Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump the Statesman?

Does Make America Great Again mean Make Trump Great?

Trump ended the Iranian Israeli war quickly and one expects the warring nations sighed with relief. “During the conflict, Israeli cities sustained several hits from Iranian ballistic missiles, and Iranian military targets were subjected to widespread bombing. Neither side wanted the war to go on much longer, at least at that intensity, and both were eager for a way out that they could portray as a victory,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Iran and Israel will return to their hostile coexistence. Such tension is frequent in international relations: the U.S. and U.S.S.R, South and North Korea, Cuba and the U.S. Even if you do not love each other, war isn’t necessary.

It is a stateman’s obligation to stifle war between hostile nations. A responsibility frequently lacking in the U.S. Congress, where war hawks play an important role supporting Israel’s use of force against Palestine and Iran.

Unlike President Biden, Trump recognizes that promoting peace and avoiding wars enhances U.S. influence.

After the 12-day war tested Trump’s loyalty to Israel, he said to hell with it and simply told Iran and Israel stop. In the process he stopped the spread of nuclear weapons by bombing Iranian facilities.

It is unknown if this no-war objective will remain a fixture of U.S. policy, but it should be. Joe Biden picked sides backing Ukraine against Russia and Israel against Palestine. He associated the U.S. with bloody crimes against humanity and did not stop fighting. Trump faces political headwinds if he tries the “stop fighting” mantra on Russia and the Ukraine. While Iran and Israel could both claim victory, such an ending has not surfaced in the Ukrainian and Russian war. There is no evidence that Trump is willing to accept a reality where Russia wins and Ukraine must cooperate with Russia.

But one thing is clear, Biden didn’t try to stop fighting, he picked sides, and the wars continued.

In West Asia, Trump stayed close to Israel but intervened only on the international principle of nuclear nonproliferation and then flatly told Iran and Israel stop fighting. An action that could lead to Israel backing off its hopes for a greater Israel and pave the way for coexistence between Muslin and Jew.

To take this position, the President acted alone without consulting Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Trump publication, he created “a new American foreign-policy doctrine focused on clearly defining national interests, aggressively negotiating to achieve them and the use of overwhelming force if necessary.”

A problem remains: Trump acted alone like a king. As the WSJ reported, “U.S. officials who would normally play a role during such a crisis were also left out of the loop, administration officials said, a sign of how narrow is the circle of advisers Trump trusts.”

It is possible, even common, to blast this President as a dictator, but one alternative receiving little consideration is for the Democrats to change their policy and support Trump’s posture. The Democrats could become the party of peace by avoiding dividing the world into liberal Democracies and authoritarian nations. The United States should be a party of world order and reject the misguided belief that it will only back countries who have governments approved by Americans.

Many nations reject U.S. political institutions but avoiding wars with them and between them is the path of wisdom and statesmanship. With one party backing the primacy of peace it becomes possible to reduce the threat that Trump becomes dictator.

Trump is hardly consistent, and his accomplishment in the West Asian war could easily be a one-off. But it is important that those of us who believe war is the evil and peace must be the object of policy to recognize that what Trump did reflects this principle.

This is not to say Trump is a good President or to ignore his attacks on immigrants, his requirement that people wanting medical care to seek employment, or his battle against an anti-racist program like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Trump is not the President trying to create harmony and fairness in the United States.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Can Diplomacy Bring Peace To Ukraine?

The need for creating Freedom Democrats has never been greater. As this blog is being written, Trump continues his effort to negotiate with Russia on a wide range of issues: nuclear weapons, European boundaries, and creating normal relations between Russia and the United States.

While Trump’s plans for Europe and Russia might end the Cold War relic of deep-seeded Russian-U.S. hostility, the Middle East is deeply troubled. Today (Tuesday, March 4, 2025), a conference of Arab nations starts. On Sunday, Israel cut off aid to the Palestinians as part of a plan to crush Hamas.

The agenda of the Cairo conference was the reconstruction of Gaza. It begins by removing the rubble and unexploded ordinances in the first stage. The next stage would be a massive housing and infrastructure construction program. On the one hand, Israel’s shutoff of aid and demand that Hamas collapse put one set of pressures on the Cairo conference. A second piece of bad news was that the leaders of two of the most powerful Gulf nations— Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Edit: Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in fact at the meeting and of course the United States, for the very first time, opened face-to-face discussions with Hamas)—would be no-shows at the Cairo summit. Their absence sowed doubts about unified Arab support for Egypt’s plan. Dark clouds cast an ominous shadow over the Arab conference in Cairo. The ceasefire is in peril.

