NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we've all heard of the United Nations, mediator for several major treaties and includes almost every nation on earth. But I hate its inefficiancy, It is terribly annoying; you can't really get anything done when you have 192 different nations all persuing their own agenda's. I have a solution.
In the map I have made up, every country still retains its sovereignty but is grouped in a political region.
What I have made up is similar to the United Nations but it has several levels to it so decisions can be made quickly and be enforced.
The countries of a certain region send representives to a meeting place in one of the countries of their political region, they decide what international laws or treaties they want to be reviewed by the W.U. ( World Union ) and they send one representitive with the bill or law to the W.U. headquarters in Washington D.C.
There will only be 11 people when the final decisions are made because there will be only one representitive from each region [ 11 regions ] thus improving its effinciancy. It is easier for 11 people to decide than 100's of people.
It will also shorten the list of proposals that are presented, I would rather review 11 proposals of a specific region than to sit and debate the proposals of each and every nation.
I think it will be easier and keep all the nations of the world happy instead of just a few.

Note: I forgot some small Islands off the coast of West Africa but they belong to the Upper African region.

Some right wing Christians think a world government is the last step until Jesus comes back, I don't know where they get that from.

Why exactly are Indonesia and the Philippines split apart? Also, Hawaii is a part of the United States, last time I checked...

[/nitpicking]

The idea in principle sounds interesting, but not the exact one you proposed.

Why exactly are Indonesia and the Philippines split apart? Also, Hawaii is a part of the United States, last time I checked...

Yes it is, my map was kind of stretched on my computer I will change that later.

A world union or government is a joke. It would have no moral authority over the nations.

As an American, I won't have other nations telling the US what to do.

The idea in principle sounds interesting, but not the exact one you proposed.

if you think something needs to be changed just post it. I would be happy to here your opinions.

Some right wing Christians think a world government is the last step until Jesus comes back, I don't know where they get that from.

Somewhere in the Book of Revelations, I imagine.

The idea makes for a nice map with pretty colors, but that's about it. Humanity needs to grow up a bit more first. I believe there will be such a world union, but not in our lifetimes, not by any means.

A world union or government is a joke. It would have no moral authority over the nations.

As an American, I won't have other nations telling the US what to do.

There not telling the U.S. what to do, the US has its fair say, the W.U. is a democracy and everything would be voted on. If the U.S. is out voted... to bad.

It would have moral authority in the fact that it would have the backing of every other nation in the world.

Somewhere in the Book of Revelations, I imagine.

The idea makes for a nice map with pretty colors, but that's about it. Humanity needs to grow up a bit more first. I believe there will be such a world union, but not in our lifetimes, not by any means.

The world does need to grow up, all the fighting going on in the world is a sure sign that people are to stubborn to listen to the other sides opinion. They think a bullet or a missile will always get them their way.

Why exactly are Indonesia and the Philippines split apart? Also, Hawaii is a part of the United States, last time I checked...

[/nitpicking]

And French Guyana is part of France. And Greenland is under Danish sovereignty.

Regarding the idea itself, you're just moving the discussions down to another level. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, although I suppose removing the UNSC permanent seats with veto rights is arguably a good thing.

Then there'd be endless quibbles about who gets put in what region. For example, in your colour scheme, the US retains a lot more sovereignty (50% of the deciding power for North America) than does, say, France, which would have about 2.5% of the deciding power for Europe. North Korea has 20% of the deciding power for eastern Asia. That's a huge difference.

Why exactly are Indonesia and the Philippines split apart? Also, Hawaii is a part of the United States, last time I checked...

[/nitpicking]

I split Indonesia apart and grouped it with other regions because it is to small and underdeveloped to be considered its own political region.

A world union or government is a joke. It would have no moral authority over the nations.

