War Lord World
December 6, 2024
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Popular pages:

Governance in the Slow Motion Apocalypse

Reviewing my sources for my (possibly) forthcoming book The U.S. War Against Asia, I came across a remarkable fact. In S.C.M. Paine's The Wars for Asia he states that between the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912 and 1928, China had an estimated 1,300 war lords. By war lord we mean someone who has an army and governs the territory it controls. Of course war lords, particularly the smaller ones, came and went as they battled one another. They could also be crushed by the intended all-China central governments of the Nationalists (Kuomintang), the Communists, or Japan. Note a number of warlords retained independence well after 1928, and the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai Shek in many ways resembled a coalition of war lords.

I have been thinking about global governance a lot lately, so this made me realize we live in a War Lord World. It is a bit more complex than that of competing Chinese warlords, of course. War lords do not usually have legislative bodies or elections. Or constitutions. In Europe we could say that the old feudal system consisted of many war lords until they were consolidated into nations, mostly monarchies. But what really is a king but an institutionalized war lord, a relatively big war lord? If a nation is almost always at war with other nations, as the United States of America has been during its history, how different is that from a pure war lord? Is an elected commander in chief not a warlord?

In China in the 1920s Chiang Kai Shek and friends set out to crush the warlords and unify China. At times they did pretty well. They defeated some in battle, while others saw the advantage of becoming (effectively) feudal lords under Chiang, so they just joined up with him. The communists, eventually led by Mao, were a small but determined roadblock, with fragments of territory until they took over areas of the northwest. The Japanese set up a well-governed, prosperous regime in Manchuria, then figured they could do that for all of China. The Japanese did not lose the war in China, they lost it fighting America in the Pacific. In the end it was the communists who unified mainland China, bringing the war lord era to an end. Similar stories can be told in many nations.

We live in a war lord world. The United Nations does not function like a real government. To the extent it functions, it is through getting nations to voluntarilly cooperate. It works, in effect, like multi-national treaties. It has no army of its own. When the U.S. (or Russia, China, Great Britain, or France) does not get its way, it either vetoes what the General Assembly passes, or ignores the entire apparatus.

The war lord world has some very negative consequences for all the people of earth. Most noticeably there are wars. Those have been going on since maybe even before Homo sapiens evolved out of its predecessor. Still, it is possible that if we had a global government, a Government of Earth, we might be able to eliminate most warfare. We can't be sure until we give it a try.

China ended its war lord period in 1950. It was an astonishingly poor nation by that time. Especially considering that it had been the wealthiest nation on earth as recently as 1800. Just having peace in the 1950s made the economy better, but there were ups and downs with the Chinese economy, much as there are with capitalist and mixed economies. It was really around 1980 that China started to see consistent strong economic growth, to the point where today it has the second strongest economy on earth. So if we shift from the current war lord world to one that is well-governed by a global government, it is reasonable to expect overall economic improvement on a global scale. Of course a badly managed global government could create a global economic disaster. Perhaps on the scale of the one caused in 1930 by the war lords of that era raising tariffs and destroying most world trade.

The real benefit, assuming a good global government, would be ecological. In a way the world is worse than in a pure warlord regime. Oil and gas producers (including those owned by governments), coal producers, and industries relying on them have trans war lord power. If one war lord government cuts back on fossil fuel use, to help slow global warming, the oil lords just sell their product to a different war lord. War lords are rewarded for cooperating in the destruction of the earth. That extends to agriculture businesses, pesticide producers, plastics producers, and many other industries.

A global government dominated by the fossil fuel industry, or munitions manufacturers, or any group that values money more than humanity and the global ecosystem, would be a disaster. But that should not keep environmentalists from seeking to form a global government.

A global government would have a constitution. That should enshrined protection of the environment. It should, to the extent it can be democratic, give equal voice to each human. Then the relatively rich people of the long-industrialized nations would not be able to put a floor under their fossil-fuel driven lifestyles. It should not, however, be all-powerful. Individual war lords, or nations, would give over certain powers to the Government of Earth, while retaining others, giving people a degree of local control over non-global issues.

The first order of business should be establishing an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Earth. It should be charged with rapidly reducing fossil fuel production and consumption. Then it can work on the myriad other problems that need to be fixed to restore the environment and ensure its long-term sustainability.

Learn more at provisional Government of Earth.

Creating a Government of Earth may seem like an impossible project, but keep in mind that when World War II ended there was every reason to believe that the war lord chaos in China might continue for centuries. Instead the corrupt government of Chiang Kai Shek collapsed within a few years. We just saw the Assad regime in Syria collapse in few weeks. Nor does it need to happen through warfare as it did in those two examples. If people prioritize the environment, and a leadership emerges that they trust more than their current leaders, then a true global government is within reach. It will not likely happen all at once, but I think many people and many nations are ready for a change for the better.