New world order (politics)
Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post-Cold War era and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize.
Franklin D. Roosevelt in his "Armistice Day Address Before the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" on November 11, 1940, referred to Novus ordo seclorum, inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States and traced to antiquity.
That Age was the dawn of the divine universal monarchy, but Roosevelt on that occasion promised to take the world order into the opposite democratic direction led by the United States and Britain.
International communication has become easier than ever before.In the press, Gorbachev was compared to Woodrow Wilson giving the Fourteen Points, to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill promulgating the Atlantic Charter and to George Marshall and Harry S. Truman building the Western Alliance.
The promises of a new world order based on the forswearing of military use of force was viewed partially as a threat, which might "lure the West toward complacency" and "woo Western Europe into neutered neutralism".
The article noted as important his de-ideologized stance, willingness to give up use of force, commitment to troop cuts in Eastern Europe (accelerating political change there) and compliance with the ABM treaty.
Gorbachev's repudiation of expansionism leaves the United States in a good position, no longer having to support anti-communist dictators and able to pursue better goals such as the environment; nonproliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; reducing famine and poverty; and resolving regional conflicts.
[18] In A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft's similarly concern about losing leadership to Gorbachev is noted and they worry that the Europeans might stop following the U.S. if it appears to drag its feet.
The European Community was seen as the vehicle for integrating East and West in such a manner that they could "pool their resources and defend their specific interests in dealings with those superpowers on something more like equal terms".
Bush visited Europe, but "left undefined for those on both sides of the Iron Curtain his vision for the new world order", leading commentators to view the U.S. as over-cautious and reactive, rather than pursuing long-range strategic goals.
[21] In A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft detail their crafting of a strategy aimed at flooding Gorbachev with proposals at the Malta Conference to catch him off guard, preventing the U.S. from coming out of the summit on the defensive.
However, Strobe Talbott saw it as more of a brake on the new era and believed Malta to be a holding action on part of the superpowers designed to forestall the "new world order" because of the German question.
This would mean an end to the sponsoring of military conflicts in third countries, restrictions on global arms sales, and greater engagement in the Middle East (especially regarding Syria, Palestine and Israel).
[30][8] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying: "The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons.
[32] Pat Buchanan predicted that the Persian Gulf War would in fact be the demise of the new world order, the concept of United Nations peacekeeping and the U.S.'s role as global policeman.
The author notes directly that despite the coalition, in the minds of most governments this is the U.S.' war and George W. Bush that "chose to stake his political life on defeating Mr Hussein".
An attack on Iraq would certainly shatter Bush's alliance, they assert, predicting calls from United Nations Security Council members saying that diplomacy should have been given more time and that they will not wish to allow a course of action "that leaves America sitting too prettily as sole remaining superpower".
[43] In a passage with similar echoes of the future, Bush and Scowcroft explain in A World Transformed the role of the United Nations Secretary-General in attempting to avert the Persian Gulf War.
[44] Following the Persian Gulf War which was seen as the crucible in which great power cooperation and collective security would emerge the new norms of the era—several academic assessments of the "new world order" idea were published.
National self-determination, leading to the breakup and reunification of states (such as Yugoslavia on one hand and Germany on the other) could signal abrupt shifts in the balance of power with a destabilizing effect.
[45] However, statesman Strobe Talbott wrote of the new world order that it was only in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War that the United Nations took a step toward redefining its role to take account of both interstate relations and intrastate events.
[47] In 1992, Hans Köchler published a critical assessment of the notion of the "new world order", describing it as an ideological tool of legitimation of the global exercise of power by the U.S. in a unipolar environment.
They also note that Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney gave three priorities to the Senate on fighting the Persian Gulf War, namely prevent further aggression, protect oil supplies and further a new world order.
The authors note that the new world order did not emerge in policy speeches until after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, maintaining that the concept was clearly not critical in the U.S. decision to deploy.
The leaked draft of the Wolfowitz-Libby 1992 Defense Guidance Report effectively confirmed this shift as it called for a unilateral role for the U.S. in world affairs, focusing on preserving American dominance.
[60] Former United Kingdom Prime Minister and British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000, in his Mansion House speech: "There is a new world order like it or not.
The 2015 Paris Agreement in particular largely witnessed pragmatism, aligned with the interests of the rich and powerful, prevail over considerations of fairness and justice, even as the inequities stemming from climate change—interstate, intrastate and intergenerational—have continued to manifest themselves and grow.
Notwithstanding whatever other actions have taken place to combat climate change over this period, the core question remains: can international order be sustained without meeting basic claims of justice in global efforts to protect the planet?
[82] Some scholars of international relations have advanced the thesis that the declining global influence of the U.S. and the rise of largely illiberal powers such as China threaten the established norms and beliefs of the liberal rule-based world order.
[88] The role of soft power must not be overlooked by the west, according to Blair, as China and other nations like Russia, Turkey, and Iran invest money in the developing world while forging close political and military ties.
