Nation's of Earth in the 23rd & 24th Centuries

[James Wright]

I've been thinking about something for a little while and would like as many opinions as possible.
At last count there are something like 195 countries on the face of Earth with individual governments. Right now this planet is in a sorry state of affairs but in Star Trek things improve considerably.
How did this change come about, what did the individual nations give up to cause this change, could it happen for real?
I have a feeling the United Nations finally did what it was intended to do?
Thank you,

James

 

[Captrek]

Probably gradual evolutionary change as the world grows more intertwined.

People have conflicting needs or desires. Something is going to resolve those conflicts. In anarchy, that something is often that one person is more capable of or willing to commit violence to get his way. Governments are another way to resolve those conflicts.

For example, consider the early United States. There was no internet, telephone, or telegraph. No television or radio. No planes, trains, or automobiles. What one person in Georgia did was unlikely to impact another person in Massachusetts. The federal government was very small and the states mostly left to govern themselves, and that worked. As these technologies developed and the nation become more and more interconnected, the federal government had to do more and more, much to the consternation of the Tea Partiers.

And the process continues as we are more and more able to impact each other. Consider the problem of global climate change. The current approach is to address the problem with treaties, and as long as all the large developed nations buy in, that will work for now. But as the developing world catches up and shipping technology improves, it will, over time, become more and more possible for companies to circumvent restrictions by moving operations to whatever nations aren’t signatories to the treaty. Eventually, it will be necessary to develop some real teeth, in the form of economic sanctions or even military action, to bring noncompliant nations into line. And that’s the beginnings of world government.

 

[Joshua Howard]

I am confident that nationality will never be abolished. Just as the 50 U.S. States remain sovereign (though connected at a Federal level) it seems plausible to me that in a Federation-style future, the various nations of the world would remain sovereign, but simply be connected additionally at a super-federal level. A nation in the 24th century would have a role similar to a U.S. State or a Canadian Province within the broader framework of the federal Earth government.

Assuming that we are able to avoid any major world wars or other unexpected disasters, I think that we can reasonably expect see such a global earth government form even before the end of the 21st century. When you consider how far we came in the 20th century - from a pre-industrial, heavily factionized world to a globally interconnected one - it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that we can finish the job with a central government within the next 90 years or so.

I believe that the greatest player right now is the ability of international Corporations to break through national barriers which traditional governments are constrained within. For example, The Premier of China and the President of the United States may be seen as leaders at odds with each other; but Walmart does business buying and selling in both markets regardless of government posturing. Once both economies are heavily vested in each other through trade, the benefit of war disappears and groundwork is laid for long-term peace.

In many ways, I think that the Federation seems like a medley of Corporate and Federal models, and that is part of why it works so well. It handles trade and commerce in an elegant way, while also having the authoritative edge of a military force.

In any case, I think it is important to understand that the theory of a global government system does not in any way need to imply - nor should it suggest - that individual nations as they exist today would under such a system be abolished. The global government would be constructed on a tier above them, supported by them. It wouldn't replace them.

Suggesting that nations will be mothballed to make way for the Federation is like saying that the Government in Washington, D.C. eliminates the need for city, county and state governments in the U.S.. Both ideas are erroneous, typical of the fear-mongering which has long surrounded the social discussion of the "new world order".

 

[sojourner]

Hey, if the members of the EU can hold it together after hundreds of years of war, anything can happen. I could even see the EU as the start of a world government. I mean, why should they stop with European nations? Why not let any nation join that can pass the membership requirements?

 

[Gul Re'jal]

That's how I see the Federation: a massive version of EU. Every new planet has to get through similar application as every new EU country. And then come particular rights and obligations as a result of being a member.

And being a member of EU/the Federation doesn't mean one loses their national/planetary integrity and blends with others to a point they lose their cultural distinctiveness.

 

[Anwar]

Well, on Earth itself they went through WWIII which probably outright destroyed a lot of nations and cultures to the point that they were more easily absorbed by the surviving countries when they finally began to rebuild. So right off the bat the number of nations were diminished and the trauma would have made them not so willing to fight again.

