U.S. in the New World Order's Affairs - Essay Example

?New World Order Global governance, this is the objective of the new world order. This is a political concept that aims to look for worldwide problems and analyse them so that solutions can be formulated. These problems being identified are things which cannot be solved by a nation alone. The interventions and solutions must be a product of collaboration among continents. This paper delves into explanations and comparisons concerning how presidents reached forward to a new international system. Particularly, George Bush Sr., Barack Obama, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have assertions regarding the new world order. The very famous use of the term new world order was in the speech made by President George H. W. Bush Sr. on September 11, 1990. “The leitmotif of modern American presidential politics is unquestionably an imperial theme, most blatantly expressed in his slogan, The New World Order and for 1991, the pax universalis” ( Tarplay, and Chaitkin 9). The main theme of his presidency is the formation and unification of a solitary and widespread empire that very much reflects the different stages of the Roman kingdom. In his speech, George Bush senior said, “The war in Iraq is a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a New World Order can emerge" (National Archives). To add to that, in his September 21, 1992 speech addressed to the United Nations he also urged the nations to develop and train military units as peacekeepers. He added that to be able to achieve this goal, each nation should work, train together and have coordinated efforts. These efforts refer to having a centralized command, control and operations on all aspects of any operation and communication. Through G.H.W Bush’s speech the Commission on Global Governance was created by the United Nations. Through this organization, a controversial report, Our Global Neighbourhood, was brought out in 1995. The report states reforms that will give the United Nations absolute power. It was also predicted in the report that there would be a world court, a unified tax system and a global police force. In short, world leaders are calling for a one world government. These were greatly criticized by many people but also, many people are unaware of these facts. Amazingly, after a decade from the George H.W. Bush speech, the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. Adding to the mystery, it was during the presidency of George Bush senior’s son, George W. Bush, that the attacks accord. To many people, this is the continuation of the goal to establish a new world order by world leaders. Aside from the political aspects of the new world order, economy is also put into focus. This includes the control of oil, an international currency which would replace the US dollar. Moreover, there would be a world development fund that would provide equal finances to communist and free nations. This is where the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements come into play. Some say that the global monetary crisis we are experiencing now is intended to institute a worldwide debt-based currency organized by global investors and distributed to individuals alongside biometric identification cards. Religion is another factor that is included in this new world order. It has an aim of introducing a new world religion. Some would postulate that the establishment of the World Council of Churches and the Parliament World Religions is to gain control of the world’s religion. Consequently, Barack Obama has been popularly linked to a new world order as well. Authors suggest that his administration has been building an international order. This is through empowering certain institutions and connections across the globe. If the Bush administration was assessed through the infamous Gulf War, the Libyan War functioned as an assessment of Obama’s governance. “The current dangerous situation in Libya has become a serious test for the international community’s resolve and credibility, especially in the context of a changing Arab world. In particular, it is a test of the ability of a much heralded multipolar new world order…” (Shaikh). During this event, Obama sent a number of American envoys. John Boehner, a house representative, simply presented a letter from the United Nations regarding his authority. This piece of paper sanctioned him to employ military operations in Libya. This was shadowed by Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, when forces were deployed to Syria. He was accompanied by Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chief of Staff’s General, and they authorized international permission as a justification of their military operations. In addition, Obama’s vision of a unified government has been defined as a domain that has permission and supplies that can address present crises. This would then allow the United States to have taxing powers to support its army. His platforms suggest that America must not be secondary to any other government. The U.S. should receive please from all nations and have the accountability to extend assistance in any way that is seen as fit. This brands the United States of America as the universal protector, solver of international challenges and conflicts, as well as the global frontrunner. Another leader who has recently made it to the headlines concerning a new world order is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a press conference, he said “All animosity, all of the lack of sincerity will come to an end. It will institute fairness and justice” (Chester, and Sanminiatelli). He aspires to have a future characterized by a slighter role played by current major nations such as the United States of America. He furthered that every nation should be on par with the others. He aspires that every factor that separates peoples will be lessened or will disappear altogether. It would be better if aspects that distance us would be eradicated. He specifically stated that bestowing a single nation much power is quite threatening. Seemingly, America has employed policies and has been practicing international bullying. This is now the time to stop