How do I make this more persuasive and is it any good?

TL;DR A third party should exist which has the ability to control and solve conflicts relating to oil without prejudice.

The denial of oil or its proceeds to stakeholders leads to conflict. Currently when a stakeholder is denied oil or its proceeds, there are very few avenues for them to turn to in pursuit of what they see as rightfully theirs, this sense of entitlement and lack of association capable of stemming or solving these frustrations leads to stakeholders engaging in conflict. Thus there is a need for an omnipotent third party such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which needs to be bestowed the power to protect and serve the people of the world, through the power to mediate and provide a final say. Conflict is occurring because there is no place for stakeholders to take grievances. The conflicts I shall be focusing on are those of Sudan, South Sudan, Nigeria and Shell Oil. Though the presence of an all-powerful third party who has the final say in matters may be seen by some as an infringement on sovereignty, it is not. In the 21st century we cannot allow lines on maps, the colour of our skin or the language we speak to divide us. We must come together and embrace each other as brethren (is there a better word/sentence for what I am trying to say? Basically just trying to say that we need an to work together). We cannot allow for superficial and shallow differences to divide us. Thus to deny the creation of or the heightening of powers of a third party such as the WTO, a group which can stem resource conflict and help to guarantee the survival of the human species (am I taking the point too far?). Furthermore some states either do not have the capability or the will to safeguard their people. In war-torn Sudan and South Sudan (apparently they are no longer at war and the oil is flowing between the countries, what should I do in relation to this?), where after the annexation of 2011 the opulent oil fields of Heglig ended up in the South whilst the only pipelines capable of facilitating the travel of this oil to markets ended up in the North. This separation of resources and the ability to turn resources into much needed funds led to conflict, as the Northerners felt entitled to a larger percentage of the revenue generated and began to charge as much as 36 times the average transit fee per barrel of oil. (do I need to go more in-depth with this example?) This conflict led to the inability of both nations to guarantee the safety of their people. This is unacceptable and with the creation or empowering of a third party, conflicts such as these, conflicts centred on oil, could forever be stopped. (Should I give reasons for why neither the WTO or UN are able to stop these conflicts?) The state of Nigeria is another prime example of oil and the revenues generated by oil creating conflict. Oil is seen by many as a black gold and like gold; people go crazy lusting for it. Nigeria and their dealings with oil have been no different. Since the late 1950s when Nigeria and Shell Oil became co-conspirators. Since then Shell Oil and the government of Nigeria have colluded to

finance their own interests and neglected those of the local citizens. Trouble began to brew in the 1990s; at around the same time that oil was beginning to account for as much as 95% of Nigerias export earnings and 80% of government revenue income. The link between Nigerias increased dependence on Shell Oil for economic prosperity and the starting of tensions between the people of Nigeria, is an apparent one. As Nigerias wealth has become more and more tied in with Shell Oil, the Nigerian government has been less and less inclined to go against its benefactors and also become exponentially more corrupt. There is no question that greed breeds corruption. And what comes next? Conflict. (what should I say after this?)