In the beginning of the 20 th century, a few idealists advocated the creation of a “UnitedStates of Europe”. They were ridiculed. But after two terrible World Wars and tens of milliondead, the European Union was created, a confederacy that practically abolished borders andset up a united economy.
Today I dare to forecast that the 21 st century will see the creation of a “United States of theWorld” – a global order headed by a world authority.
The last century – like the one that preceded it – was dominated by the national state. This ideawon in Europe and expanded from there to all the other continents. Israel, as a “democraticJewish state” (as well as the coming State of Palestine) are late-born children of that era.
We, who were born into this reality, can hardly realize that the national state is a recenthuman creation. Even at the beginning of last century, the Russian czar, the Austrian emperorand the Ottoman sultan still were potent rulers, each of whom reigned over many peoplesspeaking many languages.
The national state (as distinguished, for example, from the city-state or the dynasticstate) did not come into being by accident. New technologies created a reality that required a(comparatively) big economic, cultural and military unit. The local market had to be bigenough to sustain an economy, population and territory had to sustain a modern army big enoughto defend the fatherland. The national idea satisfied these requirements and gave themasses, together with the new democracy, the motivation and the cohesion that held the newstate together.
However, since then the objective requirements changed with the new technologies. Today’smarket is global, multinational corporations span the world. Communications, includingthe internet, are global. The 21 st century was ushered in by a celebration that was trulyworld-wide. English has become the wold-wide lingua franca. Tens of million have left theirhomelands to look for greener pastures in the developed countries. Nuclear weapons have madeold-style wars inconceivable. Man has walked on the moon, his devices have reached Mars. Notonly little states like Denmark and Israel, but even Germany and France, great powers at thebeginning of the 20 th century, cannot stand alone anymore.
While we Israelis were busy building our national state, the world was already moving from anational agenda to a regional one. Europe was unified, and other parts of the world tried toemulate it. (54 years ago, I tried to apply the same principle to ourselves by creating the ideaof a “Semitic union”.) But even the idea of regional unions has already become obsolescent.
Human consciousness always stumbles behind objective reality. It does so at the beginning ofthe 21 st century: While reality does cry out for a world order, consciousness is stillnationalistic. Some manifestations are downright ridiculous. For example, France won theinternational soccer championship and was floating on a wave of nationalist hysteria. Butthe stars of the French team were foreigners, headed by an Algerian, the likes of whom areconsidered by many Frenchmen as sub-human. That did not dampen the spirits of the masses.Neither were they troubled by the fact that French soldiers took part in an action in Kosovothat destroyed one of the pillars of the national state: the principle of “non-interventionin its domestic affairs”. (Witness the Holocaust).
It is impossible to know how the aim of a new world order will be achieved. Perhaps the UnitedNation will assume the role of a supra-national authority. If so, it will have to changecompletely. In the Security Council, the world government, the veto-power of the “permanentmembers” must be abolished, so that Russia, for example, will not be able to block aKosovo-like intervention. In the General Assembly, the world parliament, therepresentation of each member must correspond to the size of its population, so the FijiIslands will not have the same voting power as the United States. The UN must have at itsdisposal a standing army, which owes allegiance to the UN only, and that will be ready forimmediate intervention in a Ruanda-like genocide. A world court must be competent toadjudicate all conflicts between states, as our national courts adjudicate conflictsbetween individuals. A world police must be ready to enforce the world law.
In the European Union, the national states were not dismantled; each kept its flag, languageand traditions. The same will be true In the coming world order. But the national states will wesubject to a compulsory world order, much as citizens are subject to the laws of their state.
An unrealistic vision? Not at all. I am quite certain that this will be reality by the year 2100.What a pity that I shall not be around to see it.