While Trump preserves the U.S.’s historic ties to Israel, he remains steadfast in his still inchoate plan for peaceful relations with Russia, even if it shatters European unity.

A new group of Republicans are insisting that the proper relationship with Russia is “let’s talk.” Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, used to call Putin “a gangster;” now he supports Trump’s plan. Another Republican who is changing his position is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Mike Lee from Utah is backing this dovish turn, as is Congressmember Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, is gleefully supporting this shift in U.S. policy.

This change among U.S. leaders means they are abandoning the good guy (democracy) bad guy (authoritarian) view of international relations.

Under the Joe Biden administration theory, Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its right to be a democracy. Russia’s 2022 invasion was lawless aggression by a nation eager to control Europe. Support of Ukraine was making Europe safe for democracy. Russia was never provoked; its dictator was hostile to freedom loving Europe. This Hollywood good guy vs. bad guy worldview is suspect.

The subtext—who is the most powerful nation?—is also being revised. The previous administration believed that Russia overestimated its power and could not stop the good guys (us) from spreading liberal democracy. The CIA and its related agency USAID had demonstrated their real power by ousting Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He wanted cooperation with Russia. In this U.S. view, Russia was too weak to withstand a challenge from the democratic forces united in NATO. Like a Hollywood movie the good guys would win.

Freedom Democrats should encourage Democratic leaders to support this Trump’s shift towards diplomacy with Russia.

A basic cause of the Ukrainian war is Russia’s conviction that Ukraine is an existential threat. They are not crazy. Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. Kyiv’s army is the sixth largest in the world. Its drone fleet is the world’s largest. Anyone looking at a map would see that a hostile Ukraine endangers the city of Moscow. Many Ukrainians hate Russia. One manifestation of this hostility was Ukrainian moves to ban the teaching of Russian. Russia complains that many members of the Ukrainian government are Nazis.

A reminder, there is no entity that enforces international rules. In this situation of near anarchy, this decision that an existential threat exists is decided by one nation in a dispute. Russia believes it is threatened, and it makes the decision.

A bit of history, Russia did more than that. After a friendly Ukrainian government was undermined, Russia invaded in 2014 and captured Crimea and Black Sea ports open all year around. Russia drew a red line, demonstrating it was serious when it said an existential threat existed and proved it by occupying Ukrainian territory.

What happened next is stupidity. A rational response would be okay guys, let us sit down and figure out how we can all get along. The pugnacious response would be to train Ukrainian troops, supply weapons, and provide funds. Even have it join NATO. The good guys would spread democracy and contain the weak Russian dictator and his authoritarian government. This view made war likely.

Eight years later Ukraine got its answer, Russia invaded. An existential threat existed to Russian power and to the Ukrainian government’s survival. The United States and friends imposed sanctions and shutdown diplomatic discussions. The U.S. believed that Russia was isolated and would bend to NATOs power.

Unhappily for the administration and the “friends” of democracy, Russia had allies. North Korea and China supplied funds and weapons. India continued its decades old policy of not taking sides and bought Russian oil that used to go to Europe. Russia was not isolated; it had new allies. Nations that faced Washington’s hostility made common cause with Russia.

Negotiations faltered after the invasion. The Russian generals who failed the test of leading under conditions of real combat were replaced. Russia increased the size of its armed forces, who became battle hardened, perhaps making them the best soldiers in today’s world. Certainly, U.S. troops are not battle tested. Ukraine, the U.S. proxy does the actual fighting. Ukraine lost territory and there is no sign that bombing Russia is intimidating this great power or placing President Putin in a difficult situation.

Far from bringing peace and supporting democracy in Ukraine, the pugnacious response has brought war and made the nation lose territory.

Being a democratic nation does NOT make the U.S. the good guy. It allied with Israel and gave them the means to wage savage war against the Palestinians, stripping Joe Biden and America of its good guy reputation and giving credence to Russian fear of an existential threat from NATO.

Washington’s claim that it was on the side of peace looked hollow with its history of “forever” wars and the combat in West Asia and Ukraine.

Trump’s belief that normal relations with Russia was the best policy looks reasonable and was one of his campaign messages.

Freedom Democrats should find ways to end the proxy war between NATO and Russia. Just because Trump supports it, does not make it a bad idea.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Normal Relations With Russia?

