SECTION TWO: THE THREE PRINCIPLES
Now that we have determined that a transitional stage led by a superior coalition is the necessary and most suitable approach for global unification, our discussion should turn to the formation and operation of such a superior coalition. We believe that the superior coalition’s establishment and operation strategy should conform to three major principles: the legality principle, the feasibility principle, and the justice principle. The “legality principle” refers to the coalition’s conformity with international law; the “feasibility principle” refers to the smooth establishment of the coalition as well as its successful promotion of ultimate global unity; and the “justice principle” refers to the balance of interests from all regions and groups in the world while fully considering the democracy and human rights of all peoples, as well as the achievement of desired results for as many people as possible.
One: The Legality of the Strategy
1. The Legality Principle
Since the legitimacy of the superior coalition falls under the purview of international law, we must first understand the characteristics of international law.
Most people have some basic understanding of their domestic laws. We accept authority and are subject to the constraints of domestic law on a daily basis, both consciously and unconsciously. Domestic law is devised by the legislature of the state in accordance with certain procedures; it is broadly binding and its main body is comprised of all relevant persons and groups within its domain. Domestic law is upheld by institutions of the state, such as the army, the police, and the courts; thus, it is guaranteed to be effectively implemented. The scope of domestic law does not extend to other countries, nor does it involve the entire international community.
International law is also known as Public International Law; it is completely different from domestic law. The main body of international law is comprised of countries, intergovernmental organizations, and national liberation organizations seeking independence. International law seeks to mediate the relations between the abovementioned subjects. It generally does not mediate between the subjects of domestic law. International law is effective within the entire international community.
Comparative to domestic law, international law has two distinct characteristics. First, the principles and systems of international law are formulated by sovereign states and other subjects of international law in accordance with the principle of equal consultation, usually in the form of treaties, conventions, and agreements. The second major source of international law is international customs—customs that have been repeatedly applied in international practice and are generally recognized as having legal character. Second, from the perspective of law, there is no institution higher than the state that has the power to enforce international law. International law can only be enforced by the subjects themselves or through collective action.
For example, the Treaty of Westphalia established after the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 was a document of international legality. The Covenant of the League of Nations also had international legality; the Charter of the United Nations, established after World War II upon the birth of the United Nations, is also a document of international legal validity. Other treaties of smaller scope have the same legality as international treaties, such as the 1815 Holy Alliance Treaty signed by Russia, Austria, and the United States. The Four-Power Treaty (signed by the United States, Britain, Japan, and France in 1921), the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (signed by China and the Soviet Union), and many other treaties all carry the force of international law.
According to the characteristics of international law, we can see that international law and international relations are inseparable. The latter is the basis for determining the former. Whether it is the conclusion of treaties, conventions, and agreements between countries or the international customs of international affairs, international laws are often a reflection of international relations. Therefore, it is fair to say that international law is determined by international relations.
The legitimacy of international law changes over time. Acts that were once considered legitimate may be considered illegal in other time periods, while illegal acts today may become lawful in the future. Due to the constantly adapting nature of international law and international relations, we must emphasize the following points:
First, the establishment of a new international order usually requires a major war. For example, the framework of modern international relations was established on the ruins of European feudal theocratic power of the Middle Ages. The religious reformation movement in sixteenth century Europe spread to all other countries and exerted profound influence on European society. At that time, the Habsburgs in Austria were the main defenders of Europe’s feudal system, and they were in fierce opposition with the Protestant countries.
The Thirty Years’ War between 1618 and 1648 started with religion, but it quickly evolved into a political war that encompassed almost all of Europe. The war ended in victory against the Habsburg dynasty. The signing of the Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the war and the establishment of a new system of international relations. The world order of prewar Roman theocracy was completely broken, and the Habsburg dynasty was forced to recognize the sovereignty of all the vassal nations. This new system of international relations was called the Westphalian system.
