Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: Yes, when this government represents all people like poor and rich or weak and strong, why not? When this government treats all people equally without discrimination, why not? United Nations was a dream in the past, but it is difficult to talk about equality or justice as long as there are differences between rich and pool people for example.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think that an organization like the United Nations should be much more effective. It should really be a collective will that rules the world. But we perceive that the United Nations are not very effective concerning recent problems like the war in Iraq or other problems when they were completeley incapable against the objectives of the most powerful country of the planet. In my opinion this country which declared itself to be the head and the government of the planet is making some mistakes that will be regretted and that humanity will not be able to change. All empires have a moment of decadence, but the decadence of the North American empire is different to the decadence of other countries. The decadence of the North American empire will lead to the fall of all of us because we depend on their qualities and their strategies that they made themselves. And this is a tragedy. The fall of the global government may be the fall of the whole world.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Good afternoon Michelle. You know, there used to be a time when people were able to govern themselves.Where, you know, the regionalism, or the locality, or the local, was able to take care of itself. The world has become a global environment because it has been engineered economically to do so. It’s because it’s an economic system requires a global marketplace in order for capital, and for a particular mode of government to come into being. So you know, it kind of manifests itself, it kind of becomes what certain people have made it to be. I think the delicacy of a local form of government, the delicacy, something which is nuanced at a local level, has been able to govern itself. It’s just suddenly become non-functional, inappropriate, and unable to cope in a global environment. So I think the purpose of globality is to create global forms of government. We’re finding the European common market. And it’s all got to do with zones of economic activity. You know it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. Global government has now become an inevitability certainly because a world of leadership is – leadership, global leadership has forced it in that way. I don’t believe it will take global government to solve regional issues. It’s not interested in national or regional issues. It’s only interested in global issues. And you know it has no interest in the small or the delicately nuanced issues of difference. It’s all about homogeneity and conformity. I really think that we need to be particularly vigilant about this, and alert, you know. I don’t know what we can do about this. But I think large is – small is large. Large is cumbersome, and in the end I don’t believe sustainable, you know. It’s sustainable on a crude, macro level, but it’ll never answer. The human nuancing necessary to take care of the subtle differences that exist and need to be respected across the national and geo[inaudible]

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Michelle, when I look at your question I realize how we have been robbed of the events of the world. It is like they have hijacked us all and we are allowing it to happen. Yes, it’s going to have to take a world government to solve the simplest issues on the world in which we live. But this time it’s going to be done globally rather than locally. Because locally we have not been able to do that. Did you know that? Within the municipality we have not been govern ourself to the best of the advancement of the society in which we live. So if we don’t have that, what have we got? What have you and I got when we cannot even in our municipal boundaries live a life to the fullest both materially and spiritually? Ponder upon it. Yes, it’s going to have to take much bigger governments to resolve the simplest issues. I wish it didn’t have to be. But then again mankind has yet to grow up to his own potential. It takes a long time doesn’t it? And look at the price we have to pay. We have to pay with lives upon lives upon lives, resources upon resources upon resources, to be what we are now. And it did not work. The way we know the calendar is coming to an end. When it comes to an end what will we do? Yes, I wish I had the answer. I wish I had the answer. I wish I had the answer for your question. Help me find the answer. Help me find the answer. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I think the question gets at a crucial point, which is the problems we confront in the world today are global problems. They are not problems that have national boundaries. There is not a problem that exists only among state or local boundaries. The problems we confront today are global problems. But, the question raised is the question of a global government, and I think that the real solution is not global government, but global movements. The idea usually, as I say with a global government, is of institutions like the United Nations, which could somehow become an instrument for global decision-making and rule. The problem is the United Nations is an undemocratic institution. The representatives of states at the UN are not elected. They represent very narrow interests within their own states. And the UN itself is dominated by the United States, and a handful of other powers who have effective control. And the reality is we need global movements from below, popular movements, social movement that can confront the power of states and that can begin to create international institutions, democratic participatory decision-making institutions from the ground up, from the grass roots. The World Social Forum is just the beginning of an expression of that aspiration. But, the forum right now is a meeting space. It is a forum for dialog, but not for decision-making and not for taking action. We need to transform that and develop new institutions that reach across national boundaries, but become action bodies, become decision and action taking bodies, because the problems we are confronting are urgent and will only be changed not through dialog but through protests, through struggle.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: I don’t think -- we can dream of global government, but I don’t simply think is [inaudible] regional competition of our development and [inaudible]. And then to solve the regional problems of our governments, [inaudible] and ... First the national government first try to solve the problem and then it should go to regional and solve the problem but if we cannot solve the problem, so if do not issues which are not solved by a national or regional government can we take it to the global government? But we cannot think of a local government as yet. We can think of having a networking of national, regional, or global government are not however global.