As an American, I won't have other nations telling the US what to do.
I don't think the proposed system is designed to have any more authority than the UN anyway.

if you think something needs to be changed just post it. I would be happy to here your opinions.
A few changes to the borders of the regions. This already used UN subregional system would be a good starting point:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png

Secondly, each level of WU government would be directly elected by the legislative authority of each country, and have more than 11 members. Giving 11 people that kind of authority without any kind of accountability seems too risky.

I split Indonesia apart and grouped it with other regions because it is to small and underdeveloped to be considered its own political region.

No, he means why did you cut a sovereign country in two, rather than putting the whole country in one group of the other? Likewise with the Philippines.

And French Guyana is part of France. And Greenland is under Danish sovereignty.

Regarding the idea itself, you're just moving the discussions down to another level. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, although I suppose removing the UNSC permanent seats with veto rights is arguably a good thing.

Then there'd be endless quibbles about who gets put in what region. For example, in your colour scheme, the US retains a lot more sovereignty (50% of the deciding power for North America) than does, say, France, which would have about 2.5% of the deciding power for Europe. North Korea has 20% of the deciding power for eastern Asia. That's a huge difference.

I'm not going for influence by size or anything. The U.S would not be able to decide by itself what is to be done for the North American region because it would have to agree with canada and the other nations before it could do anything.
So really everyone is equal in this.
The French and the Danish still control their territories but those territories are in another region. basicaly Greenland and french New Guyana don't exist in the W.U. because they are not independant countries.

Why exactly are Indonesia and the Philippines split apart? Also, Hawaii is a part of the United States, last time I checked...

[/nitpicking]There are large amounts of nitpicking with how the map has been divided up.

China for one wouldn't allow Taiwan to be in a separate political unite. Nor do I understand why East Asia has been split up into different political units. Africa could arguable be better split up into majority Muslim Africa, and majority Christian Africa. Why is Turkmenistan, an ex communist state, and not particularly religious part of the middle east? I'm not too hot on the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, but I think Greenland is not independent of Denmark. Maybe autonomous, but not independent. Greece has also been split up into the mainland and Crete. Turkey's Capital is not longer in the same region as the majority of the rest of the country. Why is Bhutan, essentially a vassal state of India, in a separate region to India?

But as a whole regionalism is a good idea. It helps create identities that are distinct from that of nationalism. The only problem is how to define a region.

Morocco, for example has more to do with Spain than it does with Nigeria. And it could arguably be put in the same region as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

I don't think the proposed system is designed to have any more authority than the UN anyway.


A few changes to the borders of the regions. This already used UN subregional system would be a good starting point:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png

Secondly, each level of WU government would be directly elected by the legislative authority of each country, and have more than 11 members. Giving 11 people that kind of authority without any kind of accountability seems too risky.

No there would only be 11 in the final voting, the represintives of each individual region elect somebody to go to Washington D.C and go vote on the laws. They would have accountability to their own individual regions.

1) Washington DC isn't a good choice. No existing city is; it'd make the host nation seem too important. Build an island in the middle of nowhere for the purpose, or a really big boat or something.

2) The regions need rejigging to make them more equal in terms of population. For instance, you'd have one representative for oceania, with something like 100m people or so, one for North America and Greenland, with well under 500m, and one for China and its neighbours at well over a billion people. Not fair at all. You'll probably have to scrap the existing countries to get them even close and still look pretty on a map.

No, he means why did you cut a sovereign country in two, rather than putting the whole country in one group of the other? Likewise with the Philippines.

Which country did I split, I was using a blank political map and I didn't alter anything.

No one would go for it now, and a serious change in the world order would have to take place for people to decide, "You know what? This ain't working anymore." Truthfully, a world government is a few centuries off. Regional governments, however, are a definite possibility.

There would probably end up being about 15-20, truthfully, and maybe we could get it to 10 if we did it right, although there would be some nations that would likely stay independent of the larger states.