Then when the Vulcans came and the humans realized there was a lot more to the Universe than just them they figured "Another war amongst ourselves would be pretty dumb, and we have bigger issues to deal with now." so that probably would have fostered more cooperation and brotherhood amongst humanity (before they realized the aliens weren't an enemy either).

Separate nations still exist even by the 24th Century, places like the African Confederation are mentioned.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I have a feeling the United Nations finally did what it was intended to do?

Just a point of correction: the UN was never intended as a confederation or similar alliance of nations. Its purpose is strictly to provide a forum to resolve disputes between nations, support cooperation efforts and ultimately achieve world peace. It has no political goal beyond that, and especially not towards world government or similar.

If a United Earth government were to be established, it will spring from super-alliance like US+UE, or some Asian Confederation.

I am confident that nationality will never be abolished. Just as the 50 U.S. States remain sovereign (though connected at a Federal level) it seems plausible to me that in a Federation-style future, the various nations of the world would remain sovereign, but simply be connected additionally at a super-federal level. A nation in the 24th century would have a role similar to a U.S. State or a Canadian Province within the broader framework of the federal Earth government.

Yeah, that's how I always saw it. I have no problem identifying myself in a "concentric" way as a dweller of my city, a resident of my own Region, an Italian citizen, and an EU citizen. Applying some other citizenship as an United Earth resident and a UFP citizen sounds perfectly natural to me.

 

[indolover]

there are no nation-states in the 23rd/24th centuries.

In Archer's day, there was a one world government. One stipulation of Federation membership is the existence of a one-world government. presumably, there is an Earth government in the 23rd/24th centuries, which takes control over Earth-specific affairs, whilst the Federation government oversees Starfleet, affairs with other cultures/races, etc.

In a way, it's similar to how the USA or Canada work (or any other federal constitutional government). California holds autonomy in some areas, but the federal government has jurisdiction in defence, foreign affairs and in a large degree of economic policy. so California can set its own, say, environmental laws, but couldn't establish its own currency, or sign a treaty with China on its own accord.

 

[Captrek]

there are no nation-states in the 23rd/24th centuries.

In Archer's day, there was a one world government. One stipulation of Federation membership is the existence of a one-world government. presumably, there is an Earth government in the 23rd/24th centuries, which takes control over Earth-specific affairs, whilst the Federation government oversees Starfleet, affairs with other cultures/races, etc.

Also, in “Attached,” Dr. Crusher says, “What if one of the old nation states, say Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in twenty one fifty? Would that have disqualified us as a Federation member?” The reference to “the old nation states” suggests that they no longer exist.

I agree with Joshua that it’s unlikely to happen in the real world.

 

[KJbushway]

The united states is a very proud country. Proud of its strength and heritage. United states if anything changed would likely be the last of all nations to do so. We can be told that infrastructure is failing and that we leave our own on the streets with little help, yet we still stand up during the pledge and anthem.

 

[sojourner]

^Yes, but what's to prevent us from adding more states?

 

[Joshua Howard]

^ For a while I've been working on the theme of two unified governments, one for the east and one for the west, sharing a new global capitol in England as a joint governing force. It would be like a fascist-leaning, communist-leaning, capitalist-leaning United Earth. The premise is that Russia and Nazi Germany unified instead of going to war, while the United States focused at the same time on imperialist pursuits.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The united states is a very proud country. Proud of its strength and heritage. United states if anything changed would likely be the last of all nations to do so. We can be told that infrastructure is failing and that we leave our own on the streets with little help, yet we still stand up during the pledge and anthem.

Mmh, other nations are usually less obvious about their patriotism, but I assure you they are just as much as proud about their heritage as the US.

The premise is that Russia and Nazi Germany unified instead of going to war, while the United States focused at the same time on imperialist pursuits.

And that is different from real history how?

And two little comments: the name of the "Soviet Reich Empire" is quite redundant (translating to "Workers' Council Realm Empire"), and their flag is, well, terrible.

