†† GUESTARTICLE
N
NWO
ot much seems to made in the good
ol’ U. S. of A. these days. Made in
Taiwan, Made in Mexico, Made in China,
and even Made in India have become
hallmarks of consumer goods imported
to and purchased in America. While it is
true that vast amounts of products sold
in the United States are manufactured
elsewhere, America should be credited
with one major export — the “Big Idea.”
6
New World Order
made in the usa
by jamie brendan
the “big idea” — new world order
In the words of former President George Bush Sr., this
“big idea” is the proposition of a “New World Order.”
Granted, the United States is not the only country
which has exported this grand NWO concept. Britain,
Germany, Russia, Japan, Canada, and many others have
played and continue to play significant roles. But in the
last one hundred years, America has arguably been the
most active Western advocate.
Ironically, U.S.-based support for world order does
not necessarily reflect the views of the average American
citizen. Besides the fact that there is a vocal opposition
element within the U.S., the real issue is underscored by
22
endtime magazine september & october 2005
Is “World Citizenship” mostly an American idea?
the reality that a large majority of Americans
seem to be unaware of this “big idea” or are
relatively apathetic to its nature and scope.
American support, however, comes from
within certain political and economic circles,
beefed-up by a wide range of academic and
lobbying interests. Even in this context, not
all is at it seems.
In simplistic terms, those who walk the
halls of political and economic power are
not always in agreement as to how this big
idea is to be managed, nor the ultimate range
of its influence.
american sentiments conflict
Colonel Thomas McShane—a director at
the U.S. Army War College—wrote a chapter
in the U.S. Army War College Guide to National
Security Policy and Strategy titled “International
Law and the New World Order: Redefining Sovereignty,” which emphasized one
element of this dichotomy. McShane wrote:
“Americans traditionally respect and support
international law and have in fact been instrumental in its development for more than
a century. At the same time, they become
frustrated when international law restrains
or limits the pursuit of national interests.”
an international police force
Undeniably, America has a long tradition
of supporting world order. In 1910, when
Theodore Roosevelt accepted his Nobel
Peace Prize, he endorsed the idea of creating
a league to enforce world peace “by force if
necessary.” That same year, under Republican President William Taft, the United States
Congress called for a “peace commission”
q
q
and the formation of “an international police force for the preservation of peace.”
death of the old world order
When the fires of World War I spread across
the European continent, American academic leadership called for a new global order.
Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of
Columbia University during the Great War,
adamantly called for an internationally arranged political system. Speaking to the
Union League of Philadelphia on November 27, 1915, Butler explained his view of
the war and its political aftermath in language that is strangely reminiscent to the
American political landscape of the early
1990’s.
“The old world order changed when this
war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped
out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest,
or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day’s sun
and new world order is being born while I
speak…”
What did Butler’s “new world order”
look like? In published speeches, Butler’s
vision included the creation of a unionized
Europe, a world judicial and police component, and the formation of a federated world
government.
Keep in mind, Butler’s calling for a “new
world order” took place almost one hundred
years ago.
Calls for
é 1910—Taft
an “International
Police Force.”
Murry
é 1915-—Nicholas
Butler calls for an
internationally arranged
political system.
é 1942-—Brookings
Institute proposes A
Union of Democracies.
é 1943-—Wendell
Willkie (above)
publishes One World.
Global Federalism Highlighting the U.S. role in the post-World
Illustrations
LEFT: Clarence
Streit’s 1938 sales
pitch for global citizenship; CENTER:
Uncle Sam; RIGHT:
Uncle Britain
endtime magazine september & october 2005
23
†† GUESTARTICLE
War I international system, Clarence K.
Streit —one of the first to publish a
comprehensive plan for a global “Federal Union,” including the amalgamating of America with Britain in a “Union
of Democracies” — wrote in his book
Union Now With Britain, “…in World
War I the American people broadened
the aim of the democratic side from the
rights of small nations to the establishment of world government. It is noteworthy that an American led in making
each of the four experiments in world
government that followed: Woodrow
Wilson, the League of Nations; Samuel Gompers, the International Labor
Organization; Elihu Root, the World
Court; and Owen Young, the World
Bank.” [Note: Young’s World Bank is
the Bank for International Settlements,
the central bank for the world’s central
bankers.]
american-british amalgamation
Streit, a correspondent for the New York
Times and aide to the U.S. mission at the
Versailles Peace Conference, never hid
the fact that America rejected its own
creation — the League of Nations.
However, with Britain’s participation in
the world body, Streit recognized that
the two nations were tightly linked, even
as Wilson’s League failed in America.