When the U.S. falls out of its position of power, there will be events that tie the U.S., Canada, and Britain closer together. Even if some factions of the U.S. and Canada split off, a nation would be formed of the British isles, most of Canada and the U.S., and parts of the Caribbean. Alaska and Hawaii would be part of this, as would some of the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand may go along with it as long as they are largely left to their own workings, and who really wants to boss Australia around?

Latin America would include part of the Caribbean and the Spanish-speaking parts of Central and South America. Brazil would chart its own course.

Europe would form a European Union that may involve Russia and will involve most of eastern Europe. It will likely not involve Turkey or any colonial nations.

Sub-Saharan Africa will band together out of necessity after charismatic leaders speak of uniting for a better tomorrow or something like that. Basically, the people will be tired of getting crapped on by the rest of the world and decide to do something about it.

Southeast Asia will try to form a union of its own, but the major union will be that of China and whoever wants to go along with it. If Korea stays split, North Korea may go with China once the Kim regime starts to fail. South Korea would be more likely to cooperate with Japan.

The Islamic nations would form coalitions, though there would be Sunni coalitions and Shi'ite coalitions. Israel would be large and independent and have the Americans' backing, and there would likely be tension between the Israelis and the more beliggerent Muslims, but that should die down as fewer belligerent factions on both sides hold power.

Then, once there are fewer regions, a world government can begin to develop, though it will likely be just a more organized UN at first. No nation would give up sovereignty to an organization that could end up imposing its will.

It will never work as long as someone cleaning tables in Norways gets enough money to travel around in world working for less than one year while a doctor in Somalia gets payed less than a 16 year old clerk working in a Blockbuster store in the US.

There are large amounts of nitpicking with how the map has been divided up.

China for one wouldn't allow Taiwan to be in a separate political unite. Nor do I understand why East Asia has been split up into different political units. Africa could arguable be better split up into majority Muslim Africa, and majority Christian Africa. Why is Turkmenistan, an ex communist state, and not particularly religious part of the middle east? I'm not too hot on the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, but I think Greenland is not independent of Denmark. Maybe autonomous, but not independent. Greece has also been split up into the mainland and Crete. Turkey's Capital is not longer in the same region as the majority of the rest of the country. Why is Bhutan, essentially a vassal state of India, in a separate region to India?

But as a whole regionalism is a good idea. It helps create identities that are distinct from that of nationalism. The only problem is how to define a region.

Morocco, for example has more to do with Spain than it does with Nigeria. And it could arguably be put in the same region as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

East asia was split up because of the sheer number of people. I put together these regions rather quickly so I understand if there are a few mistakes, or even several larger mistakes.

1) Washington DC isn't a good choice. No existing city is; it'd make the host nation seem too important. Build an island in the middle of nowhere for the purpose, or a really big boat or something.

2) The regions need rejigging to make them more equal in terms of population. For instance, you'd have one representative for oceania, with something like 100m people or so, one for North America and Greenland, with well under 500m, and one for China and its neighbours at well over a billion people. Not fair at all. You'll probably have to scrap the existing countries to get them even close and still look pretty on a map.

The map was hastly put together, I will have a more detailed map eventually. I chose washington D.C. because it is supposed to be a beaken of democracy in the world.

It will never work as long as someone cleaning tables in Norways gets enough money to travel around in world working for less than one year while a doctor in Somalia gets payed less than a 16 year old clerk working in a Blockbuster store in the US.

I admit this plan will hit some serious road bumps at first; but if the worlds nations can hold down there ego's for a while, and work together it will work. And a unified currency would fix the above states problem. A unfied currency would also do the world economy a lot of good.

East asia was split up because of the sheer number of people. I put together these regions rather quickly so I understand if there are a few mistakes, or even several larger mistakes.Each region should have its own distinct regional system that is able to come to agreements on its own. Each region need not be equal in size, but a system of qualified majority voting could be used. Such as the one in use by the EU, where each vote must have an absolute majority of votes and that those votes must be representative of over half the population.

