Quantcast

Why the UN Should Actually Take Over the World

Can you imagine a world where the United Nations (UN) has control over your country? Imagine a world with a collective sovereignty. In this new world order, each country has their own head of state, but the UN acts as an uber-parliament, or Congress. Elections still occur, but political parties are now international. Ambassadors are replaced by presidents and prime ministers to represent their nation. War is illegal and military authority rests in the hands of the Security Council to oversee multiple armies.

The UN has been a staple in international diplomacy in the post-WWII world. For all the good that the institution has done, that has not stopped conspiracy theories that the UN is attempting to take over the world. The crux of the argument appears to be rooted in the resentment of the few who fear that their nation’s sovereignty is challenged.

If anything like this does happen, it will not be any time soon. The world is a very diverse place and conflict is very common. The democratic political makeup of the UN is a good start at reconciling conflicts, but reaching agreements are still between the warring nations. There have been successes and failures in the UN’s 68 years in existence.

The ceasefire that ended the Korean War was the UN’s first real success at averting more death. Attaining peace in Syria has been more complicated, showing how one or two nations could prevent a more robust response.

Aside from preserving peace, the UN has made vast strides in humanitarian efforts from Haiti and Cambodia to Yemen and South Sudan. Their multiple initiatives always have good intentions — such as promoting a sustainable environment and peace— so one could argue that the world may be better off if the UN was in charge.

The scarcely known Agenda 21 has been at the focal point of UN opponents. Agenda 21 was the result of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and is meant to ensure a more sustainable world in spite of a rapidly growing population and decreasing natural resources. It is meant to be implemented everywhere from a local to a national scale and encourage assistance from developed countries to a third world countries.

At best, it is a nonbinding resolution formed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. At worst, it is an international plot to “destroy the middle-class way of life,” according to Judd Saul, Tea Party activist from Cedar Falls, Iowa. President H.W. Bush was a signatory for the U.S. and Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senators Harry Reid and John Kerry supported the push for sustainable development.

Collective diplomacy is not always unilateral and friction does arise between member nations. That friction often comes across as disagreements and no major world war has broken out since the UN's formation in 1945. A world under a UN government would not necessarily be a negative as long as individual countries have autonomy (but with less military power.) Conflict is constant and unavoidable at some degree, but in a perfect future, the UN would act as a benevolent, enlightened ruler of a world where there are no third world countries and no war.

Like us on Facebook:
Join the Discussion
New Response

Be the first to comment

Top Responses ()
All Responses ()
Load More Responses Show All Responses

Loading Responses

CLOSE | X

Do you agree that our
generation needs a voice?