absolute degree of their sovereignty.

In order that a world Federation may come into being after some decades, the nation-states will have to start appreciating the following principles of national and international behavior.

No comments:

Post a Comment