I am not pro Trump, but early indications offer convincing evidence that he is not a clown. His upheaval suggests he wants to change history and put the United States on a new path.

His policies may have their roots in isolationism. I am not a student of U.S. foreign policy, so I have no opinion on this subject, but from the start of this administration Trump challenged U.S. power centers.

The shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development dealt a hammer blow to a CIA operation. To be sure, the agency feeds starving children and stops the spread of disease. Its humanitarian work is praiseworthy, but it is also linked to soft power, a U.S. tactic.

USAID is tied to political demonstrations to oust foreign governments. Leaders were deposed in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak left office in 2011. In 2014 U.S. Foreign policy mavens dreamed that if China crushed the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution, it would revive the “unfortunate” memories of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. The most extravagant dreamers hoped sympathy demonstrations would leapfrog across China creating general instability.

At the other end of the globe, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution started in 2013, and by 2014 a new pro-European Union government would become a NATO proxy.  The pro-Russian government was ejected.

The sharp economic contraction following breakup of the Soviet Union, brought USAID into Ukraine in 1992 and by 2022 in addition to programs supporting health and education, 80% of Ukrainian media outlets relied on grants, mostly indirectly, from American sources like USAID. Ukrainian political commentary is funded by U.S. dollars.

Trump’s hostility to USAID is an attack on the deep state, and one of his first actions. A promise made a promise kept. His new Defense Secretary slammed the Military Industrial Complex by insisting on an 8% budget cut.

Musk’s DOGE search for corruption and waste made it difficult for members of Congress to object. DOGE’s demands for personal details is not directed at you or me, but it is certain to make members of Congress cautious. At a U.N. security council vote the United States split with its European allies by refusing to blame Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This was too much for a few Republican Congressmembers. Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, went on social media and said he was “deeply troubled by the vote,” which had “put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea.”

No Democratic leader would have taken on deep state institutions in this public fashion.

In West Asia, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, pushed Netanyahu into accepting a cease fire. Trump, his Vice-President, and new Defense Secretary challenged the Biden narrative that the Ukrainian invasion was unprovoked aggression by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

Trump will not make Russia an ally, but he will recognize that when Putin came to power Russia was broke and unable to guard its nuclear weapons. 35 years later Russia fought a war with a U.S. proxy, did not run out of weapons, and seized 20% of the disputed territory. Russia has reemerged as a great power, and President Trump is insisting that normal relations be established with Moscow. Putin is no longer an unspeakable dictator. He is President Putin.

It was revealed that under Biden the U.S. had virtually shut down the Russian Embassy in Washingon and ended diplomatic discussions, a mistake Trump quickly corrected. Putin insisted that Zelensky, the Ukrainian President, be excluded from negotiation and Trump refused to turn the Russian condition into a roadblock.

Biden had insisted Ukraine had stopped the Russian military; Trump said Ukraine had all but lost and could not act like a winner.  

Peace discussions over Eastern Europe were only one dramatic change in U.S. policy, the destruction of Gaza ended with Palestinians free to move in their own country and Hamas celebrated as heroes. Hostages were released. The ceasefire is holding, but its future is up in the air.

Trump’s preposterous suggestion that all Palestinians be removed prompted an Arab alliance and the drafting of a $20B plan to start the reconstruction of Gaza. The resumption of war is possible, even likely, but so far the ceasefire has cooled the fighting.

European nations are hesitantly considering negotiations with Russia as the U.S. President relaxes tensions with Moscow.

In a matter of weeks Trump has placed U.S. foreign policy on a new footing and opened the possibility of normal relations with Russia. Trump is not a clown, and he is challenging the deep state institutions that prospered during the Ukraine war while Russia was treated as an enemy.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style Part 2

Trump has broken with the Democrats and their devotion to Ukraine. In a perceptive piece, Peter Baker writes “President Trump made clear that the days of isolating Russia are over and suggested that Ukraine was to blame for being invaded.”

Blame is an odd word for the harsh realities of internation relations. In Baker’s reporting the U.S. has in recent years adopted the view that Ukraine is the victim of Russian aggression. It’s a world of good guys and bad guys. Zelinsky is standing up for freedom and self-determination. Putin, “the dictator,” is the invader. Trump’s radical change: accepting Putin’s right to impose Russia’s will on the smaller good guys. A right often exercised by the United States.