Under the Westphalian system, the main participants in European affairs were Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria—until the French Revolution broke out. At that time, France was a major power in Europe, so the influence of the French Revolution on world politics and international relations was extremely far-reaching. In order to stifle the French revolution, European powers like Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia promoted the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. The ensuing war with the First French Republic established by the French Revolution and then Napoleon I’s First French Empire lasted over twenty years. The victors of this war rearranged Europe and established a new order of international relations. This was the Vienna system.
The Vienna system was followed by the Bismarck system. The dissolution of the Vienna system and the establishment of the Bismarck system was caused by a series of wars, including the European revolution, the Crimean War, and the German reunification war. The united Germany soon became a major power in Europe. The German prime minister, Bismarck—a manipulative diplomat and far-sighted politician—formed a new international order known as the Bismarck system. This system lasted until the outbreak of the First World War.
World War I resulted in tens of millions of casualties and led to the final disintegration of the Bismarck system and the establishment of the Versailles-Washington system.
The collapse of the Versailles-Washington system and the subsequent establishment of a new system of international relations was the result of World War II. The system of international relations formed after the war was called the Yalta system, because the commanders of the United States, Soviet Union, and Great Britain held their postwar meeting in Yalta in February 1945. It was in this meeting that the victors of World War II rearranged the postwar world order and established a new system of international relations.
Second, international relations determine the standards of international law. International relations are the foundation of international law and they determine the standards of international law. Both international treaties and international customs are a reflection of international relations. The emergence of a new system of international relations will inevitably lead to new changes in the content of international law, because the establishment of new international relations is usually ruled by a series of important international treaties and conventions. International customs are also changed as international relations adapt.
The legitimacy and justice of international law are not always the same thing. Since the establishment of a new system of international relations is generally accompanied by large-scale war, the leading establishers of the new international system must be the victors of war. As victors, they will undoubtedly put the interests of their countries first. Only after national interests are fully tended to will they take into account the interests of other countries. The victorious countries will also inevitably impose unequal conditions upon the defeated countries, and the defeated countries will be powerless to resist. All this is just common practice. These actions are certainly not fair and reasonable, yet they are legal from the perspective of international law because they have been established by means of treaties to which all parties have agreed and endorsed.
2. Seeking Legitimate Strategies within the UN System
Here we will seek an appropriate approach to the superior coalition strategy based on today’s system of international relations and laws. Since the establishment of a superior coalition has never been attempted before, there is no readily formed code of conduct or case precedence. We can only formulate a suitable approach by analyzing international history and relying on logical reasoning.
The establishment of contemporary international relations and law systems stems from the Second World War. After World War II, the event of highest international influence was the establishment of the United Nations and the signing of the UN Charter. The establishment of the United Nations as a focal point in global affairs is the most prominent feature of postwar international relations. Recognition of the Charter of the United Nations as the core source of contemporary international law is the most prominent feature of postwar international law.
The UN’s role in global affairs is most similar to the role the world power will play in a unified society. Considering the United Nations’ role in international society and its functional similarity to the future world power, it is only natural to seek legitimate strategies for the superior coalition within the UN system. In fact, the UN has always been seen as a transitional program that brought the international society from anarchy into the possibility of world unity. This is because the functions and purposes of the UN itself are very similar to that of a world power.
At present, 193 countries are members of the United Nations, including all the major countries of the world. These countries have the obligation and responsibility to act within the UN system in accordance with the UN Charter. In fact, the scope of the United Nations and its coordination is not limited to its members but actually exceeds its members and has extensive global significance in the fullest sense. It is stipulated in the UN Charter that within the necessary range of peace and security maintenance, the United Nations should ensure that non-member states also comply with the principles set forth. As can be seen, the status of the United Nations as a mediating force is entirely global.
a. The Agencies of the United Nations
In order to seek legitimate strategies for the superior coalition within the UN system, we must first analyze the organizational structure and operational mechanisms of the United Nations. The United Nations has six main organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. A series of subsidiary organs are also located under these principal organs.
i. The General Assembly
The UN General Assembly is the main deliberative body of the UN. It is composed of all the UN members, and each country has one vote. No country can have more than five representatives on the General Assembly.
