The New-Old World Order is Here (Part III)


Screen Shot 2018-04-02 at 12.04.22 AM

Toward a New Paradigm

By 2013, when the Obama Administration aimed to act with impunity in the Syrian Civil War–and found that not even America’s erstwhile ally of Great Britain was willing to suborn yet another regime change mission in the Middle East–the jig, as they say, was up. Now, the Chinese are a major player in the world; Russia is weak, but it is acting in certain ways that are entirely tailored to hem in the American juggernaut; and the Rogues of North Korea and Iran are empowered as never before (with their nuclear arsenals experiencing previously-unthought-of gains).

Therefore, a new paradigm is needed to bring stability to a world thrown into dire chaos. Presently, there is an overlapping set of powers, some of them are economic, some of them are more traditional politico-military powers, some both. These countries all desire to have a greater say in world events.

And, while it’d be easy to argue that the United Nations provides a great venue for such rising states to peacefully assert their newfound power, that assessment would be wrong. The United Nations was formed out of the ashes of the Second World War. When it was formulated four of the five permanent security council members were pro-American states. Thus, the United States’ best interests were represented relatively well in the new body (particularly compared to those of the USSR).

Interestingly, it was China that moved the UN from a basic American organization to a truly international one in which very little gets done, and, when something is accomplished, it tends to make matters worse; the UN’s actions very often jeopardize American national interests; and UN resolve is so weak that most of the moves it makes as world body are often incomplete (perhaps incompleteness of action from the UN for the best). To be sure, many of the architects of the postwar order envisaged that the United Nations would become the basis of a new world order, in which local and regional conflicts were mitigated by global, peaceful solutions.

Of course, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China truly complicated such hopes. Although, even with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the purported flipping of China away from the Communist bloc toward the capitalist side of the Cold War, the world was not made more peaceful and American interests were doubly more threatened than they were during the Cold War. So, if American hegemony is no longer an option, and if the globalist delusion of a one-world utopia is impossible (even under the best conditions), what remains is not a “new world order” of the sort that former President George H.W. Bush yearned for at the end of the Cold War.

Far from it. The world is left to the Hobbesian anarchy that it has always existed in. Specifically, the United States has but one path: toward a return to the balance-of-power world politics that it had long ago eschewed in favor of the utopian, hegemonic policies of the last 30 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s