Baker is surely right. Millions of Europeans and Americans accept the view that Russia is the invader and also accept the view that the callous Trump doesn’t care.

Trump has started peace negotiations on Ukraine and accepted the Russian agenda that excludes Zelinsky. Baker describes it as a scandal. My view is international relations are not for the faint of heart. A small country like Ukraine shouldn’t pick a fight with a great power like Russia. In fairness to Ukraine, Russia’s great power status was only recently confirmed. But a huge number of Ukrainians understood that provoking Russia was a disaster and fled the country after demonstrations (with CIA help?) ousted the pro-Russian government in 2014.

The war that turned hot in 2022 after the Russian invasion has basically shattered Ukraine while Russia’s industrial base has grown to supply their soldiers and improve their fighting force. It’s an unfair world, but Baker is wrong. The United States are not good guys; they are practitioners of great power politics.

While the Times and many Americans view Russia as the bully and Ukraine as the victim, American weapons and money supported Israel’s campaign against the Palestinians. A campaign so violent that it has provoked an investigation by the International Criminal Court into allegations that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The rosy view of the U.S. as good guys is propaganda. Even if Ukraine did not cooperate with the CIA and rearm, it still should have seen the necessity of ignoring provocations and preserving a working relationship with their bigger neighbor: Russia. Perhaps a cooperative Ukraine might have avoided the February 2022 invasion.

Trump recognizes Russia’s great power status. Something that Congress and the Democrats resisted. This has had a dramatic effect on Europe, the United States, and Ukraine. The new administration in Washington believes Putin’s agenda is a workable basis for negotiations. The Russian president believes Zelensky’s leadership is illegal under Ukrainian law. Putin wants elections. Normally a U.S. demand.

As a result, Zelensky is excluded from the negotiations and will face demands that he resign. This is a concrete result of Trump’s five-week-old administration. 

At a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed warrior, and new Secretary of Defense announced policies that met Russia’s President Vladimir Putin agenda for opening negotiations.

Ukraine would not join NATO, it would cede to Russia provinces conquered during Ukraine’s misguided war against Russia.

Should an international force watch over Ukraine, Hegseth said it would be a “non-NATO Mission.” No countries were named but clearly China, a Russian ally would qualify, ditto for U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. Journalists reported Europe gave the proposal a chilly reception.

Negotiations have started; Hegseth spoke publicly on Wednesday Feb. 12 . Privately Steve Witkoff, Trumps special mediator, was in Moscow. The next day Trump and Putin had a long phone call that Trump called productive.

By Thursday, Hegseth was soothing Congressional critics and U. S. allies. His ideas would be subject to change during negotiations. He wasn’t announcing hard and fast positions. It would be up Trump to decide what “to allow or not allow.”

A possible major event has Putin and Trump holding direct talks in Moscow on May 9 for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the German surrender to Russia in 1945, when Russia and the United States were allies against Hitler.

The President promised to engage in nuclear talks once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine. The President is breaking with a costly Biden administration plan to modernize the armed forces. He told reporters, “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons…We already have so many you can destroy the world 50 times over.”

Talks about peace in Ukraine started on Feb 18 in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine was not invited. The location was odd for Ukrainian peace talks but a sensible one for involving Egypt in a Palestinian peace process.

At this initial meeting Moscow and Washington agreed to expand their embassy staffs. It would have the practical effect of making it easier for each country to obtain accurate information and permit non-binding discussion of tentative plans.

Perhaps another Putin hope was being realized. According to a Moscow statement, “The two sides expressed their mutual willingness to interact on pressing international issues, including the settlement around Ukraine.” Putin is eager to establish a framework for discussing major issues with the United States.

A neutral Ukraine might model itself after Austria. That country’s founding documents provide that “In all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

How Can We End the Atrocities in Gaza?

Wars aren’t civilized. Limbs are lost. People bury their loved ones. Hate becomes a virtue that will save a country. Torture and violence become normalized. An unethical transformation turns the bad into good. In the Israeli war with Palestine rape is defended and torture practiced.

The horrors of the Holocaust and the ties that exist between Jews and other groups in this country guarantee that the United States will be a passionate friend of Israel. So it is no surprise that the bombing of children, the destruction of hospitals, and the deaths of 40,000 Palestinians make Americans uncomfortable but unwilling to damn the Israelis.

