The Globalist Report
by Andrew Puhanic
The rhetoric of a New World Order based on law and a greater role for the United Nations is in fact fundamentally flawed. The concept of a New World Order served as a useful device to marshal support for the American led war against Iraq and it continues to serve as a useful framework for the preservation of the new balance of power favourable to the United States.
The real foundation of Washington’s vision of a New World Order can be found in two crucial and classified documents prepared by the Bush administration (Bush Senior) officials of the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House. The first is a 46 page document prepared under the supervision of Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s former under-secretary for policy. The second document was prepared by a committee of experts headed by Admiral David Jeremia, former assistant to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell.
Both documents spell out in detail various scenarios of conflicts and possible challenges to the United States’ undisputed supremacy, and articulate a set of American political and military objectives and policy guidelines. As such, they provide an authoritative and clear exposition of the official American thinking about the New World Order and the U.S. role in it. The documents may be summarized in the following paragraphs.
1. The unique position of the United States as the only superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union must be preserved against all challenges from anywhere in the world. To this end, the first political and military objective of the United States in the new world order must be “to prevent the emergence of a new rival, either in the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere…” Though Germany and Japan have been integrated into a U.S. – led system of security, the United States must prevent these two powers from possessing nuclear weapons and challenging, or competing with the world leadership of the United States.
2. American domination of the new world order must be clear and unequivocal, and American leadership must be strong and assertive. The United States must strive to “convince potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role” in the new world order. In order to “discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order,” the United States must convince the advanced industrial nations that the established order would serve their interests as well.
3. The United States has become the only power capable of enforcing respect for the established order. While the U.S. may not wish to act as a policeman redressing every wrong, “We will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies and friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.” First among the vital interests identified as requiring forceful action was the “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil..”
4. The United States must support the spread of capitalism in Eastern Europe as the best way of guaranteeing that “no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union…” American strategy in Europe must “refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.” To this end, the United States will rely on its massive nuclear strategic arsenal and will have its strategic nuclear weapons “continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet military establishment,” because Russia will remain “the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.” The United States must therefore continue its armament programmes and must strive for the “early introduction” of the global anti – missile defence system (popularly known as the star war).
5. Although Western Europe is no longer threatened by any power from the East, the United States does not want to dismantle NATO which served to institutionalize its dominant role in Europe. Accordingly, the United States must “seek to prevent the emergence of European – only security arrangements which would undermine NATO …” This policy was clearly demonstrated by the American opposition to European – based Security initiatives at the NATO Conference in Rome in November 1991. Still, the French and the Germans agreed in May 1992 to a Franco – German army as the nucleus of a European army to be formed by 1995. Secretary Cheney expressed American displeasure and repeated its commitment to NATO.
6. The United States should in fact extend its pre-eminent role in Western Europe to the former territories of the Soviet Union and to East European countries. To this effect, the United States should provide a security guarantee to Eastern and Central European countries “analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states,” and should seek to facilitate their integration into NATO.
7. Asia is now the region with the heaviest concentration of political and economic beliefs that are at variance with American interests. The United States must therefore maintain its “status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area,” to prevent the emergence of any power seeking to dominate the region, or to threaten the interests of the U.S. and its friends, thereby challenging the established order.
8. The United States will use force if necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction particularly to countries such as North Korea, Iraq and the republics of the former Soviet Union.
9. In the Middle East, the overall American objective is to ensure that the United States “remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve the U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.” The war against Iraq demonstrated that it was “fundamentally important” to prevent any hostile regional power or alignment of powers from dominating the region and challenging the established order.
In short, there is little mention in the American blueprint for the new world order of international law, collective internationalism, or North South harmony. The emphasis is clearly and unambiguously on reliance on American military power as the principal instrument of preserving American domination of the new world order.
The blueprint does not mention the United Nations even though the organization was effectively used to give a cover of legality to a massive war which supposedly ushered in the new world order.
There is, however, a brief mention in the Wolfowitz document that coalitions “hold considerable promise for promoting collective action” as in the war against Iraq. But “the United States,” it is asserted, “should be postured to act independently when collective actions cannot be orchestrated.” The new world order has room for only one dominant military power and therefore American leaders “must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”
To ensure American monopoly of preponderant power, the U.S. must forestall and foil any attempt at reconstructing the Soviet Union, it must prevent the European allies from developing an independent system of security, and it must stop the emergence of any regional power or coalition of powers capable of challenging American domination. To accomplish this, the policies of militarization of American foreign relations and of military interventions to “selectively” “redress wrongs,” must be continued. America’s declining economy, growing dependency on foreign investments and strategic resources like oil, may necessitate increasing militarization as the ultimate guarantor of American supremacy.