The main duties of the General Assembly are to discuss the cooperation among nations and the maintenance of international peace and security (including the principles of disarmament and arms control); to advise member states or the Security Council on the above principles; to study and promote political international cooperation; to promote the progressive development and codification of international law; to promote international cooperation in all fields of economy, society, culture, education, and health; to accept and consider reports on the work of other United Nations departments; to appoint the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the Security Council; to elect non-permanent members of the Security Council; to discuss the admission of new member states on the recommendation of the Security Council; to discuss the decision to remove member states; and to discuss and decide on the budget of the United Nations. The General Assembly discusses a wide array of issues, but it cannot discuss any issue that the Security Council is deliberating.
The General Assembly is convened and presided over by the president of the General Assembly, who is elected by the previous General Assembly. There are also twenty-one vice-presidents. The president of the General Assembly rotates regionally. The distribution of the president and vice-presidents is as follows: six from African countries, five from Asian countries, one from Eastern European countries, three from Latin American countries, two from Western European countries and other countries, and five from the permanent members of the Security Council.
ii. The Security Council
The Security Council is composed of five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members (formerly seven non-permanent members, increased to ten in 1965). Non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for a term of two years and may not be re-elected successively.
The main duties of the Security Council are to maintain international peace and security, as well as to preside over and promote international disarmament and arms control. In addition, the functions of the Security Council also include: exercising the United Nations’ trusteeship role, electing judges to the International Court of Justice separate from the General Assembly, taking measures to implement the judgments of the International Court of Justice, recommending the Secretary-General and new members states to the General Assembly, and recommending the suspension or expulsion of member states to the General Assembly.
iii. The Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council, referred to as ECOSOC, is comprised of fifty-four members (formerly eighteen members, increased to twenty-seven in 1965 and then fifty-four in 1973). The members of the council all serve a term of three years, and eighteen new members are elected by the General Assembly every year. Re-election is possible once the term expires. The Economic and Social Council is responsible for coordinating international economic, social, cultural, educational, and health works and making recommendations in regard to these tasks. In addition, at the request of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or other UN agencies, the council will also provide intelligence and assistance as well as hold international conferences when necessary.
iv. The Trusteeship Council
The Trusteeship Council oversees the trusteeship of territories and examines relevant trusteeship reports and petitions. The Trusteeship Council is composed of three country categories: member states administering the trusteeship of territories, permanent members of the Security Council that do not administer the trusteeship of territories, and a necessary number of Assembly-elected three-year member states. With the gradual reduction and complete disappearance of trusteeship administrators, the current board of trustees consists only of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
v. The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is set up to deliberate and deal with international legal issues and to settle international disputes through judicial means. It is composed of fifteen independent judges of different nationalities. These independent judges are elected by their respective countries and then selected through a series of specific procedures.
The International Court of Justice has judiciary functions and advisory functions; it does not accept cases from individuals. Once the court passes judgment, if one party chooses not to comply, the other party can ask the Security Council to enforce the judgment. The advisory function of the International Court of Justice mainly includes advising the General Assembly and the Security Council on legal issues at any time. Other United Nations agencies—if authorized by the General Assembly—may also request the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on legal issues within its scope.
vi. The UN Secretariat
The UN Secretariat is the administrative organ of the United Nations and is comprised of one Secretary-General, one Deputy Secretary-General, several Assistant Secretary-Generals, and other administrative staff. The Secretary-General is recommended by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for a term of five years; they can be re-elected. The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the United Nations; they manage and oversee the work of UN staff and exercise the authority as well as fulfill the responsibility of the Secretary-General in all the principal organs of the United Nations.
b. The UN’s Core Authority Lies in the Security Council
The voting systems of the United Nations fall into three broad categories: “one-country, one-vote” consensus, “one-country, one-vote” majority, and “one-country, multi-vote” weighted system.
The one-country, one-vote consensus refers to a system in which each country has one vote and all resolutions require unanimous consent to pass. The unanimity principle of the Security Council relies on this type of voting system; it gives every member state the same right to veto.
