“the lesson of the Rwandan genocide and other large-scale tragedies and scandals is that the UN requires more power and money to provide “human security” on a global scale. In other words, the UN, a would-be world government, like most other governments in history, should capitalize on its failures as a means of growing larger and stronger.” (Grigg, 2005)
One of the main advantages of a World Government would be its potential to galvanize and organize disparate political and economic interests. When one looks at the history of twentieth century, there are numerous examples of how global organizations have found success in this regard. Prominent among them are “the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the G-7 group of industrialized countries, the World Court, the International Labor Organization, the North American Free Trade Association, and so on, including, as it were, a variety of so-called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).” (Samuels, 2001, p. 273) Hence, there is the advantage and security of historical precedence in venturing to form a World Government. The success of these global organizations in addressing common issues across continents and cultures makes the case for the formation of World Government. But the flip side of their success is the alleged partiality and favouritism offered toward First World countries in making common policy. For example
“The economic organizations have had several putative overall functions, including: solving international economic problems, organizing the world monetary and borrowing-lending system, establishing markets along desired lines rather than others, imposing certain conditions for domestic reform upon some countries, controlling the nations of first the Third World and more recently the Second World (the former Soviet bloc) in the interests of First-World countries, promoting the spread of the international corporate system, addressing particular problems with the interests of certain nations or groups of nations and/or certain businesses or groups of businesses and not others…” (Suter, 2003)
So, while existing international organizations have achieved certain difficult goals, their policies and operations have proven to be biased toward global elite interests than the interests of a vast majority of the human population. Considering that these organizations touch the lives of most of the human population, one has to approach carefully the process of consolidating their powers (as in building a World Government). Based on their performance record, existing international organizations take decisions for a select global economic minority, but their decisions affect a vast majority of people, “whose opportunity sets and lives are affected by the decisions of these organizations typically have no direct and/or indirect participation in the organizations.” (Samuels, 2001, p. 273)