The idea of a New World Order has been around for a long time. This ideal centers around the concept of a one world government led by the United Nations. Many have praised the idea of a New World Order, including some of our very own Presidents of the United States, while other stand against the idea all together. In theory the idea of a one world government would be nice, uniting the world as one, however the shortcomings, in my opinion, out weigh the positive factors.
             In 1989, the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the post-war ordeals ended only two years later with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Kosovo crisis has tagged an end to ten years of disorder and uncertainty with international politics and a breakthrough of a new order for the up and coming century. Today the world is dominated by the idea of economic globalisation, that must be backed up by a new global security arrangement. (http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr) A suggested idea for the 21st century government has been the ideology of the New World Order, one world government lead by the United Nations. It would create new forms of global economics, global politics and overlapping and diminishing cultures. The economic system would be based financial and momentary supported by the New World Order. State borders would be either severely reduced or erased in order to create a one-world government for the New World Order. Some or all this may sound quite appealing but it would come with many strings attached, many consequences and many drawbacks.
             In a New World Order, as proposed by Mehdi Alavi author of A New World Order: Democracy, Civility and World Peace, government would be based on the Law of Nature, or the Natural Law. This would consist of global peaceful participation, majority rule and respect for human rights. Although this may sound good on paper, the drawbacks and consequences are never mentioned in the book. Some o...