The one-country, one-vote majority refers to a system in which each country has one vote but all resolutions only require majority vote to pass. This system can again be divided into simple majority and specific majority. The former only requires more than half of the votes to pass, while the latter may need a specific majority—like 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, and so on—to pass. The UN General Assembly as well as most of the specialized agencies of the United Nations relies on the one-country, one-vote majority system.
The one-country, multi-vote weighted system refers to a voting system that allocates votes to countries according to specific parameters like responsibility, contribution, and other conditions. This may result in unequal distribution of votes among different countries.
Among the organs of the United Nations, the two most important are the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly is the supreme organ of authority designated by the UN Charter; the Security Council is the sole authority that can make and implement decisions for all member states of the UN. The resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not universally binding; only the resolutions of the Security Council carry true compulsory force. Therefore, the core authority of the United Nations lies in the Security Council, not the UN General Assembly. The Security Council is the most important implementing agency of the United Nations.
In order to join the United Nations, a country must first be recommended by the Security Council and then its membership will be discussed and voted on by the General Assembly. Similar procedures apply to members who have been suspended or expelled. When it comes to issues being discussed by the Security Council, without express request from the Council, the General Assembly cannot discuss the same issues. When judgments of the International Court of Justice are not executed, complaints and implementation requests are submitted to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. The General Assembly only has advisory power when it comes to the maintenance of international peace and security, but the Security Council has the authority and power to make concrete decisions.
The Security Council’s powers are not only extensive but also superior to all else. In fact, the powers of the Security Council far exceed the parameters stated above. The Security Council is also responsible for formulating disarmament and arms control programs; exercising the UN trusteeship functions; selecting judges to the International Court of Justice; recommending the Secretary-General to the General Assembly; suspending or expelling the rights of member states; participating in amendments to the UN Charter; and other responsibilities.
The above details are enough to demonstrate that the power of the United Nations lies in the Security Council. As a universal representative, the General Assembly acts like a world forum; it’s comparable to how a parliament would function in a country. Meanwhile, the Security Council functions like the government that holds actual power.
The core power of the Security Council lies in its five permanent members: the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France. However, every member on the council—permanent or temporary—has one vote. All procedural matters require nine out of fifteen votes to pass, while non-procedural issues require “yes” votes from all nine temporary members and consent from all five permanent members—that is to say, every permanent member of the Council has veto power. However, if permanent members do not participate in voting or abstain their vote, it does not constitute a veto.
It is worth noting that all permanent members also have the right to decide whether or not an issue is procedural or non-procedural. They can exercise their veto power if they decide that an issue is not procedural and must be voted on accordingly. This means that all permanent members actually have “dual-veto” power. The essential implication of this dual-veto power is that every permanent member of the Security Council has the power to directly or indirectly veto any issue.
The Charter of the United Nations bestowed extraordinary power upon the Security Council and also empowered the five permanent members of the Security Council, so UN affairs are generally dominated by these five permanent members. This is the reality of the United Nations; it may not be reasonable, but it is legitimate.
3. Specific Approaches
Since the centerpiece of contemporary international relations is the UN system, the core source of international law is the UN Charter. When formulating a design for the superior coalition, we can rely on the UN Charter as a guideline to determine the members that will make up this coalition.
First Inference: The power structure of the superior coalition should mirror that of the UN
In order to establish a legitimate superior coalition, let us first examine the functions and powers the coalition should possess.
The superior coalition should lead all mankind toward global unification (i.e., it should play a leading role in the transition to a unified society).Although countries will still remain in the transitional period, their sovereignty will not be complete. Portions of their power will have been transferred to the superior coalition; thus, all countries will have to follow the lead of the superior coalition.
What kinds of principles must the superior coalition be based on in order to be in conformity with the principles of international law? Since there are no precedents in the history of humanity for the establishment of a superior coalition, it is impossible to obtain provisions from existing international law. We can only determine some possible principles by analyzing the basic principles of current international relations and international law.
