I am going to veer completely clear of the communist tangent this thread recently entered, and get back to the topic:
The problem with any international government is that for all the perceived and theoretical benefits, humans haven't yet developed structural resources enough for a global government to truly function. Governments provide services, mitigate and represent local and regional issues, and essentially try to balance the needs and desires of each of its constituencies. To date, only the nation-state has successfully accomplished these things, and some can't even quite do that (i.e., Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.). Supra-national states like the European Union are still finding out that nation-states can often get things done quicker and more effectively than the bureaucracy in Brussels.
Don't get me wrong - I support the EU and the idea of international cooperative organizations like the UN, but we need to admit that for now at least, their effectiveness is limited. As the British historian Eric Hobsbawm once wrote, "the nation-state just won't go away." Just as nations had to develop and mature through universal education and nationalism in the 19th century that tried to suppress regionalism in order to create modern nation-states, so too does the world have to develop socially, politically and economically to be able to really benefit from a global government. It can't be imposed.
In anthropology we were told that a nation is essentially any large group of people who consider themselves a nation. Any definition that attempts to break it down finer gets hung up on exceptions, so you can't really assume common ethnicity, religion, geography, skin color, history or any other commoninity are completely necessary. If you've got a people who are convinced they're a nation, well then you've got yourself a nation. The British historian John Keegan talked about how a Southern nation developed in the United States that persists still today, despite its failed attempt at independent statehood in 1861-65. A state, on the other hand, is a sophisticated political tool that requires a highly-developed society to use it to its fullest advantage. In the 19th century when they started talking about "Ein volk, ein nation!", they told all those peoples locked up in the creaking medieval empires that they each deserved their own state. The linkage is complete, like it or not, and this linkage is responsible for much of the bloodshed of the 20th century.
Perhaps the world will slowly develop towards some sort of super-state, but I don't think it's possible in our lifetimes. Think of the resentment modern nation-states have to deal with; regional issues (Basqueland, Tyrol, Chiapas, southern Philippines, etc.) , ethnic and religious strife issues, collapse of service (electric & gas power, water, sewage, garbage removal, transportation, welfare, medical, etc. etc. etc.); just imagine the bureaucracy! Also, let's be honest: any international organization is going to have to be led by someone (and will probably be dominated by someone), and whoever it is will always cause resentment elsewhere. The American former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, once said that all politics is local, and he's right. Afghanis will only listen to their local clan chief; will they ever accept orders or laws from some faraway global capital? I think for now we're better off maintaining the nation-states, although tempering them with increasing amounts of international integration and cooperation. If we rush things, it'll just cause a backlash.
[dance]