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I think it’s not about needing a global government, but what we are going to need is global governance. Now that’s in real deficit today. It is true when we look at some of the most important issues of the time, hunger. It is not just something happening in Asia, Africa, or Latin America; it is to be found in rich Western nations as well. In the United States, almost 36 million Americans are considered food insecure. So, when we look at some of those issues, the absence of healthcare, I mean, over 45 million Americans have no health insurance. If we look at increasing poverty figures, again poverty is endemic to all parts of the world and that is because of the absence of global governance and that’s what we do need. It is not about one global government because it cannot be the model of the UN Security Council where basically the empires, the superpowers, the ex-colonial powers are still in power. But we will need global governance where basically countries, regions can actually determine what is best for them, where the people of those countries of the region can determine what kind of policies they want. So, it is not about one government for all because those attempts have been made through the World Trade Organization, one government for all to regulate all. We are looking for a different kind of governance; and it is really about global governance which really is about everyone in this world having a right to participate in the governments, to have a government which respects their wishes, their desires, which fulfills the obligations in terms of respecting the human rights.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I like this question because it really opens up the fact that we are in a global age. Which means that we are in a new space in which the old borders of national boundaries and so forth don’t carry the same weight as it did in earlier times. We have to reconsider all of those borders. Because the problems we face on the planet today are global problems stemming across all borders. Global warming. Issues of poverty. Issues of degradation of the climate. Pollution knows no borders. Issues of AIDS, whether it's in Africa or any part of the world. Any endemic, any pandemic, all of these issues spread across. They are common human problems. And we have to think in a global way, as global citizens, which is a more higher integral space. And I’m not sure of the global government; I don’t like that word. A lot of people are scared of the idea of one world government. And I think we should be very cautious about that. Because I think the new model of a high culture based on global consciousness and global spirituality is one that really has local autonomy and local governance and local wisdom, dealing with the local issues in a global way and global issues in a local way. I think there is a higher form of integral, holistic consciousness of self-organization and self governance, in which people trusting people to regulate themselves. Not to have a strong monolithic government imposing its will and intervention. Perhaps some kind of force like that is required in transition. Maybe a strong UN to intervene against national borders and the so-called sanctity and sovereignty of national borders. That may take a transition. But the ideal would be not to have imposed external government. But local ecologies and communities and self-regulation, but governed by their own global awareness and global consciousness and global values of the dignity of all life and humanity moving together in a dialogic, mutual way of mutual co-creation, cooperation, consultation to solve our collective problems. That’s the model, I think, that we need to see on the planet. And I think that hope will come with a new awakened culture.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Well, I think that we'll always have to have local governments who are closer to the people be able to create laws to legislate the problems that local governments and peoples face together. There are global challenges that we have faced that caused the creation of the League of Nations and now the United Nations. The question becomes has a governmental, a worldwide governmental organization been effective in being able to address these global challenges and issues. We've had 60 years of the United Nations to be able to work through these global issues and the question becomes has it been effective? It's very difficult to have an international organization alone that is not fully supported, that is not properly funded be effective. So we need to look at that as well. We also have the creation of regional organizations like the African Union, and we also have the European Union, so these are regional organizations that seek to address issues within their regions but also have a view towards their role on the international stage. So I think there is a concurrence of action as well as views, the local, the regional, as well as the international, that all act together. But I think there is an understanding that no one international organization can handle all of the global issues and that regional as well as local governments are also important to all work together to be able to address these issues that are local, national, and international.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: So what are the national and regional issues that now affect us all? And if we take in context of climate and take climate change, to come up with a global government to solve this problem or to come up with a global government to solve our health care, or solve our lack of food? It’s too general; a global government to come up with a solution that would fix everything is too general. Our world is still diverse and so organic that these regional -- what would be better is if we have regional local governments that were working with a global government. And these are already in place, and really, there's just not to communication, there's not the information, the cooperation. There’s a competition not a cooperation between these entities. But we need to have more of cooperation between the local and the regional, the national, and the global governments of the world. We can’t have the national government trump the global government. We can’t have national government trump the local. We have, everything needs to be in balance, and more balance. And that, these issues are so big, but yet they start locally, as there common term use a lot in our country which is, “Think globally, act locally,” and you can act locally and yet today, our global environment, because of technology and different ways of communication and transportation, we live more in the global stage. But still, is our local environment is the people we sit next to, but then we have affects upon. So, we need to act in that localized way, but then can ripple out into an affect globally. Small solutions to big problems, lots of them, lots and lots. We need a bio-diversity of small solutions to address these diverse problems at a global scale.