America Should Stop Playing Global Policeman — It’s Time for the UN to Step Up
Trump and the MAGA Movement Aren't Entirely Wrong — Hear Me Out
"America First," a slogan we've heard repeated often, particularly during the Trump era, resonates with me on some levels. It’s about prioritizing American interests, focusing on our economy, our security, and our well-being. And I agree—America should absolutely put its own house in order. But here’s the catch: America First shouldn’t mean America goes it alone. It shouldn’t mean we are constantly playing the role of the world’s policeman, sending our troops to die in foreign territories, fighting endless wars that don’t benefit us directly. Instead, we need a fundamental rethinking of how the world’s security is managed. It’s time we let go of outdated military alliances and put our faith in the one institution that was designed for this very purpose—the United Nations (UN).
Let’s be honest: The constant need for America to intervene in global crises, whether it’s military action in the Middle East or peacekeeping in Africa, is not sustainable. It’s not just about America retreating into isolationism; it’s about empowering a collective global force that can operate without the need for the U.S. to carry the entire burden. And if you’re skeptical, take a look at the Ukraine-Russia conflict. At the heart of it, you’ll see how military alliances are driving much of the tension. NATO’s expansion eastward threatens Russia, and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is in part a reaction to that fear. But imagine a world without these competing military alliances, where there is only one force for global peace—the UN.
The Ukraine-Russia Crisis: A Product of Military Alliances
The ongoing crisis in Ukraine is a perfect example of why military alliances often lead to unintended consequences. For years, Russia has warned that NATO’s eastward expansion would cross a “red line.” The Kremlin sees NATO as a direct threat, fearing that if Ukraine were to join, NATO forces would be right on Russia’s border. And here’s where things get complicated: NATO’s promise to expand has been seen by Russia as an existential threat. It’s easy to see why, from Russia’s perspective, this isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty—it’s about NATO creeping closer to its borders, threatening its security.
Now, I’m not saying Russia’s actions are justifiable—they’re not. But the reality is that military alliances like NATO create an environment of distrust and suspicion. Countries align themselves into blocs, each one wary of the other. In a world where NATO and similar alliances didn’t exist, countries wouldn’t have to fear encroaching military forces. There would be no reason for Russia to feel threatened by NATO expansion, and no reason for NATO countries to view Russia as a looming threat.
An Ideal World: One Military Alliance—The UN
Imagine an ideal world where there was only one military alliance—the UN. Instead of having NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), or any other defense pact, we would have a single force for global peace. The UN would be the only policeman in the world, the only entity responsible for keeping the peace, maintaining security, and enforcing international law.
This isn’t an impossible vision; it’s just one that requires significant reform. The UN already has peacekeeping forces, but they are often underfunded, undermanned, and under-equipped. What if, instead of relying on individual nations like the U.S. to carry out peacekeeping missions, the entire world came together under the UN banner to provide resources, troops, and support? What if, instead of every country making its own alliances to secure its interests, we pooled our efforts into one cohesive global peacekeeping force?
Why the UN Should Be the World’s Sole Military Alliance
The UN, in its current form, is far from perfect, but it has the potential to become the global peacekeeper we need. The current system of military alliances like NATO, which is primarily led by the U.S., has proven to be unstable and prone to escalation. Countries that are part of these alliances feel obligated to act when their allies are threatened, even if it’s not in their direct interest.
This leads to a dangerous cycle of escalation. In the case of Ukraine, for example, the U.S. has been deeply involved in supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. But what if instead of the U.S. and its NATO allies doing the heavy lifting, the UN peacekeepers were deployed with global support? What if Russia didn’t have to feel encircled by NATO, and the entire world took a collective stance on global peacekeeping?
The UN could be far more effective if it were the only global military force. Instead of separate military blocs, we would have one cohesive body that operates based on collective international law, not the individual interests of a few powerful countries.
The Key to a Reformed UN: No Veto, No Security Council
One of the major flaws of the current UN system is the Security Council, which gives five permanent members—the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK—veto power. This makes the UN ineffective when a single country can block resolutions that may benefit the global community. Take the ongoing Israel-Palestine crisis, for example. The UN was unable to take significant action due to USA’s veto power, which repeatedly blocked any resolution that would have intervened in the conflict.
If we are serious about having the UN as the world’s only peacekeeper, the Security Council needs a major overhaul. The veto power should be abolished. Instead, we should move to a system where every nation has an equal vote, where decisions are made based on the majority of the global community. This would make the UN far more democratic, giving every country—no matter how small—an equal say in the decisions that affect global peace and security.
The Burden of Peace: How Countries Should Contribute
So, what does this new world order look like? How do we make it work? First, we need to rethink how countries contribute to global peacekeeping. Right now, the burden of peacekeeping falls disproportionately on wealthier countries like the U.S. But if we want a truly global peacekeeping force, then all nations—rich and poor—should contribute according to their means.
Wealthier countries should contribute more in terms of resources—financial support, technology, and military equipment. Countries with large populations and fewer financial resources could contribute by providing manpower—soldiers, police, humanitarian workers. In this way, every country plays a part in global security, and the burden is shared. No single country should carry the full weight of global peacekeeping, and no country should be left out of the responsibility to maintain global peace.
A World Without Military Alliances: The Benefits
The benefits of this system are clear. First, it would eliminate the tensions that arise from competing military alliances. The U.S. wouldn’t need to fear that its adversaries are forming new alliances to counteract it. Russia wouldn’t feel threatened by NATO expansion. The entire world could work together under the UN’s banner, with a shared commitment to maintaining peace and security.
Second, we’d have a more democratic, representative system of global governance. With no veto power and a truly multilateral approach, the UN would be more effective in responding to crises, more responsive to the needs of its member states, and more capable of intervening when necessary.
And finally, it would reduce the chances of conflicts spiraling out of control. When military alliances are at play, countries often feel obligated to act on behalf of their allies, even if they don’t directly benefit. But with a single global peacekeeping force, actions would be based on collective decision-making, rather than the strategic interests of a few countries.
Our Forefathers’ Vision: Avoiding World War III
Our forefathers understood the dangers of unchecked militarism and conflict. After two world wars, they sought to build a system that would ensure such devastating wars would never happen again. They established the United Nations, an institution designed to foster cooperation, peace, and diplomacy, and to prevent the escalation of global conflicts into all-out wars.
The vision of our forefathers was simple yet profound: No more World Wars. They recognized that the only way to achieve this was through collective action, not through the actions of one nation or a select group of countries. They believed that the UN could be the backbone of a peaceful world order—one that would prevent global conflict by providing a space for dialogue and collective peacekeeping.
Fast forward to today, and that vision still stands as a beacon of hope. But what our forefathers couldn’t foresee was the way the world would fracture into military alliances, each with its own interests and agendas. What would they think of the world today, where NATO and other alliances seem to be driving countries into conflict, rather than preventing it?
I believe it’s time to return to that vision—to reimagine the UN not just as an international body but as the sole peacekeeper of the world. We must eliminate the multiple military alliances and allow the UN to step in, as it was always meant to, to mediate conflicts, maintain peace, and avoid another world war.