Askov American., 1943-08-26
A World Organization:
Corporate or Cooperative?

Corporate or Cooperative?
In these days of suggestions and
talk about the form of top govern
ment to have after the war, as in pro-
posed regional organizations, United
States of Europe, and the overall
world organization, it is well to fol-
how some pattern that has been sue
cessfully tried.
Right here in America we started
out with the original 13 colonies
which enlarged and is now 48 United
States. Outside of one war, over the
issue of slavery, there has been no
disrupting friction between the states
for 156 years.
The founding fathers did some-
thing unique when equal repre-
SentatiOn in the Senate was given
TO the various states - large or
small
Very small states like Delaware
and Rhode Island, and sparsely set
lied states like Nevada and Wyoming,
each have two members in the U. S.
Senate as have large and populous
states like New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Texas. The population
of New York is 122 times that of
Nevada.
The membership in the House of
Representatives is based on popula-
ton, but no bill becomes law with
out passing in both House and Senate
Would the large world powers be
willing to take up membership in a
world organization, based on repre-
sentation as is our national govern
ment? Would the powers - in the
event of a two-house government -
be willing to give equal voice in the
upper house to small countries like
Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Nor
way, Albania, Greece, Liberia, Mica
ragua?
There must be cooperation
not in talk but reality if we
are to have successful world
organization. Will it be set up
like cooperative with equal
voting rights, or will the repre-
rsentati0n be on the basis of
shares - wealth - as in a corp
OratiOn?
The American Constitution in
Article w, Section, 4, provides that
the United States shall protect each
of the states against invasion.
That protection has held for 1856
years and is, simply stated, the need
ed protection the world organization
is to provide for each of the coun-
tries. The moral support of all coun-
tries - big or small - has a tre-
mendous bearing on the whole, and of
course the world government must
be greater and more powerful, by
far, than that of any one nation.
Amongst the people who are sim
cerely against war, which includes
nearly all, are many who are strong
for a world organization because they
believe and hope it may avert armed
'G,onflict in the future, and that hope
akBd desire is very commendable. All
politicians who talk for a world fed
Grafton likewise claim that the main
purpose of the proposed organization
Is to do away with war and blood
shed.
People all over are opposed to
war for many good reasons, and
m the small countries particular
" for the reason of self-preserva-
ton. Hence such nations can be
depended upon, far more than the
large powers, to vote against war.
Therefore, inasmuch as the pro-
HHsed main objective of the proposed
vwOEld government is to do away with
vwM 1T would be safest to give equal
voting rights to the small nations.
There are many proposals today to
have voting strength based on size
of country, population, natural re-
sources, education, national income
etc Proposed percentages have been
set up for the United States, Great
Britain, Russia, China, and other
countries Was it not the voting
strength of Great Britain in the
League of Nations - Article x -
that caused the greatest friction?
Would it not be well to give real
consideration to cooperation - for
get the percentages upon which q
world organization will be stranded
vote and act in a cooperative man.
s7H
Are we going to have merely an
other form of balance of power rest
ing in the hands of few large ma
tions? Or are we going to have JUS