One thing is certain: one of the most crucial legal challenges will be the determination of which countries are most qualified to lead the world. In other words, which countries would most deserve to be chosen to form the superior coalition?
The only existing organization that can be compared to the superior coalition is the United Nations. According to the UN Charter, the powers conferred on the United Nations by various countries are manifold. The primary power of the UN is aimed at the maintenance of world peace and stability. In this regard, the United Nations can take all measures to ensure world peace, even armed force when necessary. At the same time, the United Nations shoulders the responsibilities of promoting international cooperation, promoting the development of human society, and safeguarding human rights. Its covers almost all major areas of politics, economics, military affairs, culture, and society. In theory, the scope of the United Nations extends to the world, which is consistent with the scope of the superior coalition.
Since the United Nations is an international organization, it is different from the superior coalition in two ways. First, the United Nations is not as powerful as the superior coalition due to a lack of its own global army. Comparatively, the superior coalition will have overwhelming military capabilities and will be able to exercise its powers to a far greater extent than the United Nations.
Second, the power of the United Nations is not as in-depth as the superior coalition’s will be. For example, the United Nations cannot interfere in the internal affairs of countries and must recognize the independence and sovereignty of nations. The same does not apply to the superior coalition. In the transitional period, countries will be required to transfer some of their power to the superior coalition in order to better facilitate the transition to a unified society. Without at least claiming some parts of each country’s sovereignty, it would be impossible for the superior coalition to command global affairs.
We can make the following approximations based on the above two points:
First, the superior coalition will increase the power exercised by the United Nations. The inability of the United Nations to properly exercise its power when needed is a fatal flaw, and the superior coalition will rectify this flaw. Therefore, the superior coalition will be more conducive to the fundamental interests of all mankind. We can conclude that the superior coalition will acquire power in the same way as the United Nations, but the former will exercise its power more effectively. This is in accordance with the principles of international law.
Second, the United Nations possesses some powers to safeguard the fundamental interests of mankind. These powers are endowed by the UN Charter, which is an extensive multilateral agreement signed by all member states; therefore, the power of the United Nations is in fact gained by willful transfer from member states. The superior coalition will gain power in the same way, only on a deeper scale. Since the prevention of human extinction is of highest priority, it is in accordance with international law that countries transfer more of their power to the superior coalition to facilitate global unification.
Second Inference: The superior coalition should be modeled on the framework of the Security Council.
When designing the superior coalition based on the United Nations, the following two elements must be considered:
First, sovereign states voluntarily confer their power to the United Nations by signing the UN Charter. (The principle of national independence and sovereignty is very important to contemporary international law.)
Second, only the member states of the United Nations sign the UN Charter—that is, members only surrender part of their sovereignty when they wish to become a part of the United Nations.
Members of the superior coalition will be very limited in number; it may be a few or a dozen at most. There are more than two hundred countries in the world, which means that 90 percent of the world’s countries will not be included in the initial superior coalition. The majority of countries will undoubtedly be unwilling to hand over their sovereignty to a superior coalition comprised of few member states. Even if a document similar to the UN Charter were signed, there would be no guarantee that the treaty would be signed willingly by all parties; thus, the ensuing acquisition of power by the superior coalition would be illegitimate.
In order to solve this issue, we must first discuss the institutional framework and distribution of power within the United Nations. Among the various agencies of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly is the symbol of supreme authority. The General Assembly is composed of all member states, and all members have the right to one equal vote; however, it is impossible for such a vast number of countries and their representatives to exercise substantive power in such a large assembly. In fact, the resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not even universally binding. Among the UN agencies, it is the Security Council that holds true authoritative power. The Security Council is composed of a very small number of members, yet its decisions are final and binding upon all members of the United Nations. From this we can reason that the Security Council holds the true power to represent the United Nations in leading the actions of the world.
With the above reasoning, the establishment of the superior coalition can be easily solved. Since the Security Council has the power to represent the United Nations on a global scale and it is composed of a small number of countries, the superior coalition should be modeled on the framework of the Security Council. In other words, in order for the superior coalition to have international legal basis as well as effectiveness, it should be established according to the compositional characteristics of the Security Council.
