When I learnt that Altiero had cancer, in the early 1980s, I wrote a sympathetic note to him, telling him in passing that after twenty five years work...

When I learnt that Altiero had cancer, in the early 1980s, I wrote a sympathetic note to him, telling him in passing that after twenty five years working for Europe I had now decided to focus on promoting an effective system of world Government. This was his response, on a small Post Card:

"I have always thought that some system of world government is necessary to solve the world problems of peace, the economy and the environment. But first one must adopt a Benthamite position and consider, rationally, what are the conditions which are needed to bring such a Government into being. And then one man, at least, must move to a Nietzschean position and say: 'Hier stehe ich, Gott sei mit mir' and devote his life to achieving the goal".

This direct and formidable message was classic Spinelli. It showed first that his life of dedication to European federation was matched by an awareness that this must be seen as a step to world federation - a lesson our Italian federalist friends have never forgotten.

It revealed also his method - to meditate on the historical necessities that offer the opportunity for radical change and then to act. Jeremy Bentham was the English enlightenment philosopher whose "Utilitarianism" proclaimed that political economy should seek the "greatest good of the greatest number". To Altiero it meant, in short, rational calculation of the greater good. "Nietzschean" meant acting with the unhesitating spirit and passion of the Superman. The classic example of this thoughtful preparation for bold deeds lay in his historical reflections on Parliaments and his action once in the European Parliament. As a Commissioner, not yet in the Parliament, and long before direct elections, he remarked to me: "Look at what happened to the English Parliament. It was only when Edward III needed money that he summoned the burgesses from the English towns. He and his successors went on needing money so they had to keep convening parliament and in return give it a share of power. We must do the same in Europe. The parliament must use control of the budget to get real power".

Altiero's first goal, when elected to the European Parliament, was to get on the budget committee. He was soon elected chairman. The directly elected parliament was still advisory and had, it seemed, no legislative power, but it did have to agree to the modest "non-obligatory" expenditure within the budget (i.e. not agriculture!). Within two years Altiero, working with all parties, had persuaded the Parliament to block the budget. The disruption made the members of Parliament realise that they could influence events and recognise Altiero as a leader. The crocodile club and the Treaty on Political Union were the logical next step. He had acted to apply his historical lesson - finding the practical leverage to apply his federalism, and empowering his fellow MEPs with his decisiveness and strength.

Altiero's call for one Superman to change the world did not reflect the historical reality of building Europe. He certainly played a Herculean part in inspiring Italy's and Europe's Federalists, but no one can deny that Monnet, Spaak, Delors, Kohl and others played crucial roles in building the Union. Altiero died believing that the European Single Act was a pathetic failure to realise his vision. He was wrong. Delors had made a crucial breakthrough, spotting, in the Single Market, the "condition" which could be used to persuade Thatcher to allow the return to majority voting. Through this and subsequent treaties a significant part of the Political Union Treaty have been put into effect. The vision lives on, being implemented by others step by step.

What then of his challenge on world government? Two "conditions" seem essential for its realisation. One is grave dangers which can manifestly not be overcome by nation states or the old laws of power politics. The other is willingness by people and key leaders to make an imaginative response. In the 1980s it seemed for a moment that such conditions for a step towards world government existed. At Reykjavik Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to abolish all nuclear weapons. Gorbachev proposed a revival of the Security Council as a real peacekeeper with the moribund Military Staff Committee brought back to life. Though the west quickly retreated from this staggering perspective, for a few years East-West disarmament and the falling of the iron curtain seemed to open a new hope for a shared peace, with a peace dividend which might be used to close the appalling gap between the haves and have-nots of the world. Instead, the fall of the Soviet Union was met in the West, and especially in America, by a damaging triumphalism while the United States has begun to act out the fantasy of hegemonic - yet paranoid - imperial power. The window of opportunity of the 1980s was not used to reform or democratise the United Nations or create the world authority which would manage the abolition of nuclear weapons. With China rising and Russia increasingly authoritarian and defensive, the demons of world power politics are out of the cupboard once again.

Today the world faces new unstable dangers which demand progress to world government: the breakdown of fifty years of non proliferation of nuclear weapons, the terrorist threat, the competition for remaining oil, the need for regional security structures and true peacemaking to overcome violence in regions such as the disintegrating Middle East. Above all Climate Change now threatens the survival of humanity in a way which cannot be met by a national response.

Our twenty-first century world is, economically and culturally, a globalising world. But the institutions of world governance have not matched this pace. The mission of Europe is to apply to the world the methods used for its own salvation - the progressive development of federal institutions to create a zone of peace and shared prosperity. In Iraq it threw away its first key opportunity to stand for the global rule of law.

Climate change, however, offers a more fundamental existential challenge to all humanity, just as two world wars confronted Europeans with an existential challenge to create new institutions and relationships with one another. Mastering climate change requires effective global Government: institutions which will embody commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the level necessary to halt climate change, execute and take decisions, enforce implementation, adjudicate disputes and contain a democratic element which provides accountability and mobilises opinion behind the rule of law.

With imperial America obstructive and reluctant, the European Union must take the lead, seeking partners in the world's South for a just and equitable climate deal which will allow poorer countries their share in sustainable development. Just as Six countries pioneered today's European Union through the European Coal and Steel Community, so a Climate Community of willing states could lead the way, later drawing in all members of the United Nations. And this in turn could offer a model for wider global governance.

As for Altiero's personal appeal, I cannot claim to have committed my whole life to the struggle for world government. But in the 1980s it seemed to me that India and Europe together, two great federal democracies from North and South of the world, might provide the engine, as France and Germany provided an engine for the European Community. I explored this with Indian politicians whose response was "yes, but can you get key European leaders?". Monnet's former committee was still in existence. I could not persuade them yet to give this top priority.

Today once again I believe that India and Europe could be key players in the construction of a Global Climate Community. A private gathering of key Indians and Europeans in Potsdam in October will test this out. Have we the zeal and skill to pull off a Spinelli coup - a catalytic move which will play a useful part in global progress towards world government?