Writing of this Atlantic connection,
Streit boasted, “No others have done so
much to bring about world government
as we Americans and British have.”
Wilson’s League of Nations and its
downfall amply reflects America’s lovehate relationship with global governance.
Colonel McShane writes, “Revolutionary efforts to create a world government fell short — the League of
Nations was a start, but not a sufficient
one. President Wilson’s vision for the
postwar order clashed with the national
interests of the allies and frustrated effective, unified action. The Versailles
Treaty became a compromise. Complicating matters, Wilson failed to persuade
the American public or the U.S. Senate
to ratify the treaty creating the League
of Nations; and without American participation, the League proved too weak
to enforce Wilson’s vision of collective
security…Wilson’s vision would be revived in 1945 and again in 1990 with
relatively greater success.”
With World War II and the demise of
the League, a new set of American-led op-
24
tions for global management was initiated.
1942 terms of global governance
In 1942, the Brookings Institute – a
leading U.S. policy organization – published its report Peace Plans and American
Choices, which helped fuel the debate
about America’s role in the next “world
order.” Some of the ideas that Brookings proposed, with both pro-and-con
arguments, are listed below. Do any of
these propositions sound familiar?
< The concept of American mastery
over world affairs, which assumed
“a frequent, vigilant, and aggressive
use of power to maintain world
order” in a “form of independent
internationalism.”
< A British-American alliance in which
both nations would share mastery over
world affairs.
< An Anglo-American Federal Union,
bringing together the U.S., Britain,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Ireland, and South Africa into a world
order matrix.
< A Union of Democracies, which
would form a larger global governance
net containing all the democratic nations
of western and northern Europe.
< Closer cooperation with the United
Nations. Remember, this report was
written well before the formal unveiling
of the UN. According to the Brookings
report, “Here we have already a real
association of nations, a sound basis
from which the ultimate world order
will evolve.”
< The idea of forming regional political-economic national blocks, such
as the modern-day European Union, a
Western-hemisphere block, and a unified Asian regional system.
During World War II, other leading U.S.
policy groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, reviewed and forwarded
similar studies. In fact, the Council on
Foreign Relations, working hand-in-glove
with the U.S. State Department under the
Roosevelt Administration, was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations.
manency of the UN that the President
dubbed him the “Father of the United
Nations.”
Other Americans who were prominent in the UN’s early development
included Wendell Willkie, a Republican
Presidential candidate, and J.D. Rockefeller Jr. Under the President’s blessing, Willkie traveled around the world
meeting with kings and rulers in order
to raise awareness for a union of free
nations. After returning from his transglobal trip, Willkie published his experiences in a book titled One World, which
became a best-seller and played an important part in energizing U.S. domestic
interest in the United Nations.
In 1946, after the UN was officially
chartered, Mr. Rockefeller—as part
of America’s foremost business family—gifted $8,500,000 to ensure that
UN headquarters would be built on U.S.
soil.
These examples reflect only a tiny
fraction of America’s involvement in
the historical push for the United Nations-facilitated world order. Many other
American businessmen and politicians
could be added to the list.
other experiments in
internationalism
We should not forget America’s involvement in other experiments in internationalism. During the Cold War, top
ranking U.S. leaders were heavily involved in the “Atlantic ideal”—NATO,
and the regrouping of Europe into
today’s European Union. The Washington-based Organization of American
States, which is a UN-affiliated Western
hemisphere unification body, was also
guided by American hands. The World
Bank and the International Monetary
Fund both have the U.S. to thank for
their existence.
In more recent times, America has
led the pack in structuring the World
Trade Organization, NAFTA, and the
attempted formation of other regional
governance blocks such as the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
american presidents for nwo
americans create the
international order
Likewise, key American personalities
played active roles in advancing the new
international order. Cordell Hull, the
Secretary of State under Roosevelt, was
so influential in establishing the per-
endtime magazine september & october 2005
During the last decade-and-a-half, America’s Presidential leadership has promoted and aligned themselves with a diverse
array of international arrangements.
1. Republican George H. W. Bush was the
president who made the phrase “new
world order” popular and who pro-
GUESTARTICLE ……
gressively pursued UN empowerment
through Operation Desert Storm. He
sold that conflict as a United Nations
collective security affair.
Notwithstanding Desert Storm’s UN
affiliation, Bush, taking ultimate responsibility, wrote, “It is my decision – my
decision to send these kids into battle,
my decision that may affect the lives of
the innocent. It is my decision to step
back and let sanctions work. Or to move
forward. And in my view, help establish
the New World Order,” [January 13,
1991 diary entry].