Based on the above conclusions, we may further examine the representative nature of the Security Council to determine its suitability as a precedence for the superior coalition.
We know that the Security Council is composed of fifteen countries: five permanent members, and ten non-permanent members. These countries are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. They are also countries of global representative power.
Among the six major organs of the United Nations, the Security Council and its members hold core power. In fact, the power of the Trusteeship Council belongs to the five permanent members of the Security Council as well.
There are fifty-four members in the Economic and Social Council. Since the members of the Security Council are all major players on the world map and generally hold membership within the ECOSOC as well, they also hold great influence in the Economic and Social Council.
Within the General Assembly, not only do the members of the Security Council all hold their own seat, but the five permanent members are also guaranteed fixed vice-president positions. This is a deliberate special arrangement made in concession to the permanent members of the Security Council; no other country receives similar privileges. In addition, the non-permanent members of the Security Council are also important countries in the world and have the potential to become president or vice-president of the General Assembly.
Even without the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the five permanent members of the council alone have considerable power and prestige in the United Nations. It is safe to say that they can decisively influence most of the countries in the General Assembly on any topic or resolution.
The fifteen independent judges of the International Court of Justice are elected through an absolute majority vote by both the General Assembly and the Security Council. This means that the Security Council can veto any judge selection they disagree with. Moreover, all five permanent members of the Security Council will usually each have a judge of their own in the International Court—making up more than one third of the judges.
The Security Council can also recommend the appointment of the chief administrative officer of the United Nations—the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is essentially handpicked by the Security Council.
We can see that the Security Council not only holds the core power of the United Nations but also has the ability to influence the other organs of the UN. It has decisive power on the decisions and actions of the United Nations. The governing bodies of the Security Council more or less make up the full controlling power of the United Nations, making them great candidates for a legitimate superior coalition.
Should the superior coalition be composed exactly like the Security Council? That is, should the number of countries be five (permanent members) plus ten (non-permanent members)? That is not necessary from a theoretical point of view.
In the decision-making process of the Security Council, all procedural decisions require nine “yes” votes, while non-procedural issues require the five permanent members to not exercise their veto power in addition to nine “yes” votes. If all five permanent members reached consensus, further consent from only four non-permanent members would be required to pass a resolution.
A superior coalition is comprised of countries, but once these countries join the coalition, they will integrate and cease to be independent nations. We can hypothesize that all decisions of the superior coalition will be unanimous.
From this perspective, nine countries with sufficient representative power will be enough to form a legitimate superior coalition. Such “sufficient representative power” should be analogous to the representative power of the members of the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Security Council will be de facto members of the superior coalition. After this, only four more members will be required to establish the superior coalition. This condition can be called the “5 + 4 condition”; that is, four more suitable countries plus the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France.
Of course, other conditions must also be considered in the establishment of the superior coalition. The 5 + 4 condition is merely the minimum standard. If the reasonable addition of members would further the function of the superior coalition, it should be considered.
Two: The Feasibility of the Strategy
It is not enough to discuss the legality of the superior coalition; the feasibility must also be considered. We must consider whether a superior coalition can be established, and whether it has sufficient strength to lead the world towards unification.
In order to make the superior coalition feasible, the following factors should be established:
1. The Number of Countries in the Superior Coalition
Needless to say, the fewer the number of countries in the superior coalition, the easier it will be to form and integrate because religious and ethnic conflicts, as well as living conditions disparities and economic differences, will be less intense with a smaller number of countries. This will make negotiations and integration less chaotic.
At the same time, the number of members in the superior coalition cannot be too small. If numbers were too small, the superior coalition will not have broad representation and will lack necessary strength. There are a number of very powerful countries in the world today. These countries must be absorbed into the superior coalition, both for the advantage of the coalition and to prevent them from becoming threats to the coalition. If these countries formed alliances of their own independent of the coalition, they would undermine the leadership position of the superior coalition.
