State sovereignty has been under severe attack for at least the last ten years. Nations initially had been assigned to various geographic regions of the world for compelling economic and socio-political reasons. Now, however, they are expected to act and vote in the United Nations in consultation with each other, with generally one nation leading the direction. The concept of state sovereignty has been replaced with a somewhat more nebulous concept of geographic loyalty.
The nations that have been assigned as leaders over each geographic region of the earth are themselves led by individuals who appear to have selflessly relinquished their state's sovereign rights in order to embrace what they perceive to be a loftier principle. They appear to be committed to the betterment of their region economically, as well as politically and socially. They also are in agreement with each other on every issue of global significance. Most importantly, they are in agreement as to which issues are of global significance.
When nations that historically have failed to agree on some of the most basic issues of international law are now suddenly and effortlessly in agreement, one must necessarily question the source of their newfound alliance. They too should begin to question that alliance.