That same month, in a personal letter
to Mikhail Gorbachev concerning Baltic issues, Bush penned, “We have both
talked of our desire for a new world
order, and we both understand the importance of U.S.-Soviet cooperation to
the achievement of that goal. I remain
committed to that objective.”
A little over a year later at Westminster
College in Fulton, Missouri, Gorbachev
openly called for a “new world order”
in which the UN would be empowered
into a type of global government.
Regionally, President Bush Sr.
launched his Enterprise for the Americas Initiative on June 27th, 1990. Today
this initiative is known as the Free Trade
Area of the Americas, a broad economic, security, and political agenda which
aims to integrate the Western Hemisphere into a regional block not unlike
the European Union. [Note: because of
South American objections, the FTAA
process is currently at a standstill; however, other stepping-stone arrangements
to integration are still moving forward.]
2. Democrat President Bill Clinton and his
administration attempted to institute
scores of sweeping United Nations
treaties, including the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. One particular
treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, was brought into play by a special Presidential Council, even though
America’s elected officials refused to
ratify it. Clinton’s international interests,
however, went beyond UN treaties.
When the Clinton administration’s
Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe
Talbott – a good friend and old-time
college roommate of the President
– received the World Federalist Association’s 1993 Global Governance award,
President Clinton sent a personal letter of congratulations and wished the
WFA “future success.” When the WFA
Global Governance Award was handed
out in 1999, First Lady Hillary Clinton
sent a special video message to then
recipient Walter Cronkite during the
WFA awards ceremony. “Tonight,” she
explained, “we honor you for fighting
for the ‘way it could be’.” During his
acceptance speech, Cronkite explained,
“Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system
of enforceable world law – a democratic
federal world government – to deal with
world problems.”
The WFA, now known as Citizens
for Global Solutions, was the largest
pro-world government advocacy group
in the United States. Deputy Secretary
Talbott received the WFA’s award because of his 1992 Time article which
openly promoted world government;
and Cronkite was chosen because he
publicly professed his desire for world
government in his book, A Reporter’s Life.
Regionally speaking, Clinton pursued
his predecessor’s hemispheric integration policy, demonstrating that it doesn’t
matter if the leadership is Democrat or
Republican, the agenda must go on.
3. Republican President George W. Bush,
in one of his first orders of business,
attended the Quebec Summit of the
Americas in April, 2001, an FTAA steering event. Since then, his administration
has worked hard on the continuing process of regional integration.
Beyond hemispheric unification,
President Bush’s most interesting world
affairs legacy is his administration’s link
to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard
Perle have all been members of this
controversial organization, and PNAC
strategies can be discerned throughout
Bush’s foreign policy programs.
what makes pnac controversial?
In the 1942 Brookings document cited
earlier, one of the options for a global
system was “American mastery” – the
idea of using America’s economic and
military clout to force the world into accepting U.S. global dominance. PNAC
follows this line of thinking: America,
asserting its position of power, should
become the de facto international police
force. Essentially, this is world government enforced by a single country. The
implications are enormous.
But “world order” under this admin-
istration includes more than the “mastery” approach. After an almost twenty
year absence, this administration has
returned America to UNESCO – the
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. Speaking at
the UNESCO Roundtable of Ministers
on October 3rd, 2003, Bush’s Secretary
of Education, Rod Paige, stated that
“…we must make education a universal
reality. Our governments have entrusted
us with the responsibility of preparing
our children to become citizens of the
world.”
World citizenship fits UNESCO’s
purposes. Julian Huxley, the first
Director General of UNESCO, wrote
in his book UNESCO: Its Purpose and its
Philosophy,
“Specifically, in its [UNESCO’s] educational program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and
familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty
from separate nations to a world organization. But more generally, it can do
a great deal to lay the foundations on
which world political unity can later be
built.”
All of this brings us around to an interesting observation. Whether you are
personally for or against a new global
order – in whatever form that may take
– America’s contribution to this international ideal cannot be ignored. Colonel
McShane, writing for the U.S. Army War
College states,
“…The new world order…is real, and
it is here to stay. The ties that bind the
international community are strong and
enduring, and international institutions
enjoy unprecedented support and influence. Perhaps the most amazing point
of all is that American values and leadership were instrumental in creating this
environment. We are reminded once
again that we have to be careful what we
wish for.”
P
ARE YOU MOVING?
Let us know where you are moving to,
and we will make sure that you don’t
miss a single issue of ENDTIME!
Call 1-800-Endtime or email
[email protected]
endtime magazine september & october 2005
25