 

[KJbushway]

The only thing stopping the united states from adding more states is that no-one can think of another flag design. The United States would perfer to have more terriotries like guam.
Now I am not saying that other countries aren't as proud of there countries. All I am saying is that the U.S is more stubborn.

 

[T'Girl]

United States would perfer to have more terriotries like guam.

Just the opposite really, twice in 1986 and again in 1994, the United States granted sovereignty to one of her Pacific ocean territories, creating three brand new counties. And while the ultimate destiny of Puerto Rico is hard to say, it not impossible that she too will one day will gain her independents and sovereignty.

... could it happen for real?

In 1991, the Soviet Union became fifteen countries. Yugoslavia eventual became seven countries. Far from becoming a world with one government, I think more likely we'll see an increased "Balkanization" of the surface of the Earth.

One good energy crisis or political/military coup and the People's Republic of China becomes how many countries? Twenty, maybe thirty? India, if split along cultural and ethic lines, could easily form into five countries.

The US state department lists over sixty dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty. some of which could by the turn of the next century become sovereign countries. Oh and don't forget Taiwan which the US lists as "other."

So instead of a 23rd century with a Earth which holds a single "country, I think that we would see as many as a thousand counties on Earth, "a homeland for every soul." I would like to think that still more countries would exist off-world by then, on planets and moons, asteroids and orbital colonies.

 

[Sci]

The only thing stopping the united states from adding more states is that no-one can think of another flag design.

Erm, no.

The United States Army Institute of Heraldry has designed versions of the flag with up to 56 stars in the event that the 6 non-state territories (the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) later become states.

My avatar is their proposal for a 51-star flag, which I adopted in protest of the fact that the District of Columbia is denied equal representation in Congress and equal autonomy as the states, even though it has more residents than the State of Wyoming.

The United States would perfer to have more terriotries like guam.

The United States has been pretty apathetic about the territories, actually; they've been saying for decades that it's up to them to decide if they want to become part of the Union. And Republicans keep blocking D.C. from even so much as getting a single vote in the House of Representatives; they'd never let such a blue-leaning District become a state.

 

[Myasishchev]

And two little comments: the name of the "Soviet Reich Empire" is quite redundant (translating to "Workers' Council Realm Empire"), and their flag is, well, terrible.

I like the flag, agree with the name thing, and add: what history books have you been reading that instruct you that a Nazi-Soviet merger is remotely plausible? A Commonwealth with the United States in it certainly plausible, but it'd be far more likely to have a Union Jack than a Stars and Stripes and the changes would have to go as far back as the 1750s at the earliest.

Yeah, that's how I always saw it. I have no problem identifying myself in a "concentric" way as a dweller of my city, a resident of my own Region, an Italian citizen, and an EU citizen. Applying some other citizenship as an United Earth resident and a UFP citizen sounds perfectly natural to me.

Sucks for anyone hopeful of a more centralized EU. Of course, it took us a war, a megadeath, and well over a century before our priority identification was "American" rather than local.

 

[T'Girl]

what history books have you been reading that instruct you that a Nazi-Soviet merger is remotely plausible?

Politics make for strange bedfellows. They both share the philosophy of centralization of political control.

 

[Gary7]

Multiple state governments are inherently inefficient. Eventually there will become larger, regional sub-governments within the USA. It may happen by attrition (e.g. New Jersey becomes so corrupt that it can't fend for itself--it ends up annexed to New York to survive) or convenience (e.g. the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming merge because of the low number of residents and the need for cohesive management). I can see the USA eventually becoming a 7 state country: PNW(Pacific-North-West), PSW(Pacific-South-West), MW(Mid-West), GC(Gulf-Coast), ACE(Atlantic-Central-East), ANE(Atlantic-North-East).

Continents may consolidate, as the EU has. US, Canada, and Mexico may one day become one major nation. It's not something we can easily imagine... it will take several generations more to pass before it will have the potential of happening.

 

[sojourner]

^Actually, in the U.S., we hear alot of talk about breaking some bigger states up. There is virtually no talk of merging states.