For instance 3 countries vote. A has 4 million people, B has 2 million and C has 1 million. If a vote suceeds with 2 votes to 1 with B and C voting for, but A voting against then vote fails as it is only representative of 3 million out of 7 million people.

Each region should have its own distinct regional system that is able to come to agreements on its own. Each region need not be equal in size, but a system of qualified majority voting could be used. Such as the one in use by the EU, where each vote must have an absolute majority of votes and that those votes must be representative of over half the population.

For instance 3 countries vote. A has 4 million people, B has 2 million and C has 1 million. If a vote suceeds with 2 votes to 1 with B and C voting for, but A voting against then vote fails as it is only representative of 3 million out of 7 million people.

This is actually a good Idea, I'll have to include this when I redraft the organization of the W.U.

It's like Nationstates!!!

Like Nationstates!!!

What? What you mean 'like Nationstates?'


Oh, okay. I agree it is similar to nationstates.

I admit this plan will hit some serious road bumps at first; but if the worlds nations can hold down there ego's for a while, and work together it will work. And a unified currency would fix the above states problem. A unfied currency would also do the world economy a lot of good.

A unified currency really WOULDNT work right now. I have no doubt.

Look at Europe. They are still working on the Euro. And that is because most countries have a relatively high level of development and economy. Now, add countries like Serra Leoa or East Timor, and you have no idea how hard it would be to make things work.

I doubt you even know that there are people right now that live in the same conditions as people lived 1000 years ago.

There not telling the U.S. what to do, the US has its fair say, the W.U. is a democracy and everything would be voted on. If the U.S. is out voted... to bad.

And, how does the US - or any other nation - opt out?

If not allowed to opt out, then they ARE telling the US what to do.

What if this enlightened World Joyfest decides that taxes in Murkistan aren't high enough and outvotes Murkistan in this regard? Is Murkistan required to comply?

If so, then Murkistan is being told what to do.

Your idea is mob rule on a global scale.

It would have moral authority in the fact that it would have the backing of every other nation in the world.

What gives the other nations the right to claim this authority? To dictate to other nations?

Which country did I split, I was using a blank political map and I didn't alter anything.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_map#Political_world_map) may give you a better idea.

Also, this is Indonesia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/LocationIndonesia.png

These are the Philippines:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/LocationPhilippines.png

Look at your map. You've cut both of those countries in half.

As I also pointed out, you've seperated French Guyana from France and Greenland from Denmark.

Not to mention that you've given independence to all remaining dependent territories in the Caribbean, and a few elsewhere too. ;)

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_map#Political_world_map) may give you a better idea.

Also, this is Indonesia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/LocationIndonesia.png

These are the Philippines:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/LocationPhilippines.png

Look at your map. You've cut both of those countries in half.

As I also pointed out, you've seperated French Guyana from France and Greenland from Denmark.

Not to mention that you've given independence to all remaining dependent territories in the Caribbean, and a few elsewhere too. ;)
I think that all the dependencies like French Guyana could still be involved in their 'regional union', or perhaps have their protector state as an observer.

I am for such an idea myself, at least in principle. I might redraw the map some as well, but most of us armchair diplomats would. Very idealistic, though hardly practical, sad to say.

Some right wing Christians think a world government is the last step until Jesus comes back, I don't know where they get that from.

i don't know if somebody answered this but those "right wing christians" get this from the belief that the anit-christ will create a one world government and that he actuall will divide the nations into 11 regions such as the ones you have made. He will appoint people to rule over each one and these 11 people who do are represented by some sort of multi headed beast. i forget some of how it goes but i think that about it. Altho i do think you were just about spot on. WATCH OUT HE'S THE ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!:D

why would canada be interested in joining the north american union? their population is swamped into insignicance by the US and mexico.

why would the US want to be bothered to take the opinions of canada and mexico into consideration when they are now the big dogs of the world?

why would mexico want to be lumped in with the gringos to the north who have nothing but comtempt for them?

Countries need to be allowed not to take part. Otherwise it's just authoritarianism.