Yet the sad truth is that the horrors of the October 7th massacre of Jews has become an excuse for allowing Israel to commit crimes that are larger than the misdeeds of Hamas. This is not surprising; Israel has a free hand to revenge these deaths. If we allowed women to punish rapists, families to revenge the murder of loved ones, or property owners to punish thieves our criminal justice system would be equally harsh.

Those Americans protesting the horrors imposed on the Palestinians are labeled rioters and Antisemites for objecting to the atrocities in Gaza. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States should be diffusing the war. Instead it has chosen sides. This nation should be building bridges to peace. We are allowing Israel, the victim of the October 7th massacre, to become the judge and jury in its own cause.

The Palestinians, we are told, want to destroy Israel. Whether this is true or an exaggeration, history clearly shows that Israel is more likely to destroy Palestine and push it into the sea. Palestinians are not the destroyers of Israel but the victims of Israel’s superior strength.

For this reason, the United States should have avoided choosing sides and sought a humanitarian resolution that would provide ways to peacably resolve differences.

It is likely that before peacable solutions become routine the nations of the world must impose fixed boundaries that will stop the constant expansion of Israel into territory that once was occupied by Palestinians.

The present system allowing Israel to control the punishment for Palestinian resistance almost guarantees that any resolution will expand Israel and diminish Palestine. In other words, giving Israel the authority to punish its opposition will assure that any settlement is temporary until the next outbreak of violence.

It is unwise for the United States to declare Israel the good guys and Palestine the aggressor. The two parties must have an independent judge with the authority to impose a settlement that leaves both parties unsatisfied but holds out the promise of stopping the recurring violence.

At a minimum, Israel must stop policing the border between Palestine and Israel. A neutral third party must have this responsibility. Israeli troops must stay on their side of the border and stop face-to-face patrolling of the Palestinians.

The current scenario for imposing governance by neutral parties calls for funding from Saudi Arabia. In return they would expect to increase their military power, perhaps acquiring atomic bombs.  A controversial proposal guaranteed to create international unease and which may be rejected by the region and the world.

It would be unsurprising but horrifying if the world powers do not reach an agreement that separates Israel and Palestine. The current system permits Israel and its superior military force to be deeply involved in Palestinian affairs. It’s a system where Palestinian objections will flare up; conceding that Israel is the dominant power allows it to constantly expand and turns Palestine into a colony without a stable government.

Under the present system of independent nations, it is hard to envision nations that will assume the responsibility for imposing restrictions that curb Israeli expansion and police violent Palestinian protests. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, famously called for the “universal rule of law” enforced by all the nations of the world. Through world government, we can create world peace. This system is desperately needed in Gaza.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Create a World Government in the 21st Century

Turning the United Nations into a world government is a daunting task.

It’s as big a job as the one held by representatives of the 13 original states shortly after the end of the American Revolution. Chaired by George Washington, they wrote the U.S. Constitution and laid the groundwork for the Bill of Rights.

Already, the United States was dividing into free and slave states, and the primary concern of the founders of the Constitution was to create united states with a central government that could tax and wage war. The confederation that governed the 13 states during the Revolution did not have these powers, leading to constant pleas by George Washington for money, guns, and food.

The United Nations currently depends on contributions by individual states. If the United Nations was the world government, it would control the flow of funds. It would no longer depend on the voluntary contributions of the members. It would have the power to create its own budget. Obviously, existing nations would harbor great doubts about giving the United Nations this kind of power. It’s up to the public to say ending wars is more important than preserving existing national states. The United States won’t disappear. Russia and China won’t disappear. The power of these governments would be hemmed in by international law enforced by the United Nations.

The United States is the biggest contributor to the United Nations, and it should come as no surprise that it expects to influence the U.N.’s decisions.

The budget of the United Nations, if it was the world government, would be huge. For example, it would need soldiers to enforce international agreements and money to pay for emergencies all over the globe.

For example, with a world government the border between Palestine and Israel would be policed by U.N., not by Israel. These forces could be volunteers from the U.S., China, India, and other nations who stop being soldiers for a nation and swear to take their orders from the United Nations. If as expected a large number of U.N. soldiers would come from the United States, this would protect United States security.

The details must be worked out by experts from all over the world. Creating a world government would be the work of thousands from all the countries in the world.

There are elements in the current world structure that resemble world government. The International Criminal Court accepts complaints from one country about the behavior of another. Its activities are in the news. South Africa has complained that Israel and Hamas have violated international law in Gaza. Judges for the court in May of 2024 were weighing the evidence.

