Peter C. Newman’s column in today’s Nat Post (subscription required) provides a useful though not entirely illuminating nor critical account of Paul Martin’s internationalism, which in many ways sounds even more loony than that of Michael Ignatieff (and here):
What Martin had in mind was nothing less than spearheading the move toward a limited form of world government. His ambitions recognized few limits. He once confided to me that he wanted to duplicate internationally, especially in the underdeveloped world, what we do domestically, including a global system of equalization payments, free education up to the high school level, the formation of global instead of national health care and a universal banking system.
He saw the world as his canvas, which helps explain his ardent globe-trotting since he’s taken office. Under his government, Mr. Martin vowed, the future would not be merely an extension of the past, but a brave new world of possibilities. “The nation state,” he proclaimed in the privacy of my living room, “has evolved into a new kind of entity which has suffered a substantial loss of sovereignty. Central governments such as Canada’s have become too small to deal with the big, global problems, yet they remain too large and distant to deal with local concerns. So the challenge is to reduce the role of Ottawa to doing a limited number of things well, instead of continuing to pretend it can do everything for everybody.”
So Paul Martin wants to use the United Nations to refashion the world in the image of the Liberal Party of Canada. Newman’s not critical of the ideal, but is sufficiently aware of its, um, lack of realism:
I will be fascinated if any of Paul Martin’s idealistic intentions survive his foreign policy review. But I’m not holding my breath.
Hugo Chesshire wrote:
Sounds like Paul Martin has joined Wilhelm II, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Adolf Hitler in his dream of a world socialist government. Dreamers like Martin, who may well have benevolent goals, never find a place in such regimes. No less a man than Friedrich Hayek has proposed that Adolf Hitler was merely the conclusion of the statist, socialist benevolence begun under Bismarck. Big, powerful government needs big, powerful leaders: tyrants.
Posted on 02-Apr-05 at 11:12 am | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
I agree. Like nearly all liberals today (as distinguished from Hayek who was classical liberal and understood politics), Martin views politics as a problem to be solved with technocratic knowledge. The higher up the chain of authority you reside, the more knowledge you have. Not so much Platonic as in keeping with French notions of state dating back to Louis XIV. Trudeau of course was the clearest example of this way of thinking. Martin (fortunately, I suppose) is a mushier thinker.
Posted on 02-Apr-05 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
ThePolitic - » More on Ignatieff and the Liberals wrote:
[…] key player in identify politics, Liberal style. Mind you, as we’ve noted before, Ignatieff isn’t as much of a realist as the MSM has portra […]
Posted on 05-Apr-05 at 8:18 am | Permalink
ThePolitic - » Paul Martin’s Hope for World Government, Part 2 wrote:
[…] on-states appear irrelevant. This comes as no surprise, as we’ve previously noticed Martin’s liberal internationalism. Based on the text of t […]
Posted on 04-May-05 at 7:32 am | Permalink
ThePolitic - Canadian Political Weblog » Martin, Maurice Strong, and World Government wrote:
[…] noted in the past, Strong has been a long time mentor of Paul Martin, who shares a similar internationalist/world government vision (and here).
[…]
Posted on 19-May-05 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
The Bilderberg Archive 2005 & Before wrote:
[…] Martin’s Hope for World Government […]
Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 11:01 pm | Permalink