It is important to note that the modern world is reaching its key and existential pivotal point, where the future will be either massively disastrous or immensely prosperous. Considering the current geopolitical tensions, environmental pollution, profit-driven capitalistic systems, and inefficient, international institutions as well as national governments, the pessimistic projection seems more likely. Both economic growth and technological innovation were the main drivers of modernity, but they can also become humanity’s undoing. The international community can no longer survive under the old paradigm of nation-state models, which is why the United Nations (UN) must become a centralized global government with the capacity to enforce its goals, regardless of limitations.
Firstly, the United Nations is an international organization that was founded after the devastating two World Wars in order to ensure international security, peace, and prosperity. It is highly democratic at its core, where all nations can express their concerns and objections without engaging in direct conflict with one another. It has worked for the most part, with its ups and down until recently. The goals it aspires to achieve range from ending poverty and hunger to climate action and social justice (United Nations par. 3). However, its fundamental issue is that it is merely a platform with no power of its own to enforce the realization of these goals. It must rely upon the willingness of nations to engage in the dialogue and enforce the objective on their own territories.
It can be effective in addressing local problems affecting one nation, but the current existential issues are no longer local. There are global and existential, which include climate change, nuclear war, famine, pandemics, and others. However, addressing these challenges requires all nations to be unified under one purpose as a collective community, which is unlikely in a world with hundreds of nations. Therefore, the UN will not be able to meet these goals ever under its current structure and organization. It must be able to enforce these goals, for which it needs military, economic, and technological might. The US or EU cannot replace the UN in this regard because no nation will want to be subject to another without representation and voice, which makes the UN the only plausible candidate for complete global unification.
Secondly, by further reflecting on the urgent necessity to change humanity’s economic, environmental, and social behaviors, one can conclude that this pursuit should be achieved by following the examples of the world’s religions. Both Islam and Christianity have the highest number of followers globally because none of them divide people. Tutu stated: “Unless we work assiduously so that all of God’s children, our brothers, and sisters, members of our one human family … then we are on the road inexorably to self-destruction … global suicide” (par. 16). Islam does not put Arabs as superiors, and neither Christianity does not put Jews as masters despite the fact that both Mohammed and Jesus were from these ethnicities, respectively.
The UN can become the necessary catalyst for global unification and centralization of power to achieve its 17 goals. The US cannot do so because no nation wants American exceptionalism, and the same is true for China. The federal government enabled the synergy between economic growth and technological innovation and has been the most significant engine of change for the last 200 years. Similarly, the global government can enable even better synergy to ensure positive change.
Thirdly, it is useful to address the direct criticism against a global centralized government in the form of the UN. Establishing a global centralized authority and hierarchal pyramid of international power is dangerous and can fail. There even have been some criticisms of the UN goals themselves. For instance, Posner argues that the concept of human rights is flawed and that it may be more effective to focus on achieving goals such as economic growth and political stability (par. 4).
The world has been operating de facto within the framework outlined by Posner, and it was precisely the pursuit of profit and power, which led to the modern environmental disasters and global tensions. Others might object that this new UN would become a global authoritarian regime, which is possible. However, decisions are made not through idealism but by weighing the available directions. Tackling global threats requires global unity, which is impossible under the current anarchical international system.
In conclusion, the current state of the world demands a new approach to address the existential challenges that humanity faces. The United Nations, while effective in some areas, is not equipped to tackle the global and existential issues that humanity is currently facing. Therefore, a global centralized government with the UN at its core must be established to enforce the realization of the UN’s 17 goals. This new system should be modeled after the world’s religions, which do not divide people based on ethnicity or nationality but rather unite them under one purpose. While there are legitimate concerns about the potential risks and pitfalls of a global centralized government, the urgency of the situation demands that people move forward and make the necessary changes to ensure humanity’s survival and prosperity.
Works Cited
Posner, Eric A. “Against Human Rights.” Harper’s Magazine, 2014. Web.
Tutu, Desmond. “Nobel Lecture.” The Nobel Prize, 2014. Web.
United Nations. “Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainable Development Goals, 2023. Web.