serving a single empire. Nations cannot continue as subordinates to the whims of a dictator. Particularly, he opined that the U.S. attitude regarding Iran’s nuclear program is merely an excuse for international supremacy. Ahmadinejad champions that a new world order is necessary to rescue countries from America’s victimization. He continued that America has never felt comfortable with the Iranian government since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Specifically, Ahmadinejad proposed the founding of a group composed of around 10 countries. This organization is supposed to have the responsibility regarding the Syrian war. He stated that there will be a convention among different Middle East leaders in New York in the near future. This is one of the ways that the Iranian President is looking into to promote solidity and peace in Syria. Ostensibly, Obama’s actions are being explained by humanitarian motives. This has been commonly utilized to disguise force, thereby accentuating the hypocritical aspect of policies. Ahmahdinejad openly accused America of improper use of authority. He said that most of the world’s disasters were caused by nations who assert their sovereignty amongst others. He explained that this is proven by sustained intimidations. In response to Ahmahdinejad’s denunciations, there is a possibility that he is flaunting such intense remarks to offset his country’s nuclear programs. This may be his technique to divert the discussion to America’s faults. During his interviews, he has been repeatedly dodging questions concerning Iran’s nuclear-powered weapons. On the other hand, his observation that a new world order should place responsibility on all nations is respectable. His stress on equality rather than dissimilarities has always been a utopian notion. Both American Presidents were critiqued in the aforementioned discussions. There have been evidences that power was used to exploit other’s human rights. Many have scrutinized some of their actions since it indicated selfish pursuits. Mostly, their propagandas involve sacrifices from the military forces. Over the years, lives of brave soldiers were risked in the name of world peace. Ironically, wars broke out to attain noble visions of international steadiness and refuge. This led to the unrest of many critics including prominent and ordinary American citizens. For instance, Messer wrote in his book, President Obama’s New World Order: An Analysis of His Inaugural Address, “The narrow restricting government founded by our forefathers does not fit President Obama’s scheme to remake America and prepare the nation for a new age. What other excuse (unless we consider incompetence) than trying to destroy this nation in order to remake it can he possible give for bringing us to financial ruin?” (8). Some authors like Messer opine that Obama’s seemingly random actions are actually plans to a deeper and vaster scheme. They think that he is brilliant enough to capture any opportunity that he can manipulate to his advantage. Hence, his promise of a new world order is essentially an ominous promise. As a whole, America has been put into a bad light in relation to the new world order. This is probably so because of its political prowess for decades. If a new international governance would be established, the U.S. is the first nation that automatically comes out in people’s minds. For years, they have been maintaining the upper hand. Undeniably, the American government has made some damaging decisions, injurious actions, and remorseful advocacies. History and present situations have warned individuals of what great power can do. To comprehend the features of the new world order, individuals have to recognize that its drive originates from diverse corners of the earth. Generally, the propulsions stem from ideas of freedom, inclusion, peace, and respect. These positive values have won over idealists and other supporters. However, there has always been qualms as to how can this be attained. For example, communism has been occupied by some countries to invoke equality. Nonetheless, this kind of governance has restricted liberty and true harmony. Perhaps, nations were meant to be different. The varieties from political to religious aspects serve a celestial purpose. As humans there is a strife to comprehend order and think of probable ways to better the current organization of things. Could it be that this craving to take command into humanity’s hands is the one single factor that will eventually petrify humanity? “There must be no protection for leaders and organisations from the most searching criticism, on the plea that our country may be at war or on any pretence. We must talk openly, widely and plainly. The war is incidental; the need for revolutionary construction is fundamental” (Wells 2). Indeed, leaders should have clear and fruitful dialogues. Indirect statements and non-lucid comments must be avoided. These confusing thoughts will just defeat noble individuals’ aim to have reconstructive outcomes. The bottom line is that each country demands sincerity both from allies and detractors. This is ultimately needed in finding a common definition for peace. Therefore, if there would be a new world order, it must reflect security based on a similarity of a number of genuine ideas. Works Cited Chester, Christopher, and Sanminiatelli, Maria. Ahmidinejad Calls for a New World Order. Huff Post, 25 Sept.2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. Messer, Ronald. President Obama’s New World Order: An Analysis of President Obama’s First Inaugural Address. Grassy Fork Cottage Publications, 2012. Print. National Archives. War on Americans. Sweet Liberty, 11 Sept. 1990. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. Shaikh, Salman. Libya’s Test for the New International Order. Brookings, 26 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. < http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/02/26-libya-shaikh> Tarplay, Webster, and Chaitkin, Anton. George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. Washington: Joshua Tree, 2004. Print. Wells, H.G. The New World Order. London: Secker and Warburg, 1940. Print. In addition to this discussion Read More