The number of members in the superior coalition cannot be too large or too small. From the aspect of feasibility, as long as it does not affect the formation and integration of the coalition, we should err on the side of more rather than less.
2. The Economic Scale
The economic scale of coalition member states should be as large as possible, since economic strength will always be the foundation of any country or organization. Since it would be impossible for the superior coalition to absorb too many member states, every member state will have to possess maximum economic strength.
3. Territory and Resources
Broadly speaking, territory and resource problems are essentially the same issue—that is, a resource issue. Territories are also a type of resource, but the concept of resources includes a wider range of components like oil, iron ore, coal, water, and forests. Some countries may be small but resource-rich, while other countries may be vast in territory but scarce in resources. It is difficult to analyze the resource situation of a country; for the sake of simplicity, we will use territory as the standard.
We adopt this simplification for three reasons: first, territory is generally proportional to the total amount of resources; secondly, resource situations may change day by day (before the discovery of oil, the Middle East was a barren desert); thirdly, the importance of territorial areas often transcends the concept of resources (from a military strategy point of view, a vast territory means superior military advantage). Therefore, the criterion of territory is enough to summarize the issue of resources as well as the further issue of strategic advantage. This makes territory a good standard to judge the strength of member states against.
The contiguity of territory is also an important factor to consider when discussing territorial issues. In other words, we should not only try to select countries with large territories, but we should also consider the integration potential of all member states. If the members of the superior coalition were distributed all over the globe, it would be difficult to maintain effective governance and management.
Many other conditions must also be considered in the choice of member states. If it is necessary to choose a country whose territory is distanced from other members, it should be in one or few isolated incidents. The main body of the superior coalition should be closely linked territorially.
4. Military Strength
There will be no guarantee for peace without absolute superior military strength. The superior coalition will only be able to dominate the world and lead other non-member countries through absolute military strength. Military strength will be an important criterion when judging the selection of coalition member states.
5. Consistency of People’s Living Standards
The consistency of people’s living standards refers to the idea that the member countries of the coalition should have similar average living standards among their citizens. If living standards were too far apart, there would be large differences between people’s lifestyles, education levels, and behaviors. This would make social integration very difficult and global governance largely ineffective.
It is impossible to expect completely equal living standards among the people of all member countries. In fact, living standards within a single country are often uneven. In China, the per capita income in Shanghai is nearly four times the per capita income in Guizhou. This gap cannot be underestimated, and it brings many social problems with it. However, the social stability of China is still relatively good among the countries of the world.
The gap in living standards should be considered in conjunction with many other factors. Though we wish to strive for as small a disparity as possible, we must admit that there is a huge gap in the living standards of different countries. As long as this gap is smaller than ten times, it should not affect integration too much. If handled properly, even large living standard gaps can be overcome. When calculating the per capita living standards of countries, the more scientific “purchasing power parity” should be the standard.
6. Religion and Ethnic Extremism
In today’s world, religious and ethnic extremism often lead to social instability. Terrorism emerged as a by-product of extreme religious fanaticism and ethnic sentiment. The extremely exclusive and vindictive nature of religious hatred and ethnic extremism makes them both highly incompatible with the spirit of global unification.
Ethnic and religious extremist countries should not be considered as initial members of the superior coalition, but that does not mean that they will be indefinitely excluded. After the superior coalition is established, the coalition will guide all other countries to constantly improve in accordance with the requirements of unification. Such guidance will include policies that downplay religious and ethnic beliefs and promote abandonment of extremist policies. Once this transformation attains a certain level of maturity, former extremist countries will be safely absorbed into the coalition.
Three: The Justice of the Strategy
The justice factor refers to whether the formation of the superior coalition can reflect the principle of fairness and reasonableness as well as give equal opportunities and power to all regions and groups of the world. Further analysis shows that the key component of the justice factor lies in the broad representative power of the superior coalition. Only through broad representation can the members of the superior coalition fully reflect democracy and human rights. Broad representation will also establish a broad basis of support and ensure that all countries will be willing to accept the leadership of the superior coalition. What elements should be considered when determining the justice factor?