This is a good thing, but it is not world government. Were the United Nations to be the world government, Israel couldn’t attack Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted down as criminals.

World government means outlawing war. Nations would be required to take their complaints to the world government for adjudication. Before bullets are fired, the problems between nations would be resolved by decisions of the world government. In this light, the International Criminal Court is a disappointment. It asserts its jurisdiction after the fighting started.

To be successful, world government must assert its authority before blood is shed. In other words, don’t call out the troops, call the lawyers. It’s a system that is remarkably successful in the United States. World government must have the authority to stop groups from going to war.

This will be a massive undertaking. In this age of computers and the internet, the technology clearly exists for keeping track of the thousands of international disputes that exist all over the world. What doesn’t exist is an institution whose primary task is to resolve these disputes.

Such a government must also provide food and medical care after disasters.

Experts undoubtedly have many ideas about ways to create such an institution. It is certainly beyond my skill, but what I can do is ask my fellow citizens to get involved in asking the experts to speak up. Let’s make the 21st century, the century of world government.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Obstacles to World Government

The rising death toll in Gaza should be linked to the tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine. By the time the United States left Afghanistan, starvation had become a problem for the supposed victors of the invasion following the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.

Syria and Iraq and various states in Africa confront persistent violence.

In my last blog, I argued that world government was the best way to end the constant eruption of wars.

A major reward of turning the United Nations into a world government is historical greatness. The change is as drastic as going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1787. From a system of voluntary cooperation to the establishment of a central government that had overall responsibility for preserving the peace of the new nation.

This has proved a daunting task: ending slavery with a bloody civil war demonstrates that the founders’ solution was far from perfect. Nonetheless, students of history still recognize the great achievements of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, to name just a few of the historically great leaders who turned victory over Great Britain into a system of united states.

Creating a world government would be just as great a historical achievement as turning the revolutionary victory into a permanent government. If you want the world to remember you for generations then you want to become a patriot establishing a functioning world government.

Overcoming the obstacles to world government will mark you as a great person, a maker of history. In this blog, we will look at what happens to U.S. power if the United Nations becomes the seat of world government.

Stated baldly, this means the United States and presumably its allies cannot go to war without the permission of the United Nations.

World government requires that before a nation can turn to mass violence it must first make its case to the lawyers and diplomats at the U.N. This system of resolving conflict is well established in the United States. Our courts are respected and there are dozens of ways that grievances can be heard without resort to violence.

Transferring this system to the United States and the world would be a stupendous achievement. To take the example of Palestine, Israeli soldiers would no longer occupy this country. Creating a safe border between Israel and Palestine would be the responsibility of the United Nations. U.N. soldiers would have the task of preserving peace along the borders between these two nations.

Recruiting troops and their supplies is expensive. If the U.N. had the taxing power to pay for an international police force, then presumably the United States would provide the cash and presumably have influence over final decisions.

Or an even more dramatic change, the U.N. has the power to directly impose taxes. The United States was broke under the voluntary system of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, Hamilton, and numerous generals constantly begged for money to buy supplies.

In the end, the United States depended on loans from European nations. Under the Constitution of 1787, the new central government was guaranteed the opportunity to raise funds, especially through the tariff and selling U.S. bonds. Revenue came from taxes and borrowing.

Making the U.N. the world government would require that it could raise billions of dollars every year.

The political problem is sovereignty or who runs the show. Right now the United States funds the U.N., but with world government it’s entirely plausible that the United States, China, Russia etc. would depend on U.N. funding.

The justification for this dramatic change in power is peace. In return for making every country, big and small, dependent on the U.N. these nations obtain the right to bring their complaints to U.N. agencies. The arguments would be settled by quasi-judicial rulings, without bullets or bombs.

What appears to be a loss of power by the United States becomes a boon to the people of the world. The risks of invasion, war, and tribal conflicts become minimized if the U.N. has the soldiers to stop another country from going to war.

Undoubtedly a major source of U.N. troops would be American soldiers who volunteered to serve as U.N. enforcers. Even with their sworn allegiance to the U.N., U.S. soldiers are unlikely to attack the United States. Thus the safety of the population of the United States can be assured. Similar considerations can be made for other large nations.

Taxes and soldiers, international cooperation to confront climate change, and using world wealth to build hospitals and schools in impoverished nations would clearly benefit from world government.

It is likely that world government would create tens of thousands of projects that would improve living conditions and put the world on the path to growth and prosperity.