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: Many years ago, it was in a meeting. And the former minister of Ecuador stand up and share with us a very interesting concept. He was saying at that time, that only the astronauts, the people that get to space, they have a different perspective of planet earth. They can see the earth as a ecosphere, where there is no geographic - no political boundaries. They see it as a unity. There is no limits. There is no boundaries. They see continents, and continents in the middle of oceans, they see it as a ecosphere. So that perspective really I think is what we need in terms of [for] national governments to have a broader perspective to see that they're not alone. That they're part of a system. The part of a system where they're linked to others. So, we need to develop a communal sense of responsibility for our planet, before it's too late. Will take years to really get to this concept of a global government, so we need to make concrete steps in the way that national governments or regional issues can really see - be seen or taken into account or analyze into a broader context.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: The scale of the human presence on this planet is now so large that we’re running up against limits. We having a substantial impact on the climate, in many regions we’re running out of water. It’s not to say we can’t innovate. I think we can innovate, we can solve some of these problems. If we could find the will we can ameliorate the species loss that’s so unprecedentedly large right now. We’re no longer in a situation where if a resource is being abused or overused such as the atmosphere any one country can make it better. We all are a part of the problem and we all have to be part of the solution. So we need international cooperation, planetary cooperation to solve these issues. Can we wait for a global government? We can’t. There’s not going to be a global government any time soon. But we need trans-national organizations, trans-national scientific organizations, trans-national peace organizations, all different kinds of organizations through which we can put pressure on the various governments their instruments of power to take action. And it can happen at all different levels. Recently the State of California passed a climate change initiative leading the United States in reducing CO2. It’s good that this happened in the U.S. It had to happen at a state level, obviously the economically largest state. But that’s a sub-national. We need action at all levels. Wherever we can take action to address these issues because they’re not going to be solved simply at the national level anymore.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: In Europe we already have global government in the Brussels. Is it solving our regional or national problems? I don’t believe so. Maybe it is not global enough, but important question is, is it possible to solve problematic in big forms? As long as small regions, areas even whole nations can’t deal with there own problem every solution coming from outside will look more or less like an intervention. Events in Iraq are example of such a maximal regulation of some self declared global government.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, let’s see. I think my short answer for this is yes, it will; probably whether we like it or not. Now, the key question is what form this government’s going to take? It could probably take some form and most likely will take some form of federalism, but we definitely need it in order to stop species’ extinction which I think is happening at an alarming rate. We also need global governments to really protect collective human rights and the common good. We’ve got to safeguard the climate. We’ve got to settle international disputes much better than we are. Armed intervention is always as the last resort. So, we don’t need anymore weapons of mass destruction by any nation. So, I think some form of global government is the answer. Like all things, we have to give up some of our sovereignty in order to be under a greater sovereignty, which is the human good and for all humans to live together. So, that’s my short answer on that.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Catherine David: The idea that a global government will one day orchestrate all of our local problems and miseries is a big fantasie, a phantasm. As you have a look at structures like the UN, which does not really work in the right way you are not really willing to accept a global government. And as you have a look at the circumstances of our all day life it will show you that a local view of things still predominates so that the citizens and their problems have to adminstrated by local governments. So the big phantasm of a global government is not really contemporary.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it is important for every region and every country or district and so on, to solve their own things, their own problem, but with help from governments. Because these very regions knows their problems, knows the people, knows the mentality, knows why this happened and so on. But if you bring in a foreign force, everything might be a bit misunderstood and then new blood, new hatred and new killings. For example, like in Congo, where so many people are involved in one country and now instead of solving, they solve nothing, but they shed more blood. They confuse the people. They confuse the leaders of that country, and now no trust from anybody of this country. The individual peoples look, when they hear of America coming, they might think, “Oh, he's coming to kill us” because all these groups carries the same guns. All these groups are not sending diplomats or mediators, but they're only sending armies and armies and commanders. And the individual people will only look, not at the face or not maybe at why this man is here, but they will only look at the gun, and the gun, and the gun. And at the end they will probably give up. I think it's very important that German gives advice to Congo, but not try to say I solve all of the Congo problem or the Ugandan problem. Because these regions also need to learn to be responsible. These regions need to learn to solve their own problems, not always to depend on foreign force. Not always to depend on other presidents. I mean they are also leaders. It's like a child when you’re 18 your father and mother leaves, you go on and make your own decision. I think we should be the best on such little things to try and understand the whole concept.

by China Keitetsi