1. The Number of Countries and the Population Mass
Undoubtedly, the superior coalition will have most extensive justice if it encompasses all the countries of the world; however, this would be extremely difficult to achieve in the initial transitional period. In fact, it is more in line with the ultimate goal of the unified society. Conversely, if the superior coalition were only composed of one country, its breadth of representation and justice level would be abysmal. In essence, this would be the beginning of a vast hegemonic world dictatorship instead of a coalition.
In terms of formation difficulty, the former approach is definitely the hardest, while the latter is the easiest; however, both of these approaches are extreme methods that will not produce desirable results. Under the principles of legality and justice, it will only be reasonable and realistic if an appropriate number of representative member states are selected for the coalition.
In terms of population mass, the more the population is represented by the superior coalition, the better the coalition’s representative power will be. A coalition that represents a great population will not only have broader representation but also a greater degree of confidence. Countries accustomed to equating population with power will feel less resistant to being led by a coalition with great population mass; thus, coalition member countries should have the largest possible populations.
2. Ethnic and Racial Issues
The superior coalition must have broad representation in all aspects, including ethnic representation. There are more than ten thousand ethnicities in the world, and it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to include every ethnicity in the superior coalition. Since the racial issue is simpler than the ethnic issue and it encompasses ethnicity, we can consider the broad representation of ethnicities through racial representation.
Generally speaking, the races of the globe can be divided into white, yellow, and black—that is European, Mongoloid, and Equatorial. These three racial categories are distributed among various countries around the world. If we use race to substitute ethnicity when considering broad representation, the issue can be simplified.
When incorporating member countries, the superior coalition must ensure that each of the three races occupies a majority position in some of countries selected. The member countries in the coalition cannot be dominated by one or two races.
3. Geographical Representation
The world is divided into Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Australia. Geographical representation is an important component of broad representation within the superior coalition.
Every continent is home to different people. Different geographical characteristics determine the different ethnic statuses, living conditions, cultural backgrounds, and historical developments of various peoples. Geographical sentiment is a force that cannot be neglected; the collective resentment of one continent would hinder the progress of the superior coalition far more than resistance from a small or medium-sized country. Moreover, geographical representation is an integral part of global justice. As a leader in human justice, the superior coalition should choose member countries based on fair and reasonable geographical representation.
4. Religious Representation
Religion is an important form of spiritual support for all mankind. There are more than one hundred thousand religions in the world today, most of which are newly emerged religions. Three of these religions are widely acknowledged to be global religions: Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Even though some religions are not global, they are still large in scale and widely influential, such as Hinduism and Judaism. Religions are often divided into many branches, such as the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant factions of Christianity, or the Shiite and Sunni factions of Islam.
The superior coalition cannot possibly represent all one hundred thousand religions of the world due to its small number of member states; thus, we need only consider religions of wide influence when discussing religious representation. The members of the coalition should subscribe to the main religions of the word, but religious extremists should not be considered due to their exclusive nature. Among the major religions, it is only natural that the three major global religions be included first.
The spiritual significance of religion makes it a very important component of broad representation. Suitable religious representation can unite different peoples and effectively avoid conflicts and killings caused by religious hatred. Exceptional religious representation is necessary to establish a stable external environment for the effective leadership of the superior coalition.
Four: Rethinking the Plan for Unification
Previous elaboration designates the United Nations and the UN Charter as the most legitimate, feasible, and just model for developing a superior coalition. This approach is possible, but it will require consensus and sacrifice from all mankind as well as the abandonment of various differences across the globe.
I believe that humanity would be able to unite and overcome all above differences if aliens invaded Earth today. That is because the overall threat to human survival would be visible and straightforward in such a case; however, human extinction from the continued development of science and technology is much less visible and may not even happen within our generation; therefore, global unification may take more time and effort to achieve. That is why we are adopting a method of peaceful transition as our ultimate strategy. Of course, it is still the author’s personal wish that unification can be achieved in one step through peaceful means.